Terrorism, no matter what the source, is a cancer to an enlightened civilization.
Sentences like that advance your argument backwards. We've had the difficult debate as to what is terrorism. And, whatever position folk took, it was clear the definition was highly political. I think Bill's culminating point that it's always and only political, as in "if they are opposed to us they are terrorists, if they are on our side they are freedom fighters," that definition gets a more than a bit of truth but is too simple.
If you typed that Islamism is "a cancer to an enlightened civilization," that might get us closer to the truth. Then we could argue about the viability of the cancer metaphor, just what is civilization, and how to go about, if we agree, dealing with the "cancer." As you've put it, your line is a conversation stopper and, as I said, takes your argument backwards. |
