Comments on: The Difference Between Jewish and Muslim Terrorists http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/12/12/the-difference-between-jewish-and-muslim-terrorists/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:27:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: El Borak http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/12/12/the-difference-between-jewish-and-muslim-terrorists/#comment-43888 El Borak Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:04:24 +0000 http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/12/12/the-difference-between-jewish-and-muslim-terrorists/#comment-43888 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. 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.

]]> By: melvin_udall http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/12/12/the-difference-between-jewish-and-muslim-terrorists/#comment-44050 melvin_udall Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:52:00 +0000 http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/12/12/the-difference-between-jewish-and-muslim-terrorists/#comment-44050 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. 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.

]]> By: El Borak http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/12/12/the-difference-between-jewish-and-muslim-terrorists/#comment-44061 El Borak Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:06:18 +0000 http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/12/12/the-difference-between-jewish-and-muslim-terrorists/#comment-44061 <i>but in everyday life, and on that show, it equates the Founding Fathers with terrorists</i> 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. 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.

]]> By: bernie http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/12/12/the-difference-between-jewish-and-muslim-terrorists/#comment-44158 bernie Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:35:10 +0000 http://politicalpartypoop.com/2007/12/12/the-difference-between-jewish-and-muslim-terrorists/#comment-44158 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. 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.

]]>