Defining Terrorism

Daniel C. dcrookston at gmail.com
Tue Jun 25 13:24:33 MDT 2013


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Nathan England <nathan at nmecs.com> wrote:
> Did you happen to pay attention to the news media at all during the attempts to panic the
> people if the sequester bill was not passed and what horrible things would happen if the funding
> fell through?
>
> Was that not "inciting terror" ?
>
> You better believe it was! There were people screaming the schools would be shut down, fire
> departments would shut down, police departments would shut down!

Seriously, dude?  Really?  You're going to compare "My kids can't go
to school" and "my house might burn down" with "I might be minding my
own business when suddenly my body is ripped to shreds in a thunderous
explosion, and there is absolutely no way I can predict when or where
this might happen"?

Don't be ridiculous.  Budget cuts aren't terrorism, and using the word
terrorism to describe them waters down the meaning of the word and
cheapens the reality of people who actually live in terror that their
lives may be snuffed out at any moment for no reason.

That, incidentally, is my definition of terror: the threat that you
might die at any moment, and that you have no reasonable recourse or
option to avoid sudden death from an anonymous source.  By "no
reasonable recourse or option" I mean that there is nothing you can do
without substantially upsetting your life that will keep you safe:
converting to Islam, staying indoors constantly, and moving yourself
and your entire family to a different country all count as
unreasonable.  Getting mugged, having your house burn down and not
having a place to store the kids during the day don't qualify.

-Dan


More information about the PLUG mailing list