Skip to comments.Semantics, Misnomers, Political Correctness and Plain Old Barnyard Sweepings
Posted on 04/27/2007 2:27:52 PM PDT by The Blitherer
I think it was Shakespeare who said that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Well political correctness and the stuff we shovel out of the barnyard after the bulls have spent the night have a similar odor.
For instance, tell me what is the difference between an Islamic terrorist who gets on a bus in Jerusalem with a suicide vest and blows up a load of innocent women and children and an Islamic terrorist who sets a bomb on a train in London or Madrid? What differentiates between an Islamic terrorist who runs a plane loaded with passengers into a skyscraper loaded with people and an Islamic terrorist who hacks the head off a journalist?
Where lies the difference between an Islamic terrorist who blows up an embassy full of people, an Islamic terrorist who brings down a barracks full of Marines and one who comes into Iraq through Syria and sets roadside bombs to kill American troops?
It is no longer politically correct to call the War in Iraq the War on Terror and the reason for that is purely political and inspired by people who for the most part don't want America to win the war in Iraq. And in my book they are so low they could jump off a brickbat and commit suicide and just about as dumb as a box of sand gnats.
I know that we are being led to believe that if we'll just leave Iraq the war will be over and all will be lovely and sweet and we'll leave all the Islamic terrorists in Southwest Asia.
Well let me just remind you all of something and you can believe it now or you can believe it later but one day you will believe it.
These Islamic terrorists are not just committed to winning the war in Iraq, they are committed to wiping America and Israel off the face of the earth and they sure can't do it by running us out of Iraq.
Were we in Iraq when 9-11 took place? Were we in Iraq when our embassies were blown up and our Marines murdered by Islamic terrorists?
Well folks let me tell you something. I¹m afraid that we're going to find out who is right about this situation because I think a combination of self serving politicians allied with an irresponsible and anemic media is going to force us to bring our troops home before we get the job done in Iraq.
And the problem is that once we do that and find out that we were wrong. When the oil in the Middle East is controlled by radical islamics, when the flower children politicians weaken homeland security, when Iran blackmails the world with a nuclear weapon it will be too late.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich. Remember these names and when it all goes to hell you can send them and their ilk a thank you note.
Serious business needs serious people not dingaling politicians with their heads in the clouds.
Pray for our troops.
What do you think?
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels / Ted Nugent ‘08
Ya, thats the ticket!!!
mega-dittoes. The childlike dimoRATS need to wake up...perhaps they need a dose of smelling salts...the real world kind!
Where lies the difference?
The first one is a terrorist attacking civilians.
The second two are not necessarily terrorists, as such operations can be legitimate if carried out in compliance with military conventions.
Unless you want to say that anyone who fights American troops is by definition a terrorist.
The people who carry out such attacks almost always are members of terrorist groups, but it's because of their attacks on civilians, not their attacks on troops.
But if they're NOT part of any military and they attack our troops, what does that make them?
As stated, most are members of terrorist groups, as shown by their multiple violations of the laws of war.
But it would be possible for a legitimate Iraqi militia to form in opposition to the American occupation, and fight us using IED’s (not much different from mines, really) and suicide bombers, as well as openly. Not that they’d last very long. :)
It’s the target, not the tactics, that makes a terrorist.
What do you think?
Praying for victory would have been more effective, Mr. Daniels. Not too late with the Lord Jesus in Charge.
Ah, thank you, that makes sense.
FYI—ping the group?
By your definition, every military force and action in the history of the world has been terroristic, as all have inducing fear in their opponents as a primary purpose.
Any military or political goal can potentially be pursued using either terrorism or legitimate military or political methods.
My point is to attempt to draw a line distinguishing terrorism from legitimate military tactics. If we get away from this distinction, we have to class any military opposition to us as terrorism, which promptly means we lose the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate methods.
People do have a right to fight against the US, if they use legitimate methods to do so. It is not their opposition that makes them terrorists, it is the methods they use to express this oppposition.
Your definition winds up legitimizing real terrorism.
Radigan’s Raiders pinglist—if you want on or off, please let me know via Freepmail!