“Under the sea they keep an open mind and they are always willing to have a lengthy discussion on how to frame issues. I know, I know, oh, oh, oh.”
1 Like
Are you honestly asking for an explanation of how wars between countries differ from terrorism? Or is this another one that will make you sad if someone answers?
4 Likes
OMG I love this comment so much…
2 Likes
Wait, wait, I know this one …
3 Likes
No! I asked, what I asked. What I allow myself to become frustrated about is when people answer the questions they imagine I asked, instead of the ones I did.
In this case they were rhetorical questions (but engaging and answering those is perfectly good). This time I was making a point, which is that in large conflicts, it would be foolish to disregard the pragmatic. That people and groups have actual ideologically motivated goals. Goals which in all probability go beyond making themselves or you feel a certain way. I do not intend this as a devaluation of how people feel about violence and loss of life. But a reminder that these are seldom the point. Consider, for example, psychological warfare generally. The US is well aware that acts which manipulate the emotions of a population are merely a tactic, not a description of the conflict itself. When the US formulates responses to terrorism, it does so in terms of actual strategies and goals. But when the US comments upon such acts perpetrated in or against it, somehow it is reduced to pure visceral emotion. How does this work? Do you think they actually think of it this way themselves? I think it is more likely done to be deliberately sensational, to make people dependent on their increasingly authoritarian practices and to dissuade us from engaging in deeper analysis.
Stoppit. You made me snort my tea! 
6 Likes
What you asked compared a war between countries to my answer about how this attack on a PP can likely be defined as terrorism, and started asking questions about the goals of war. I’m not really seeing how this can be answered without explaining how the war between countries differs from terrorism.
Now you’re saying that no, you don’t want that. You seem to be conflicted here. Do you actually understand the difference between these things, or don’t you?
3 Likes
“The point is we’re are the center, not you”
1 Like
seemed to take a shot at it when you thought you cold make a rhetorical point.
it’s a bummer to act like others have bad expectations rather than that you misunderstood. That’s so unhip it’s a wonder pants stay on people who behave that way. 
Now I know how my wife feels when we have a debate on something and she throws up her hands and says, “That’s just semantics.”
Thank you for the insight.
2 Likes
8 Likes
It was only one example, which I chose because the relatively clear boundaries make it easier to illustrate. But the same principles apply generally. Groups of people have ideologies and actual practical goals.
Thanks for noticing.
Perhaps my interpretation is different than yours. This seems probable.
It is an extremely loaded question, but it touches upon my remarks. To me, they are not different. States are groups who use violence to control a territory. Those who disagree with their claims of control can be referred to as terrorists, or revolutionaries, or insurgents, or likely a number of terms all with slightly differing connotations. If you are suggesting that because your perspective is different that I don’t understand the underlying reality, I would say that this is disingenuous.
And no, FWIW, I think that neither violence nor territorialism are necessary, nor desirable. I was merely describing the situation as I see it. Also, groups often deliberately frame each other in sensationalist ways rather than discussing ideological and strategic differences openly. I think this is what is happening here.
That would have been a far easier answer to read.
3 Likes
Would have been? It was an answer.
Do you mean that you have reasons for isolating it from the larger context of my reply? If so, what purpose does this serve?
Except those words mean different things… 
Semantics!
7 Likes
Korzybski built my hotrod!
… to increase the clarity of your answer. Your answer appears to boil down to you not seeing any difference between war and terrorism. Or am I “deliberately misstating your position” again?
2 Likes
I get back there usually for the yearly Fallen Firefighter Memorial. The fundies have used the proximity of the Air Force Academy to get a foothold among the Air Force. But the Olympic Training center seems to have an influence too. Shops that sell clothes from places like Tibet across the street from an Israeli restaurant. A friend and his partner moved back there so his partner could finish Le Cordon Bleu near his parents. He joked he wanted to do before leaving was to find the local billboard he’d heard about that said “Marriage is between and man and a woman” and cross out the “wo”.
I would say that you are not making my answer more clear, but rather oversimplifying it. The context and qualifications were deliberately chosen to reduce ambiguity and the likelihood of jumping to erroneous conclusions about my views. Setting one sentence which grabs your attention apart from the rest of it might represent your chosen reduction. But you might do well to consider why you glossed over the other bits.
Oversimplifying things like someone who uses the terms ‘terrorists, or revolutionaries, or insurgents’ interchangeably?
Its just terrible when it’s other people, aint it? Good thing it’s totally them and totally not you.
5 Likes
