Monday, September 13, 2004

Toronto Star's definition of "terrorist"

This is the essense of a rather lenghty post by one of my favorite bloggers Bob Tarantino

In her desperate flailing to defend her fellow journalists, she finally slips the blade between their ribs:

So here's my definition of terrorism, imperfect and subjective as it is: It's violence against civilians to achieve a political end which one doesn't support or agree with.

Exactly. And, just to be clear, allow me to belabor the point: Ex. Act. Ly. That’s precisely the point, Tony: you’re completely correct in saying that for you the only “terrorist” is someone with whom you disagree.

Bob was talking about an article by a Toronto Star's promiment left-winger, Antonia Zebrias in which she rallied against the notion that media has been soft on the terrorists (as in case of Beslan) by refraining from using the term.

And let me devlop it further: it's now clear to me why the Left persist in equating Bush with Hitler and refuse point blank to see the absurdity and offensivness of such comparison.

Indeed, if one is a terrorist only because you happen to disagree with his/her motives, i.e. regardless of the nature of their actions you would spare no vitriol to smear your opponent. In a broad way, it's just another example of the pervading narcissism of modern culture - your personal stance is what matters. If you hate someone the degree of your condemnation is directly only dependant on the level of anger towards its object, nothing else.

You could say it doesn't matter but words do have meaning around the world, blood is blood and pain is pain, except in that tiny cushy corner of our planet where your typical upper-middle class limo-liberal resides.


Post a Comment

<< Home