The Difference Between Jewish and Muslim Terrorists
From the blog Planck’s Constant
Sphere: Related ContentThe phrase “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is often used by lazy minds to make moral equivalencies where none exist. You might as well say, “One man’s beef is another man’s chicken.” This last would only be true if you had lousy taste buds or a sloppy dictionary.
When the historical expert Mos Def was last on the Bill Maher show he said, “You know, when the Revolutionary War was going on, George Washington and all them dudes was terrorists…“.Of course, Mos Def confuses treason with terrorism. As far as the King was concerned, George Washington and his fellow separatists were traitors, not terrorists since the Continental army never attacked civilians, as far as I know, to achieve their political ends.
And since Mos Def gets his info from the local barbershop…
(oh God I almost choked I laughed so hard)
… it is unlikely he ever read the pamphlets of Thomas Paine or he would have read the arguments for separation from England were based on reason and the rights of man and not on violence against innocent women and children. Conflating Islamic terrorists with George Washington as if they operated in the same manner only shows Mos Def’s ignorance of this country’s history and lack of appreciation for the deadly threat posed by Islamic terrorists.
Continue reading “The Difference Between Jewish and Muslim Terrorists” »
![[Valid RSS]](http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
December 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
That’s mostly correct, though not entirely. While the founding fathers did not engage in indiscriminately blowing up civilians, they did engage in acts that caused terror. And though directed towards specific political ends, there were two kinds of cases in which they might be considered terrorism if we do not unduly limit the definition.
The first was acts against the persons and property of appointed officials. When a Sugar Act-inspired mob tore down the home of Thomas Hutchinson, the act no doubt inspired terror (and was MEANT TO) not only in him but in his family, both extended - on purpose, as they were all placement seeking jobs from the king - and immediate. The latter were innocent bystanders, but were affected as well.
The second was acts against Loyalists (and even occasionally against neutrals, like Quakers), not limited to driving them off their lands by mobs of patriots; sometimes they were tarred and feathered, sometimes killed outright. Most lost everything they owned and were literally driven out of the country on threat of death.
Of course, a mob tearing down the Governor’s house is not on the same moral level as someone blowing up a crowded market but that’s why I argue against unduly limiting the definition. If “terrorism” means “using fear for political purposes,” then they did it. But if that’s what terrorism means, then there’s nothing wrong with it; it’s simply a tactic, tried and true, that has found outlet in every war mankind has ever fought.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:52 am
El Borak, this thoughtful and nuanced use of the word might be great for an academic discussion, but in everyday life, and on that show, it equates the Founding Fathers with terrorists, it is moral relativism that lessens the evil of those using these tactics.
If I say “bitch” at a kennel it’s a lot different than if I say it while staring at your wife. Context and severity matter. In this case a lengthy discussion to justify Def’s disgusting assertion, when we all know what he’s doing, isn’t necessary or appropriate.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
but in everyday life, and on that show, it equates the Founding Fathers with terrorists
I cannot help it if those on the radio are sloppy thinkers or fail to draw distinctions. It is the right’s sloppy and purposeful use of the word “terrorist” as a synonym for “bad guy” that causes the problem. Because everyone who fights against us, even those fighting in their own front yard, is called a terrorist – whether they engage in terrorism or not - the word has simply lost its meaning. That opens the door for those who hate the founders to smear them with it. But it’s not those haters that have caused the problem, they simply took advantage of it.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Thanks for discussing my article, I appreciate it. Great photo of the learned Mos Def, by the way. Wish I had used it.
I do agree that both sides misuse the word terrorist. Unfortunately words whose meanings require that one know the purpose of the action add an emotional component to the word that allow those with an agenda to twist its use.
There are even people out there that have twisted the word religion to make it fit around Islam. In time I suppose even Nazism will one day be viewed as a religion and not a political system.
1984 has already started.