AndyS commented on m
AndyS commented on my lecture note and provided an interesting observation based on a perverted logic. He asks, why the American government doesn’t say what it really means: “acts of ‘terrorism' are actions that seek to terrorize U.S civilians?” He says that may be we should not seek a global definition. What are your thoughts?
posted by Dipak K. Gupta at 8:03 PM
1 Comments:
I think you missed my point. Let's take an action that's equally condemned as terrorism - treason. Betryaing your own country to the enmy is widely held to be one of the lowest acts someone could do. However, even though the definition of the word may be the same, it only applies in the framework of a single country.
A Japanese man who betratyed his country during WW2 would be reviled in Imperial Japan but the rest of the world wouldn't hold it against him. In fact, Alied countries like the U.S or U.K might even call him a 'hero'.
Similarly, to us a 'terrorist' is someone who seeks to terrorize us. We shouldn't be surpised if the Iranians, for example, do not feel as strongly about it. How concerned are we, for that matter, when some fringe group sets off a bomb in Iran? (for this example, you can susbstitute any country that's not a friend of the U.S if you have any strong feelings about Iran)
Post a Comment
<< Home