joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
Well, the definition of "terrorist" and "terrorism" was changed after the World Trade Center attack from being "Use of attacks on a civilian population to undermine government authority" to a vague and inclusive definition that would make every union organizer or civil rights marcher a "terrorist". It is a bit scary how far it can be taken to criminalize the population.
They changed after 9/11 eh?
quote:
"Terrorism" n.
the use of force and threats to frighten people into obeying completely"
SOURCE: Webster's New World Dictionary, 1971, pg 719
"Terrorism" noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
SOURCE: Random House Dictionary, 2015
"Terrorism" noun
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized
SOURCE: Collins British Dictionary - Complete & Unabridge 2012 Digital Edition
Your right, there are some changes. They become more in-depth and conceptualized over forty years. Like any other definition to a word, time has a way of changing things. Lending more experience to a concept as culture and dynamics change.
But the definition to words do not change because of 9/11; they have always been in a state of change.
The term 'terrorism' is a strong word. Its one to be handled with care when using it. All to often, people use this and other words because they let their passions override their judgement. The end result is conflict they may not have realized they caused. Sometimes their actions/words end up doing equal or more damage to what they were discussing/explaining on the same situation or a new situation all together. Which is why a civilized and mature people must always study the situations carefully, rather than listening to the manupulators as to what is really going on with a situation.
To often, those whom support unions for political reasons, are against the management. Likewise, those whom support management for political reasons are against unions. When an issue comes up, both sides clash before they even stop to consider....WHAT....is being talked about. Whether, the side bringing the issue may have merit and one or more good points for bringing the matter to attention. In the national political 'arena', we do the same on this forum and the nation at large. That we attack an issue before stepping back and considering what is being brought to attention. That if the Republicans suggest something that could help the nation, Democrats do not shoot it down immediately, but instead consider and weigh the information carefully.
Need an example of this?
On the forum thread: "Interior Enforcement Bill", how many of the posters there (including the OP) have read the actual bill....BEFORE....commenting? None of them. They just assume shit based on 'no actual, credible, reliable information'. I've been reading through the actual bill (about halfway done now). What is being discussed in the thread, and what the bill is about.....
....are two different things.
The bill is....REALLY....scary and frightening. If just three words/phrases were changed in the whole of that bill, it could apply in an exceedingly negative manner to US Citizens. Why isn't this being talked about on there? Because none of them have bothered to actually...READ THE FUCKING BILL!
You know the phrase "History repeats itself"? These same collection of characters 'discussed' the Affordable Care Act when it was just a bill back in 2010. How many of them actually read the bill? None of them. How many have read the law since? None of them again!
............
So 'yes', it is important to understand things from an objective point of view. Most can not do that, since it takes training and practice. That if a union person takes an action, is it criminal or terrorism? Depends on the action, and how laws are applied. It could be the action is in bad taste or inconsideration, but has nothing to do with laws being violated or approaching a terrorist's action. That is why we agree on definitions and laws before the issues erupt. Likewise, when we review a law to be updated (new age, new culture, new dynamics, new technology, new ideas), we study as objectively as we can if the current law still performs. If it cant, does it need updating or a complete overhaul?
Would we rather have good quality individuals, studied in their field(s) handling the definitions and thoughts on such laws? Or the common riff-raff whom are easily manipulated by outside forces and agendas? The United States has done well overall, because the first group has stayed in power, rather than the second one.
|
RE: Progressive Education - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread