Re: Islam and Terrorism

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Greetings;
> 
> Steve Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> > 
> > I get the picture -  they're {terrorists?] all bad people who hate freedom. Thanks
> > for the heads up.
> 
> People who send children out to murder other children are bad people?
> What ever gave you that idea?
> > 
> > >> If you want to stop terrorism, tell your government not to take part
> > >> in it.
> > >> 
> > >It helps your case to blur distinctions, expanding your definition of
> > >terrorism until it includes (however vaguely) anything the US did. 
> > >This mentality is what leads people to say that any use of force is an
> > >act of terrorism, even in self-defense.
> > 
> > I'm terribly sorry, Robery. I meant to say "freedom fighters" to
> > distinguish them from the bad people who hate freedom.
> > 
> The saying that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist
> is a worldplay to excuse terrorism.  It's like saying that one woman's
> rapist is another's lover, when in fact they are quite the opposite.
> 

The definition of "terrorist" is not quite so clear cut as
that of "rapist".

However, if you asked the rapists to provide the definition,
rather than the women, you *might* come up with some
different definitions.

Your problem, Robert, is that when it comes to al-Qaida,
you are asking the women, and when it comes to the US
and Israel, you are asking the rapist.

Terrorism, like racism, should be defined by the victim
rather than the perp.

So, no, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter" is NOT just a bit of wordplay.

> By the way, nice job of avoiding discussing the issues I raised in the
> original post.


Sound a bit like this piece of "issue avoidance" to me:

"This mentality is what leads people to say that any use of force is an
act of terrorism, even in self-defense."

No-one has actually equated "any use of force" = "terrorism".

Paul