Quote:
|
Originally Posted by skate_mate
Pfft, I don't think it was a good response at all. I like this response: "You're being needlessly difficult."
I do think that Hyleaus is (perhaps indirectly) bringing up a very good point though - that of the confusion of terminology.
|
That is my direct point.
Before I continue, I just want to say that Shiek 84 ought to remove that sig and avatar after responding to me as he did. He betrays his own there.
To go on, perhaps you haven't realized it, but the United States has created a situation (either purposefully or not) where it can demean the rights of anyone they chose. The problem is of the definition of war, the definition of terrorist, and the definition of prisoners of war.
As it were, the U.S. has officially engaged in a War on Terror. The war has the goal of rooting out terrorists. Sound easy? Well sure, if you can define them. However, such is the state of the world where the superpower can define things when and how it chooses after creating a situation that anyone opposes it must resort to terrorism. Let me explain. The military superiority of the U.S. presently can top that of about anyone on the planet. We don't have as many men as China, nor any the discipline of the Koreans, but a large nuclear arsonal does sit waiting for the madman to press the button. Should any fight us in a conventional war setting, they would be blown away. Everyone knows this, no one doubts it, that's why they DONT. Otherwise, you see that the world does the beconning of the superpower. What if you want to disagree? You mean like in the UN? No. The superpower makes the laws. Precident is all over the place.
So how does one carry out a disagreement with the United States? Well diplomacy is out, if you have even the slightest liberal agenda, or are not required for the pocketbook of the U.S., you are ignored. So what ought one do? What ought a bee do who disagree's with a bull? Sting it of course, and hope that the bull gets the message.
I'm not justifying terrorism, I'm not saying that those who use the tactics are in any way good people, but I am saying that I can see why someone would committ these acts.
And you think the world is cut and dry.
Let's continue onward to the definition of a terrorist. Let's see, What we've done so far is to say that armed combattants who do not wear a uniform are terroristic. Either that, or Guantanamo Bay is a joke. So anyone to takes up arms against the united states and does not represent a country is a terrorist. Apparently they need not even committ a crime (refering to the cases of some inmates in the prison).
Here is the thing: The U.S. is powerful enough to keep the definition of a terrorist a secret. No one knows exactly what a terrorist is or does, and that is a scary tool. In the words of a certain republican senator "I'll know it when I see it." Who will disagree? Anyone who dares defy this faux definition will in turn be labeled a terrorist. Just the other day, the editor of the New York Times was labeled by republican leaders as a terrorist. I hope he wins another pulitzer. The US citizenry is not even safe. Currently the exact same definitional implicature rests on the shoulders of anyone who might make a phone call, email, or bank transaction.
Those in power like to stay in power.