4 ms·

No, the author is correct. The terrorist have won. ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for

by aestra 13y ago

No, the author is correct. The terrorist have won. ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. co·erce [koh-urs] verb (used with object), co·erced, co·erc·ing. 1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document. 2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience. 3. to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

annnnd 13y ago
Interestingly, your explanation shows that in this case the term "terrorists" can (should?) be applied to "commercial interests and their lobbyists", as the parent suggested. Or is that what you were saying too?
prawn 13y ago
Not sure if you're taking a literal line or listing the government as the intimidators. Maybe we have differing judgements of "winning". I don't think the government is "winning" here. They're just doing their thing. And I don't think terrorists are gleefully watching the increase in security theatre and thinking "Falling right into our trap! Now where's your freedom?" Entire generations have been raised with the US as an adversary and the destruction, not lockdown, would be the goal. However, I do think commercial interests are gaining influence/control "by exploiting fear, anxiety", but I think it's less about political purposes and more about simple monetary gain. Expos, conferences, big budget tenders and sales to government. Literally millions of dollars. As another example, consider the fake explosive detection devices being fraudulently sold to countries like Thailand, etc. They're little more than divining rods. Government isn't winning. Terrorists aren't winning. Sellers of fake detection devices? Winning.
jpttsn 13y ago
This may not be key to your argument, but keep in mind that there's no working definition of terrorism. Different nations, even different bodies of the US military use semantically different definitions. Resolutions to decide on a working definition of terrorism are regularly shot down in the UN by security council veto. It's not meant to be a real word.

by aestra 13y ago

annnnd 13y ago

Interestingly, your explanation shows that in this case the term "terrorists" can (should?) be applied to "commercial interests and their lobbyists", as the parent suggested. Or is that what you were saying too?

prawn 13y ago

Not sure if you're taking a literal line or listing the government as the intimidators. Maybe we have differing judgements of "winning". I don't think the government is "winning" here. They're just doing their thing. And I don't think terrorists are gleefully watching the increase in security theatre and thinking "Falling right into our trap! Now where's your freedom?" Entire generations have been raised with the US as an adversary and the destruction, not lockdown, would be the goal. However, I do think commercial interests are gaining influence/control "by exploiting fear, anxiety", but I think it's less about political purposes and more about simple monetary gain. Expos, conferences, big budget tenders and sales to government. Literally millions of dollars. As another example, consider the fake explosive detection devices being fraudulently sold to countries like Thailand, etc. They're little more than divining rods. Government isn't winning. Terrorists aren't winning. Sellers of fake detection devices? Winning.

jpttsn 13y ago

This may not be key to your argument, but keep in mind that there's no working definition of terrorism. Different nations, even different bodies of the US military use semantically different definitions. Resolutions to decide on a working definition of terrorism are regularly shot down in the UN by security council veto. It's not meant to be a real word.