Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

merlyn (47)

AOL IM: realmerlyn (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Yahoo! ID: realmerlyn (Add User, Send Message)

See my home page [].

Journal of merlyn (47)

Saturday August 03, 2002
07:36 PM

"Terrorism" is the new "Communism"

[ #6884 ]
It's occurring to me that the word "terrorist" is being tossed around like "communist" during the McCarthy years, with the same parallel "guilty until proven innocent" enforcement strategies.

This scares me. Big time. Doesn't anyone pay attention to history any more?

And it scares me more that I'll be branded "anti-American" for even suggesting so.

Dudes, the terrorists have won already. Get over it. Let's get back to pre-9/11 status. Let's not erode the constitution.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Doesn't anyone pay attention to history any more?
    Where do you think they got this idea? Worked well in the short term for McCarthy, the US during WWII (And not just with folks of Japanese descent), the Vietnam conflict... Persecuting people for political or social gain has a long tradition in the world.
  • Not just you, no (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rjray (1649) on 2002.08.03 19:47 (#11376) Homepage Journal

    Since the "War on (Some) Terrorism" began, I've watched centrist friends move to conservative, reasonably-conservative become nationalists, and the ultra-right-wing nationalists I know of have become, well, unbearable.



  • by belg4mit (967) on 2002.08.04 0:48 (#11378) Homepage Journal
    I hadn't noticed excessive use of "terrorist" but I'll tell you one thing that chaps my hide. All of a sudden everything is a "weapon of mass destruction". Call me desensitized if you must, but to me a "Weapon of mass destruction"

    1. doesn't need the label to get the point across
    2. is something that could realistically threaten the species. Not some pansy dirty bomb or some such, I certainly wouldn't want to be at ground zero when one was set off, but then I again I wouldn't want to be standing point-blank in front of a monkey with a shotgun either.
    Were that I say, pancakes?
    • me a "Weapon of mass destruction"... doesn't need the label to get the point across

      The point of the label is to refer to a group of different weapons, any of which is capable of "mass destruction". This is called "generalization".

  • by jhi (318) <> on 2002.08.04 22:53 (#11395) Homepage Journal
    Found this [] today at the bookstore.
  • ..not

    Having watched the 'war on terrorism' roll out it seems to be mostly focussed on 'terrorists who are muslims, anti-isreal and arab', as opposed to many terrorists elsewhere such as the 'real ira' or any of americas hundreds of militia groups.

    What really appalled me was that the 'allies' picked a side in a civil war and promptly labelled all those on the other side as terrorists just because they were on the 'wrong' side of the civil war in afghanistan. The Northern Alliance warlords are just as bad as the Taliban warlords the only difference being that they favoured northern afghanistanis over pashtun and southern afghanistanis.

    Then all ideas of international justice are thrown out so that the US can send some 'ay-rabs' to the old electric chair. The same US that refuses to agree to either have its weapons inspected (a sin to punished with sanctions and bombing if you are iraq, but perfectly ok if you are the US) or to the The International Courts of Justice.

    Then isreal declares war on palestinian civilians in the name of security - culminating in bombing densely populated and poverty stricken residential areas in Palestine and even bulldozing the homes of grieving families who's children blew themselves up in isreal.

    If the same standards were applied at home then vast areas of Ireland, and Spain would be under curfew with villages bulldozed, and civillians being killed by the dozen. And the US would be bombing its wilderness trying to get rid of those pesky militia.

    No chance of that.

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;
  • me too (Score:2, Insightful)

    You aren't alone, Randal. This simplistic War on Terrorism has been a unalloyed boon to the dubious Dubya administration, which is milking it for all its worth on both domestic and foreign fronts. Science Fiction stories from the sixties and seventies are full of predictions for a fascist America. We are now uncomfortably close to that fabled point, but not over it. The FDR cliche of "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" is particularly salient these days. It is the irrational fear of random ter

    • The problem is that "terrorist" is a word that describes the intent of an action, but is used to assign value to that action. So we end up saying "they did $X, therefore they are terrorists, and terrorists are bad, therefore they are bad." That's fine if $X has an inherent value, but it usually doesn't. Was The Bomb on Hiroshima a terrorist act? More importantly -- and this is the point -- does it matter? If you call it a terrorist act, does that in itself take away from its justification? No. By say
  • The New McCarthyism []
    (the secret service visits art gallery).

    -- ask bjoern hansen [], !try; do();