|
CuriousLord -> RE: Bush Administration calls CIA, U.S. military "terrorist groups" (8/15/2007 1:22:02 PM)
|
It can be rather difficult to tell if someone bashing Bush is doing so for a reason anymore. Alright, (slowly now...)
A floating definition? To me, definitions tend to be a function, with the individual variables defined in context to yield an instance of definition for the instance usage. This is to say, one who takes a knife and stabs a friend in the back without provocation is a murderer. The one who helped the murderer can the other two alone together in a dark, lonely alley with understanding the murderer's intentions might also be labeled a murderer. One might even argue that the police officer who saw all of this about to happen, but did nothing to prevent it, is also a murderer. This is not the word being abused, but, rather, different instances of it.
I suppose your fear is that, should one make a law punishing murderers with the death sentence, with the actual knife-wielder in mind, might be then applied to the one enabling the action, or, even to the timid police officer? That this leaves open space for manipulation of the laws? Perhaps it does, should those involved in such bits be ignorant to the usage of definition in the particular instances, unable to separate them.
The bit you're on about with the U.S. institutions in the past may well be accurate. The U.S. institutions may have acted as terrorist organizations in the past, even in various instances of the term; I'm rather certain that, if nothing else, they certainly did in the American Revolution. Perhaps my youth prospective leaves me more prone to see today's organizations as more separate from those of a earlier generations' moreso than one belonging to such an earlier generation. I do not see the U.S. institutions liable for what was done by those before them in comparable positions. I would point out that this is not a matter of flaw but an instance of differing prospective; I would further defend my prospective, as the notion that an organization, particularly a vast one, being the same over the passage of many years strikes me as rather presumptuous.
Still, to get at your point, you seem to be afraid that the word "terrorist" may be confused at its various levels, leading to manipulation and fear. I do not see how this is the case when one takes into account the variant meanings of words, with regards to a sufficiently intelligent audience. Further, I will not hold a sufficiently intelligent group liable for the possible misunderstandings of those who are unable to follow variant usages.
|
|
|
|
