The concept that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is what your author was putting across. This is certainly a valid point, it is just that we discuss it here endlessly....I think the administration has to stay "on message" with the "War on Terrorism". It has to be "find them, and capture or kill them."
Sorry, but once again I find myself confused because I don't think the first two sentences above mesh with the last two. If indeed it is hard to define who is a terrorist, then there is no objective way of specifying who the "them" is that we're supposed to find, capture, and kill. Without a such specification, however, the "message" is either worthless (because it doesn't provide adequate guidance for policy) or worse (because it serves as a cynical highfalutin' license to go after whomever we choose).
Moreover, that's only half of the author's point. The other half is that even if you could agree on a definition of terrorism, that's not the important part of the problem. It's hard to see why the bombing of the USS Cole was terrorism, for example; does that mean we shouldn't be upset about it? and Pearl Harbor certainly wasn't terrorism; did that make it ok?
tb@wordsshouldclarify,notconfuse.com |
