[quote author=rusty
I'm sorry, but you are a limited product of the Western Media.
“Terrorists” don’t exist.1) The word “terrorist” wasn’t used in the mass media until recently to represent those who fight against the Western World, such as the IRA and Al-Qaeda. “Terrorists” were invented only recently. Before, they never existed. People who kill have always existed, but “terrorists” are the product of the modern media.
2) In some parts of the world, exactly the same people are viewed as ‘freedom-fighters’. It’s the same people. It’s the same actions. But there are two different meanings attributed to them. Thus, “terrorists” and “freedom-fighters” are just words. Nothing more. Larger than life.
3) You can never accept what is fed to you by the media as “truth”. The people that are labeled as “terrorists” could be anyone. You have no proof that it wasn’t the Government itself that commit these acts and claimed it to be “terrorists” to give them justification for waging war, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. I personally do not hold that view, but we have no proof to either claim or disclaim. And what proof that we can obtain may be second-hand or manipulated. The news does not equate truth.
One thing can be given multiple meanings.
Evil is a point of view.The meanings we attach to things are arbitrary yet they shape our thoughts.
Language is merely a way of limiting people’s thought.I am against those who destroy human life. Not ‘terrorists’. They don’t exist.If we all read 1984, we'd learn some valuable lessons:
1) What the media tells you is not 'truth'. What is accepted as 'truth' is based on what evidence we have. what evidence we have can be changed. Therefore, what we accept as 'truth' can change.
2) Language limits the range of our thought. complex thought cannot exist without language. If you do not have the words to express something, you cannot think of it. If you cannot express it, it ceases to tangibly exist. Similarly, you can attach words to something that exists and completely change the way that the thing is seen.
Think about it.
Actually, the word "terrorist" has existed for years, and wasn't just magically made up recently to describe radicals in the middle east.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror as a political weapon. Instead of talking or trying to work something out, they bomb or murder. The action and the word have existed for years. In fact the word terrorist was first seen in reference to the Jacobins of France in the year 1795 who used violence and terror to cripple anywho who stood against them politically.
And yes, perhaps to some people in the world they are freedom fighters, but can you really accept that as an accurate description of these people?
Simply because someone, somewhere considers them "freedom fighters" doesn't mean they are. Cultural relativism is not infinite, there is a point at which you must draw the line. Perhaps evil is in the eye of the beholder, but people everywhere, in all cultures, in all parts of the world can tell you that murdering innocents is wrong.
You don't like the word terrorist because it attaches emotional baggage to a word, but they is no way to see what those people did in London in an unemtional way. They murdered people, people they'd never met, who'd never met them for no good reason.
[/quote]
Firstly, thank you for reading my post and thinking critically about it. That’s exactly what I wanted to see. Now, I’d like to clarify some things:
One, I never don’t claim that the word “terrorist” has been recently been “magically made up” . I claim that, not until recently, has it entered
the consciousness of the mass media. There’s a difference. Two, I mean the word “terrorist” to refer to
anyone labeled as a terrorist by the media, not just “radicals in the middle-east” but organisations such as the IRA who are also labeled “terrorists”
Three, I don’t claim that the people labeled as “terrorists”
are “freedom-fighters”. All I did was demonstrated that the same person can be called two different things to highlight the subjective and fallible nature of the names that we assign to things.
Four, to answer your question “perhaps to some people in the world they are freedom fighters, but can you really accept that as an accurate description of these people?”, I say: in my life, in my past, in my particular set of circumstances – no. But I’m sure that there are people in the world whose life and circumstances are so radically different from mine that they would think so. But remember, thinking something to be “true” doesn’t make it “truth”.
Five, I disagree with this statement: “people everywhere, in all cultures, in all parts of the world can tell you that murdering innocents is wrong”. The fact that these explosions have occurred in London is proof that there
are some people who think killing innocents is justified.
I agree that any willful destruction of human life cannot be justified. What I disagree on is labeling people who do this as “terrorists”. The word, and the meanings attached to it are arbitrary, fallible and subjective.
I do hate the “emotional baggage” attached to words because it distorts your view of reality.
Trust me, I know. I speak English, Indonesian and Arabic. I watch the Channel 9 National News, the National Indonesian news, CNN and Al-Jazira. Each presents a different view of the world by attaching what “emotional baggage” that they believe suits the political atmosphere at the time. The Americans call them “terrorists”. The Australians call them “suicide-bombers”, the Indonesians call them “militants”, the Arabs call them “freedom-fighters”. I see the same stories, with different spins. I see the same pictures, with different captions. I hear the same speeches, with different translations. But What is constant, always, always, always, is that the news always carries “the emotional baggage” that suits the needs of the country. That’s how you keep the masses patriotic and happy – you feed them the truth distorted by language-play until it is no longer recognizable. These half-truths are more dangerous than lies because they’re believable. The eloquence of terms such as “freedom-fighter” and “terrorist” makes them double so.
Evil is a point of view. That’s what 18 years of life, attending a Christian private school, with a Muslim teacher, a Buddist neighbour, an atheist bestfriend, an agnostic father, a Jewish fiancé and recently-converted Muslim mother and step-father.
EDIT: I apologise if I’ve rambled. I feel this passionately.
How terrible. I'm glad you're ok Katia 
