It is a grave error to label those who brutally attack civilians 'terrorists' or to describe such actions with this most ambiguous term -- which connotes 'liberation' for those who support it and ascribes 'evil' to it by those who are victimized.I'm pretty sure London qualifies under this dictionary.com definition:
Although, I guess, one must agree with the definition in the first place in order to apply the word to any situation. Me? I think that definition pretty much sums it up.The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
The problem that Mr. Kent has is that he sees the entire world in shades of gray. He is incapable of seeing black and white. At some point, the shades of gray can, and does, become black or white.
The hatred on both sides engendered by such mischaracterization risks dehumanizing any and all held to be in league with one's 'evil enemies'. We have had enough in our lifetimes of Muslims hating Christians and Christians hating Muslims -- and both hating Jews!This kind of equivocation is what leads to appeasement. And appeasement, especially in today's world, leads to the death of civilization.
I think Mr. Kent is trying to make a point about rhetoric, though.
Far better is the use of our standard legal language: 'criminal act', 'mass murder', whatever will clearly indicate that such actions are morally and _legally_ wrong -- even 'crimes against humanity'Nonsense.
Terrorism is a criminal act, for sure, but the word 'terrorism' defines the criminal act. My biggest problem with this rhetoric is that it leads towards a law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism that just isn't effective.
Terrorism may be mass murder, but what exactly qualifies as mass murder? We're left with even more ambiguous verbiage that doesn't come any closer to describing the terrorist act.
Crimes against humanity? Okay...I'm okay with that...that phrase at least puts terrorism in the proper perspective in that there is the Final Solution-type connotation associated with the phrase. At least its closer to the truth.
It is high time that we stopped using inflated language that allows even the slightest justification for our crimes.If we're talking about calling someone a 'traitor' because they disagree with the president, okay, I'm with you. But if the act involves blowing people up, buddy, it is terrorism. Deal with it.
There are rules to our human games designed to set limits on criminal activities -- in peacetime and in war.I don't think the Islamofascists got your memo, Mr. Kent.
But it is all too easy to slip into extremes of revenge and over reaction when we conceptually exaggerate things -- calling them 'evil' with all those archetypal emotive overtones that set religious against religious -- whatever disclaimers to the contrary by those who would defend what is really a drive for retaliatory revenge!I'm going to start questioning your patriotism here real soon if you keep this up. Let me guess, 9/11 was our fault. 3/11 was Spain's fault. And 7/7 was Britain's fault. Right?
Wrong. There is no justification for taking two jets and ramming them in to skyscrapers. There is no excuse for taking an airplane and ramming it in to the Pentagon. And there is no reason for deliberately crashing a plane full of people into a field in Pennsylvania. There is no explanation for blowing up trains full of people. There is no grounds for blowing up buses full of commuters. And there is no rationalization for blowing up subways full of travelers.
Let's talk about that rhetoric, shall we?
We desperately need to halt our horrendously dangerous clash between (religious) cultures and get back to the rule of law!I haven't seen a more arrogant display of ignorance in quite some time.
