• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Language of War.

M

migrant

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Location
Las Alpujarras, southern Spain.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
May I canvas opinion here on an Orwellian misuse of words which pervades our media and subverts our thinking ?
Since words are our chief means of communication, I think their distortion for political ends is a very serious crime.

“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would.

What we are calling terrorism is actually retaliation.
By calling it what it is, we can easily see how to stop it.

Bombing people from high up in the sky is what I call terrorism.
Terrified people become refugees…..

I feel that this misuse of words gives support to the war machine - so if you agree, please challenge it at every opportunity.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.

migrant.
 
migrant said:
May I canvas opinion here on an Orwellian misuse of words which pervades our media and subverts our thinking ?
Since words are our chief means of communication, I think their distortion for political ends is a very serious crime.

“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would.

What we are calling terrorism is actually retaliation.
By calling it what it is, we can easily see how to stop it.

Bombing people from high up in the sky is what I call terrorism.
Terrified people become refugees…..

I feel that this misuse of words gives support to the war machine - so if you agree, please challenge it at every opportunity.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.

migrant.
Click to expand...

I mostly disagree. 'Terrorism' does have a clear non-subjective meaning: Making a population fearful in an attempt to achieve a political end. This is the case regardless of whether the end sought is 'good' or 'bad'.
 
migrant said:
May I canvas opinion here on an Orwellian misuse of words which pervades our media and subverts our thinking ?
Since words are our chief means of communication, I think their distortion for political ends is a very serious crime.

“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would.

What we are calling terrorism is actually retaliation.
Click to expand...
By calling it what it is, we can easily see how to stop it.

Bombing people from high up in the sky is what I call terrorism.
Terrified people become refugees…..

I feel that this misuse of words gives support to the war machine - so if you agree, please challenge it at every opportunity.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.

migrant.
Click to expand...



What did the 3,000 people who were murdered by Al Qaeda on 9/11 do to deserve their death?

Fill us in.
 
migrant said:
May I canvas opinion here on an Orwellian misuse of words which pervades our media and subverts our thinking ?
Since words are our chief means of communication, I think their distortion for political ends is a very serious crime.

“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would.

What we are calling terrorism is actually retaliation.
By calling it what it is, we can easily see how to stop it.

Bombing people from high up in the sky is what I call terrorism.
Terrified people become refugees…..

I feel that this misuse of words gives support to the war machine - so if you agree, please challenge it at every opportunity.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.

migrant.
Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/FqAF-Alc7CM

Quite possibly one of the most powerful speeches of my lifetime. Sadly, no one payed attention and the RNC was able to shut him down in the primary. He was the anti-establishment candidate the American people needed.
 
Thank you Sweden, your sentence " Making a population fearful in an attempt to achieve a political end" for many people describes the true role of the News Media.
That, I agree, is a form of terrorism.

Shrubnose, your question has nothing to do with the subject, and contains inaccuracies and assumptions.
You are also asking it of someone you obviously disagree with ....
Far better to ask yourself that question.

migrant.
 
migrant said:
May I canvas opinion here on an Orwellian misuse of words which pervades our media and subverts our thinking ?
Since words are our chief means of communication, I think their distortion for political ends is a very serious crime.

“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would.

What we are calling terrorism is actually retaliation.
By calling it what it is, we can easily see how to stop it.

Bombing people from high up in the sky is what I call terrorism.
Terrified people become refugees…..

I feel that this misuse of words gives support to the war machine - so if you agree, please challenge it at every opportunity.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.

migrant.
Click to expand...

Ask the people of Lower Manhattan on 9/11/01 if they felt as victims of "retaliation."
 
Many thanks Nap, I'd not heard that speech before, and it always reassures me to hear an American who has the ability to see that nation as others see it.

Mr Paul's eventual collapse reinforced my suspicion that the most dangerous politician, is the one we agree with.

migrant.
 
migrant said:
May I canvas opinion here on an Orwellian misuse of words which pervades our media and subverts our thinking ?
Since words are our chief means of communication, I think their distortion for political ends is a very serious crime.

“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would.

What we are calling terrorism is actually retaliation.
By calling it what it is, we can easily see how to stop it.

Bombing people from high up in the sky is what I call terrorism.
Terrified people become refugees…..

I feel that this misuse of words gives support to the war machine - so if you agree, please challenge it at every opportunity.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.

migrant.
Click to expand...

It is certainly true that language should not distort for personal or political reasons.
Nope. I don't agree and think that the approach justifying terrorism is not only wrong headed. It actually increases the problem and stokes the terrorists' ambitions.
 
Sweden said:
I mostly disagree. 'Terrorism' does have a clear non-subjective meaning: Making a population fearful in an attempt to achieve a political end. This is the case regardless of whether the end sought is 'good' or 'bad'.
Click to expand...

Explaining the matter is the way to go. Neither Obama nor Trump have done so.
 
shrubnose said:
What did the 3,000 people who were murdered by Al Qaeda on 9/11 do to deserve their death?

Fill us in.
Click to expand...

The rule is that everyone born must die. Categories like 'merit' do not count in the Great Strategy of Things. ;)
 
joG, I hope no-one is attempting to justify terrorism, or retaliation - I am certainly not, and nothing I've said indicates otherwise.
Nothing justifies violence - is that clear enough for you?
Identifying the causes of violence, rather than adopting the role of helpless victims of inexplicable events seems a better way to go from my perspective.
Feel free to disagree, but disagree with something I actually wrote - please.

migrant.
 
migrant said:
May I canvas opinion here on an Orwellian misuse of words which pervades our media and subverts our thinking ?
Since words are our chief means of communication, I think their distortion for political ends is a very serious crime.

“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would.

What we are calling terrorism is actually retaliation.
By calling it what it is, we can easily see how to stop it.

Bombing people from high up in the sky is what I call terrorism.
Terrified people become refugees…..

I feel that this misuse of words gives support to the war machine - so if you agree, please challenge it at every opportunity.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.

migrant.
Click to expand...

If you never kicked a hornets nest, yet were stung by hornets while simply walking down the roadway, would you know that a far away hornets nest was once kicked or would you surmise that (all?) hornets are simply overly aggressive? Retaliation implies an act against the actual initial aggressor - not simply guilt by association.
 
In response to your question ttwtt78640 I would assume neither.
As for retaliation, I think it is often an ill-considered act, sometimes directed against civilians because of the actions of their government, sometimes at the members of a particular faith.
It's worth remembering that 'the initial aggressor' is seldom the most vulnerable target.
I agree therefore that your implication often exists, in intention at least, but not as a general rule.

And on the metaphorical level, (if that's where you were) the chances of being stung by a hornet while "simply walking down the road" are vanishingly small, and should not worry the sensible person.
If only all nations "simply walked down the road" instead of meddling in the affairs of other nations, what a good idea that would be.
America First!

migrant.

PS. UK to follow (as bloody usual).
 
migrant said:
May I canvas opinion here on an Orwellian misuse of words which pervades our media and subverts our thinking ?
Since words are our chief means of communication, I think their distortion for political ends is a very serious crime.

“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would.

What we are calling terrorism is actually retaliation.
By calling it what it is, we can easily see how to stop it.

Bombing people from high up in the sky is what I call terrorism.
Terrified people become refugees…..

I feel that this misuse of words gives support to the war machine - so if you agree, please challenge it at every opportunity.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.

migrant.
Click to expand...

So you think air strikes on people who are busily cutting off the heads of anyone they can catch is "terrorism" but crashing planes into bulidings is "retaliation".

Noted.

Also, bull****.
 
Tigerace117 - You apparently understand very little, if anything of what I have written.
Which puts into question your ability to participate in a debate.
You really have no idea what I think, yet I suspect you are certain you do.
Try to remember that certainty is just a feeling.

migrant.
 
migrant said:
Thank you Sweden, your sentence " Making a population fearful in an attempt to achieve a political end" for many people describes the true role of the News Media.
That, I agree, is a form of terrorism.



migrant.
Click to expand...

If you count yourself among the "many people" you're with the Orwellian duped you refer to in your opening post. Thank goodness for the real news media.
 
migrant said:
Tigerace117 - You apparently understand very little, if anything of what I have written.
Which puts into question your ability to participate in a debate.
You really have no idea what I think, yet I suspect you are certain you do.
Try to remember that certainty is just a feeling.

migrant.
Click to expand...

People don't see your quotes if you don't use the "reply with quote" function, by the way.

You clearly called airstrikes "terrorism" and made references to "kicking a hornet's nest"--- though, of course, there's the fact that the attacks of ISIS and Al Qaeda are not based on any one thing we have done, but rather on their own grand plan for creating a caliphate.
 
migrant said:
May I canvas opinion here on an Orwellian misuse of words which pervades our media and subverts our thinking ?
Since words are our chief means of communication, I think their distortion for political ends is a very serious crime.

“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would.

What we are calling terrorism is actually retaliation.
By calling it what it is, we can easily see how to stop it.

Bombing people from high up in the sky is what I call terrorism.
Terrified people become refugees…..

I feel that this misuse of words gives support to the war machine - so if you agree, please challenge it at every opportunity.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.

migrant.
Click to expand...

You seem to be complaining that the meaning of words is perverted and then you proceed to pervert the meaning of words.

Was that your intention?

Terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

You seem to be ignoring actual definitions in favor of a political agenda.

Care to try again?
 
migrant said:
joG, I hope no-one is attempting to justify terrorism, or retaliation - I am certainly not, and nothing I've said indicates otherwise.
Nothing justifies violence - is that clear enough for you?
Identifying the causes of violence, rather than adopting the role of helpless victims of inexplicable events seems a better way to go from my perspective.
Feel free to disagree, but disagree with something I actually wrote - please.

migrant.
Click to expand...

From the OP

"“Terrorism” by definition, puts those affected into the role of helpless victims of a surprise event.
Yet if you were to intentionally kick a hornets' nest, would you be surprised if you were stung?
I doubt it.
Would you have any idea how to avoid stings in the future?
I think you would."

I have never been to the Middle East. I have never intentionally done anything to create an atmosphere of discomfort of danger for any person due to race, religion, ethnicity, age or whatever the cause de jour might be. I do admit to the occasional and regretted rude act of temper or poor judgement.

In spite of this, I need to assure that my pockets are pretty much empty and take off my shoes before I get on an airplane.

What could I have done to avoid this?
 
migrant said:
In response to your question ttwtt78640 I would assume neither.
As for retaliation, I think it is often an ill-considered act, sometimes directed against civilians because of the actions of their government, sometimes at the members of a particular faith.
It's worth remembering that 'the initial aggressor' is seldom the most vulnerable target.
I agree therefore that your implication often exists, in intention at least, but not as a general rule.

And on the metaphorical level, (if that's where you were) the chances of being stung by a hornet while "simply walking down the road" are vanishingly small, and should not worry the sensible person.
If only all nations "simply walked down the road" instead of meddling in the affairs of other nations, what a good idea that would be.
America First!

migrant.

PS. UK to follow (as bloody usual).
Click to expand...

Rationalizing terrorism is a fool's errand.

What other courses were and are available to the terrorists? They are plentiful and available.

The small minded hate mongers that you defend are in the wrong morally, spiritually, historically and societally.

Please defend your stance by justifying the murder of infants by zealots.
 
migrant said:
Tigerace117 - You apparently understand very little, if anything of what I have written.
Which puts into question your ability to participate in a debate.
You really have no idea what I think, yet I suspect you are certain you do.
Try to remember that certainty is just a feeling.

migrant.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if your thoughts are not accurately presented by what you wrote, the fault is yours, not Tigerace117's.

This is, coincidentally, similar to the errors in the logic used by terrorists.
 
Last edited:
migrant said:
joG, I hope no-one is attempting to justify terrorism, or retaliation - I am certainly not, and nothing I've said indicates otherwise.
Nothing justifies violence -
Click to expand...
 is that clear enough for you?
Identifying the causes of violence, rather than adopting the role of helpless victims of inexplicable events seems a better way to go from my perspective.
Feel free to disagree, but disagree with something I actually wrote - please.

migrant.
Click to expand...



How about if someone attacks you without provocation?

Do you think that a country would be justified in defending themselves in a case like that?

:lol:

I think that the USA and the rest of the world has all of the justification that it needs to kill every ISIS terrorist on this planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom