Say Anything Blog

What is the difference between a “bomber” and a “terrorist”?

We would do better to focus on the specific groups involved than to engage in mass hysteria that lumps everyone in one group. If we had declared war on Al Qaeda, the actual perpetrators of 9-11, instead of on a concept or a method, we might have avoided the inanity of inciting civil war in Iraq.

We would do better to focus on the specific groups involved than to engage in mass hysteria that lumps everyone in one group.

Since when does “mass hysteria” equal calling a spade a spade?

If we had declared war on Al Qaeda, the actual perpetrators of 9-11, instead of on a concept or a method...

We declared war on terrorists.  Better?

...we might have avoided the inanity of inciting civil war in Iraq.

There’s a civil war in Iraq?  Where did you get that information?

Is there an actual transcript of this interview available anywhere?

Regardless, I’m not sure how this is an example of relativism.  A terrorist is one who uses fear to effect change.  Malveaux is saying that Bush does this.  How does that change the definition of terrorist?

A terrorist is one who uses fear to effect change. Malveaux is saying that Bush does this. How does that change the definition of terrorist?

Terrorist=Osama bin Laden

Terrorist=Abu Zarqawi

Terrorist does not = George W. Bush

I shouldn’t have to explain this stuff.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

and just when I thought that the Left didn’t have its own Coulter.

The OED defines “terrorist” as “a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” In Malveaux’s opinion, GWB can be described that way.  My question is still what has this to do with relativism.  She may be using the term in a way we’re not used to and may not agree with, but the definition of the term is broad and not absolutist.

MI, do you think the use of the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” to describe our President and our country is appropriate?  Or even justified?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I think what she said is silly, inflammatory, and hyperbolic.  Then again, that’s why she was on Hannity’s show in the first place.  My beef is with equating it with relativism when the term is so broadly defined.  Of course, in the context of recent events, the term carries significantly different weight and meaning in different circumstances.  Now that’s good relativism!

I listened to this interview yesterday, it was funnier than hell… All she could manage to do was spit out talking points and throw in a few hate-America first phrases

“Look what we did to the American Indians...”
“Gitmo needs to be closed!”
“Bush is like hitler”

and so on…