|
Post by booklady on Jan 14, 2007 8:01:52 GMT -5
That's not nice!
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Jan 14, 2007 11:27:10 GMT -5
I'm from Minnesota, PT.
Here's another annoying phrase, "Minnesota nice."
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Jan 30, 2007 8:17:35 GMT -5
I don't know if it is the most annoying word of the year, per se, but I get fairly annoyed with the modern use of the word terrorism to illicit an emotional response when it is really being used to describe what the other guy is doing. Case in point from this morning's front page of the Washington Post:
"The discovery of a heavily armed Shiite-led cult, intent on attacking venerated Shiite symbols and leaders, startled Iraqi security officials who were already contending with rival religious factions battling for supremacy in the country.
"'This is a new step in the annals of terrorism,' Iraq's minister of national security, Shirwan al-Wahli, said in an interview. Wahli said the fighters were led by a man known as the Judge of Heaven, who claimed to be a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad's son-in-law, Ali. Wahli said the man also declared himself the Mahdi, the reappearance of the 12th imam, or leader of the faithful, who many Shiites believe vanished in the 10th century and whose return will mark an era of redemption and peace."
Read the annals of history. This sort of crap in the name of religion has been going on for some time in a lot of places and then consider what the Shiites do to the Sunnis.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 30, 2007 10:36:30 GMT -5
Interesting point, J*. I wish you'd start a new thread on what terrorism means, as it's worth our pondering together. Probably not quite the same as irritating words like "nice" ;-)
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jan 30, 2007 11:07:00 GMT -5
//J*: I don't know if it is the most annoying word of the year, per se, but I get fairly annoyed with the modern use of the word terrorism to illicit an emotional response when it is really being used to describe what the other guy is doing.//
Naturally, the term’s relevance is in the eye of the beholder. When the barbarians lopped off Daniel Pearl’s head for all the world to see, it’s improbable that these men saw themselves as terrorists. Does the term elicit emotional responses? Surely. So do terms such as rape, torture, molestation, cancer, colonoscopy, etc.
J* has a point. Terrorism, as a term, has evolved from its original meaning(s). The term has been overused. Moreover, the term has been used incorrectly. A couple generally accepted definitions follow:
FBI Definition
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
The US State Department uses the following definition of terrorist activity (taken from Section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act): "(ii)TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED--As used in this Act, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:" "(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle)."
"(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained."
"(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States code) or upon the liberty of such a person."
"(IV) An assassination."
"(V) The use of any--" "(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device," or "(b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property."
"(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing."
"(iii) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-As used in the Act, the term "engage in terrorist activity" means to commit, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization, an act of terrorist activity or an act which the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support to any individual, organization, or government in conducting a terrorist activity at any time, including any of the following acts:" "(I) The preparation or planning of a terrorist activity."
"(II) the gathering of information on potential targets for terrorist activity."
"(III) The providing of any type of material support, including a safe house, transportation, communication, funds, false identification, weapons, explosives, or training, to any individual the actor knows or has reason to believe has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity."
"(IV) The soliciting of funds or other things of value for terrorist activity of for any terrorist organization."
"(V) The solicitation of any individual for membership in a terrorist organization, terrorist government, or to engage in a terrorist activity."
This final definition departs from the objective, but this was the author's intent. In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One:
“On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. `What is called terrorism', Brian Jenkins has written, `thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.”
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 30, 2007 11:31:08 GMT -5
Fascinating. As usual, I'm going to have to mull this over. The last definition seems to be precisely what J* objects to. The FBI definition carries an important distinction: Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Does the State Dept's long list of actions incorporate the idea of coercion? It talks about threat in some, but to me terrorism involves some kind of physical or emotional blackmail - "See what we can do?" Of course, there isn't always an immediate goal like money or the freeing of prisoners. Simply striking terror in others is the first criterion, I guess - out of nowhere, unpredictable because there is no identified enemy as there is with armies at war.
As for Daniel Pearl and all the others, my mind can't really grapple with such barbarism. Maybe that's the insanity that ultimately comes with believing your cause is righteous and the other is not even human.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 30, 2007 11:33:05 GMT -5
It seems to me that one element in the definition of terrorism should be an intent to influence the populace by creating fear.
Generally this is done through violence that is random in some way, so that ordinary people are made to fear that they may be killed or injured while going about their daily business. Blowing up government buildings could be terrorist, since ordinary people have to go their to do business with the government. But it seems to me that an assassination may not, strictly speaking, be terrorism, since the ordinary citizen does not fear being the victim of an attack on the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of Egypt, as he or she could be made to fear being blown up in the bombing of a bus or a mosque or a marketplace.
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Jan 30, 2007 14:43:58 GMT -5
Joe suggested: I totally agree, but it need not be just a fear of violence.
I consider that the cult, from which I escaped, are controlled by fear of many things that they have been indoctrinated into believing what will happen to them should they consider leaving the cult.
The Exclusive Brethren are known as fearing the three "F's".
Fear of what will happen to them, fear of losing Family, fear of losing their Finance. These three things are the glue that is holding that cult together.
So far, nothing that I was told would happen to me has happened to me after escaping more than 40 years ago!
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 31, 2007 13:57:28 GMT -5
Gailkate said //As for Daniel Pearl and all the others, my mind can't really grapple with such barbarism. Maybe that's the insanity that ultimately comes with believing your cause is righteous and the other is not even human.//
How and where does one draw the line between barbarism and a civilized warning? The aftermath of an F-16 strike is far more grotesque than a beheading but requires less courage and personal commitment. Imagine yourself in the position of being stuck with the choice of giving in to an overwhelming enemy you consider unjust; who has killed most of your family, your children; or fighting him with any possible means. The whole thing is barbaric. And history alone will decide which acts of barbarism were truely legal.
Another word that really irrritates me is Neuc ya ler! When I think of all the intelligent kids that could have actually benefitted from a Harvard education and contributed something to society aside from a misguided sense of righteous intent. I just wanna spit. God I hope history crucifies that guy!
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jan 31, 2007 15:14:16 GMT -5
//Rogues: How and where does one draw the line between barbarism and a civilized warning?//
Again, the meaning of those terms may lay hidden in the eye of the beholder. As an American, one might state that the 9/11 attacks were an act of barbarism. Too, the attack on the USS Cole, the first attack on the WTC, the wanton beheadings of innumerable noncombatants, the unprovoked attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in the 80s, and on and on.
//Roges: The aftermath of an F-16 strike is far more grotesque than a beheading but requires less courage and personal commitment.//
Well, that depends on your point of view, doesn’t it? You believe that one requires greater courage and personal commitment to saw off the head of a noncombatant than it does to operate a multi-million dollar aircraft. Assuming you read, and this assumption become more far reaching with each post, you might have stumbled across a good piece in a recent Newsweek featuring an exchange between two good friends, if not political allies. Senator Chuck Hagel, a grunt during VN, ribbed Senator McCain for carrying out his war at 10,000 feet, far removed from the resultant death and destruction. Of course, the conversation ended with McCain’s ejection from his craft and falling into enemy hands.
The Islamofascists who have taken the executioner’s stance are men of greater courage and commitment? Indeed, Sir, you and I are from different worlds.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 31, 2007 15:41:10 GMT -5
… Another word that really irrritates me is Neuc ya ler! When I think of all the intelligent kids that could have actually benefitted from a Harvard education and contributed something to society aside from a misguided sense of righteous intent. I just wanna spit. God I hope history crucifies that guy! At least President Bush puts the "l" in the word, unlike the Georgia hick* who held the office 20 years ago and has always said nukeeyer. Modified to add footnote: * Not that all Georgians are hicks or that all hicks are Georgians, but the reference to Georgia is to eliminate any possible doubt as to the identity of the hick in question.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 31, 2007 18:53:11 GMT -5
I haven't been in combat. I have seen only photographs of dead and hideously wounded, whether combatant or civilian. I haven't seen people I love ripped apart or burned, or had to put together their dismembered parts for burial. I also didn't mean to imply that insane barbarism, where the other ceases to be human, is reserved to some nations or creeds. I don't pretend to have any right to make moral judgments.
But I do think there's a difference in cruelty between shooting someone and sawing off his head. It seems to me torture is quite different from killing in battle. God knows that must be bad enough, as we see from the number of soldiers returning with grievous psychological wounds. One in MN committed suicide just a few days ago, turned away from a VA hospital that didn't have room for him.
I'm sorry discussion of the word terrorism stirred up this pain. You who have been there must get fed up with well-meaning ignoramuses.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 1, 2007 19:19:43 GMT -5
//Rogues: How and where does one draw the line between barbarism and a civilized warning?// The Islamofascists who have taken the executioner’s stance are men of greater courage and commitment? Indeed, Sir, you and I are from different worlds. Rmn, I guess I could have stated that differently to avoid a patriotic upwhelling. I am always confused by folks whom, having been in war, refuse to recognize the spirit of their enemy. For any defensive Guerrilla the pacification of the people is imperitive! They (the local populace) have to either be sympathetic or terrorized into silence. This is an undisputed constant of war. The overt offensive force has the luxury of appearing compassionate in soothing the wounds of the populace. Both are strategies accepted by the other but the defensive position is easier demonized and often it can be a good strategy to enable the terrorizm in order to seem more sympathetic. We're not from different worlds Rmn. I'm just looking into the box and you're looking at the sides of the box. Roges
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 1, 2007 21:23:45 GMT -5
Modified to add footnote: * Not that all Georgians are hicks or that all hicks are Georgians, but the reference to Georgia is to eliminate any possible doubt as to the identity of the hick in question. Good thing you added that footnote. One of our favorites here is a Georgian.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 3, 2007 16:38:44 GMT -5
Modified to add footnote: * Not that all Georgians are hicks or that all hicks are Georgians, but the reference to Georgia is to eliminate any possible doubt as to the identity of the hick in question. Good thing you added that footnote. One of our favorites here is a Georgian. I realized that and wouldn't have wanted him or anybody else to think I was casting aspersions on him or antbody other than the Former Occupant In Question.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 3, 2007 16:50:51 GMT -5
I let it pass the first time, Joe, but now you're pushed me too far. Define and defend hick.
I realize I'm pretty much alone here in my respect for President Carter, but it's incomprehensible to me that anyone could compare him - even jokingly - to Dubya.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 4, 2007 11:33:15 GMT -5
I let it pass the first time, Joe, but now you're pushed me too far. Define and defend hick. I realize I'm pretty much alone here in my respect for President Carter, but it's incomprehensible to me that anyone could compare him - even jokingly - to Dubya. I like and very much respect President Carter. I think he's a fine man.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 4, 2007 12:07:41 GMT -5
Ok, BL, it's you and me against the Carter-bashers. My dukes are up and I'm ready to take on all comers. (Well, after lunch and a nap.)
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 4, 2007 12:15:48 GMT -5
Lunch and a nap! Excellent idea. Up the energy levels for the stress of game watching. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Feb 4, 2007 19:35:39 GMT -5
I don't know if this irritates me as much as it makes me snort. When visiting the gynecologist, and assuming the position, he always gives me fair warning that I will feel a little "pinch" but I suppose that he can hardly say I will feel a "little prick." I'd probably fall off the table.
"Specimen" is always a bit of a chuckle as well. Sounds like something which may be squiggling around in the cup. Eekers. I hate it when that happens.
"Expectorate?" Wasn't anticipating it. Especially if it were an increase.
"Projectile vomitings?" Send me to Iraq. I'll eat some pork chops first.
Oops. Think I've slid into the medical twilight zone. Can't be too much worse than talking politics.
Here's what I hope is a legitimate post to stay off of Mike's bad girl list: Begining a sentence with "I mean" when they haven't even said anything yet. I've heard some of our politicians use this one.
And one from my mommy which can drive me to distraction, "There. Now you've gone and ruined the whole day!" "Nah, Mom. I can do better than that!"
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 4, 2007 20:24:06 GMT -5
I let it pass the first time, Joe, but now you're pushed me too far. Define and defend hick. I realize I'm pretty much alone here in my respect for President Carter, but it's incomprehensible to me that anyone could compare him - even jokingly - to Dubya. hick — an ignorant person of rural origin I used it to refer to Carter because someone had suggested that President Bush's pronouncing the word nuclear as nucular was an indication of contemptible stupidity (not that person's words — my take on what he meant) although it is a mispronunciation I have heard from a number of other people, whereas Carter botches the word even worse by leaving out the "l" altogether and saying nukier. So if Bush is ridiculously stupid for saying nucular, then Carter is even more ridiculously stupid for saying nukier. But if Carter is okay saying nukier, then the person to whom I was replying shouldn't complain about nucular.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 4, 2007 21:25:51 GMT -5
Well, maybe he's just talking about someone being "more nukey" than the next guy.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 5, 2007 0:28:47 GMT -5
Well, maybe he's just talking about someone being "more nukey" than the next guy. Isn't the Brooklyn Bridge spectacular! How would you have it for your very own?
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Feb 5, 2007 0:46:59 GMT -5
Joe, Carter was a qualified command officer in our U.S. Navy's Nuclear Submarine Program. He even studied Nuclear Technology for a time. He has stated that Admiral Rickover has been a major influence on his life. Carter titled one of his books, 'Why Not The Best', after Admiral Rickover said to him, "Did you always do your best..." So does it really matter how he pronounces "nuclear."
And, as he told us in The Chatterbox Cafe our Georgian is an Alabamian, actually!
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 5, 2007 0:57:10 GMT -5
Joe, Carter was a qualified command officer in our U.S. Navy's Nuclear Submarine Program. He even studied Nuclear Technology for a time. He has stated that Admiral Rickover has been a major influence on his life. Carter titled one of his books after Admiral Rickover said to him, "Is that the best you can do..." So does it really matter how he pronounces "nuclear." Tillie, Tillie, Tillie — People are ridiculing Bush for a less serious mispronunciation of the word. My point, basically and seriously, is that criticism of Bush for his mispronunciation is inane, because, as you suggest, how one pronounces the word is really insignificant. The reference to Carter is simply a device to show the anti-Bush people how wrong they are to suggest that Bush's pronunciation is something that matters since, if it did matter, Carter would be worse than Bush in their eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Feb 5, 2007 1:18:13 GMT -5
Tillie, Tillie, Tillie — People are ridiculing Bush for a less serious mispronunciation of the word. My point, basically and seriously, is that criticism of Bush for his mispronunciation is inane, because, as you suggest, how one pronounces the word is really insignificant. The reference to Carter is simply a device to show the anti-Bush people how wrong they are to suggest that Bush's pronunciation is something that matters since, if it did matter, Carter would be worse than Bush in their eyes. Joe, of course they are which is silly, too. But, there we go two sweet sweetsweet sillies. ;D This is my fav interpretation of Jimmy Carter after just having his teeth brushed at the car wash!
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 5, 2007 1:19:38 GMT -5
LOL
|
|