Home | Community | Message Board


Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineProdijal_Son
slowmaster

Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 1,573
Loc: derby city
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous
    #1507299 - 04/30/03 12:43 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

I'm writing an analytical paper on the article  Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous  written by John W. Whitbeck. I don't believe that this is the full article, but it's the closest thing I could find in 2 minutes:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/17/1015909916184.html

Essay Guideline:

You are requred to write a 5-6 page essay on John Whitbeck's article " ". This is an exercise in critical reading and argumentation. Your task is to provide a critical perspective on his essay. You may disagree or agree with Whitbeck-- there are no right or wrong answers. Summarize Whitbeck's argument and detail how he supports it -- what kinds of argumentation and/or evidence does he bring to bear? Is he persuasive? In you opinion, what constitutes terrorism and does your definition depart from or coincide with Whitbeck's? Is the term "terrorism" a useful one in extending our knowledge and understanding of international events and contemporary violence? Explain why or why not.

Word. I have approached the paper so far with strict ananlyzation of Whitbeck's argumentation and basic idea. I haven't even come close to opening the paper up with my opinion. I figure that I'll take apart his viewpoint first, examine argumentation, lead into my stance, tell how it differs (as I am interested in the other side of the issue, despite my distaste for US foreign policies and similar views with Whitbeck). Anyways, just thought I'd throw this out for some critique ... especially as it pertains to my writing. Opposing opinions are wanted. Peace.  :smile: 

"When I first read the article Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous, I was overwhelmed by the amount of incite John V. Whitbeck bestowed upon me. There was no doubt in my mind that this writer despised the hypocritical foreign policies of the United States and other aggressively expansionist states. But after reading the material and analyzing the task at hand, I have wonder if Whitbeck was able to convey the true dangers of the malignant uses of the word ?terrorism? without being swayed to do so without bias of predispositions.
    Whitbeck?s article ?Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous? demystifies the issue of ?terrorism?, and gives light to the idea that it is evoked as a political tool. Whitbeck?s article goes even deeper than simply discussing the Bush Administration and its use of September 11th to quell opposition and justify its foreign policies of double standards. Depending on who is using the word, the meaning of ?terrorism? can be manipulated to complement the political objective of its speaker. Whitbeck conveys that ?terrorism? is an entirely subjective concept+-. Therefore when it is spoken one must take into consideration the speaker?s agenda and subsequent interests. Whether the word is used by Vladmir Putin to justify his war against the Chechnyans, by Arial Sharon to discredit the ?savage? Palestinians, by Bush to ?rid the world of evil doers?, or by bin Laden to ?vanquish the infidels from the Holy Lands?, the word terrorism is without a specific intrinsic meaning. However, Whitbeck does state that ? ? the only intellectually honest and globally workable definition of ?terrorism is an explicitly subjective one??violence which I don?t support.?.When it is used one must be sure to inspect its speaker?s motive with due scrutiny.
  Before reading Whitbeck?s article I considered the word ?terrorism? to mean a brutish act of violence that takes the lives of innocents, and I, without pause, deemed the acts of September 11th to be ?terrorist? acts. I was also interested in the political motivations of terrorist , but how our government and mass media dressed them for the American public to justify the all encompassing ?war on terrorism?.
  In response to the 9/11, I recall that the Bush Administration preached that these horrific acts were a direct attack on the American people, and that ?terrorists? shall not be afforded the  and they, therefore, do not deserve basic human rights. vents of September 11th
  But, are innocents not likely to be killed in any act of violence? Does the United States Air Force not take the lives of innocents as it shocks and awes the Ba?ath Party proponents? The US military takes great care in ensuring that only political, economic, and military buildings are targeted. For, anything else would result in fervent opposition to the United States? actions in Iraq. Whitbeck states that ?? terrorism (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder ??.
  This is all swept under the rug of terrorism.. The daily casualty count in the Courier-Journal shows no tally of Iraqi fighters, or even Iraqi innocents killed.
Embassy, WTC, Pentagon, USS Cole, and Flight ?? whose destination was the White House are political, economic, military targets. If these ?evil-doers? are attacking the American people, as our government would like us to believe, why do they not send airplanes into arenas or anthrax into aquaducts? Furthermore, the victims of the anthrax attacks were primarily media and political icons such as Sen. Tom Daschle or news anchormen.
 
  Does Whitbeck stay neutral?


--------------------
The times are good. The living is easy. The vibes are zingy.


Edited by RastaMon502 (04/30/03 12:46 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProdijal_Son
slowmaster

Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 1,573
Loc: derby city
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous [Re: Prodijal_Son]
    #1511104 - 05/01/03 12:56 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Thought I would update the paper ... this'll probably be the last time if no one chooses to comment. Thanks anyway ... stoners ...  :tongue: 

When I first read the article Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous, I was overwhelmed by the amount of incite John V. Whitbeck bestowed upon me. There was no doubt in my mind that this writer despised the hypocritical foreign policies of the United States and other aggressively expansionist states. But, after reading the material and analyzing the task at hand, I have to wonder if Whitbeck was able to convey the true dangers of the malignant uses of the word ?terrorism? without being swayed to do so due to bias of predisposition. After examining his argument numerous times I concluded that his objective was not to expound the intricacies of both sides of the issue. Whitbeck chooses, instead, to explore the ways in which the word can be misused, and their ulterior motives that require its manipulation.
Whitbeck?s article ?Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous? demystifies the issue of ?terrorism?, and gives light to the idea that it is evoked as a political tool. Depending on who is using the word, Whitbeck expresses that the meaning of ?terrorism? can be manipulated to complement the political objective of its speaker. Therefore, when it is spoken one must take into consideration the speaker?s agenda and subsequent interests. Whether the word is used by Vladimir Putin to justify his war against the Chechnyans, by Arial Sharon to discredit the ?savage? Palestinians, by Bush to ?rid the world of evil doers?, or even  by bin Laden to ?vanquish the infidels from the Holy Lands?, the word terrorism is without a specific intrinsic meaning. However, Whitbeck does state that ? ? the only intellectually honest and globally workable definition of ?terrorism is an explicitly subjective one??violence which I don?t support.?. When it is used one must be sure to inspect its speaker?s motive with due scrutiny.
In response to the 9/11, I recall that the Bush Administration preached that these horrific acts were a direct attack on the American people, and that ?terrorists? shall not be afforded basic human rights. Whitbeck?s article goes deep into the misuse of ?terrorism? by discussing the Bush Administration and its se of September 11th to quell opposition and justify its foreign policies of double standards. He argues that ?terrorism? is a way of ?? avoiding and discouraging rational thought and discussion, and is ?? thought-deadening ??. He brings to point that acts such as mass murder, assassination, arson, and sabotage are often slandered as ?acts of terrorism?. Whitbeck demonstrates that these violent crimes that are politically motivated are often labeled ?terrorist acts?, for if authorities were to acknowledge their political interests the general public may choose to enlighten themselves to the grievances that cause such strife.
Whitbeck conveys that ?terrorism? is a concept that is entirely subjective, and ?? is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning. Therefore, laws that deem the aforementioned violent acts as ?terrorist acts?, thus exempting their perpetrators the normal amenities of due process, are overtly defiant of Constitutional Statutes. These laws circumvent and undermine the inalienable liberties afforded to all participants of the United States? judicial system, and, furthermore, promote intolerance to political diversity. Whitbeck continues to say that ?Creating distinct crimes and punishments for ?terrorist? offences injects a wholly subjective element into criminal law ? which should be based rigorously on what a person has done, and not why he did it (let alone who he is and to whom he did it).? From this one can plainly see that the current Administration utilizes ?terrorism? as a scapegoat to deny individuals suspected of cooperation with ?terrorist? factions the due process of law.
After the events of 9/11 I was interested in the political motivations of these so-called ?terrorists?. But, now that I have come understand their grievances (which will be documented later in this essay), I take into consideration how our government and media dressed them for the American public to justify the all-encompassing ?war on terrorism?, and its subsequent alteration of domestic policies. Before reading Whitbeck?s article I considered the word ?terrorism? to mean a brutish act of violence that takes the lives of innocents, and I, without pause, deemed the acts of September 11th to be inexcusable acts of, yes??terrorism?. As to whether or not I now believe these acts should be constituted as acts of ?terrorism? I am now uncertain. I find the practices of the United States and the corporations that operate under its mandate appalling. If the United State?s government continues to develop relationships sown from exploitation, broken promises, or imperialism, I sympathize not for the few thousand victims of the events of 9/11, but, instead, for the forsaken Palestinian people, the half million Iraqi children taken casualty to economic sanctions, and the Iraqi?s who rose against the brutal Ba?ath regime after the encouragement of the US, only to be abandoned and left for slaughter.
Whitbeck provides ample evidence demonstrating that that these ?terrorist? acts are the product of the policies of the United States. Such is eviden in: the support of Israel and its consequent condemnation of the Palestinian people; the economic sanctions on Iraq; and the use of radioactive ammunitions in the Gulf War. I cannot say that I condone the destructive acts of those responsible for acts that the US government labels as ?terrorist?. But, perhaps ?terrorist? propaganda has taken more
Making the issue of my opinion personal even more complicated is the understanding of the possibility that our world may not one of rainbows, daffodils, and principles of purity and peace (not to say that I wish this was not so). I believe it is convenient to people to push for peace when sitting at homes watching the events unfold. Perhaps the doves would fly with hawks if the 7.62 mm bullet of human degradation, or the political oppression of an Avtomat Kalashnikova threatens their most elementary human rights.
This is all swept under the rug of terrorism.. The daily casualty count in the Courier-Journal shows no tally of Iraqi fighters, or even Iraqi innocents killed.
Embassy, WTC, Pentagon, USS Cole, and United Flight 93, whose destination was the White House, were political, economic, and military targets. If these ?evil-doers? wished to harm the American people, as our government would like us to believe, why do they not send airplanes into arenas or anthrax into aquaducts? Furthermore, The victims of the anthrax attacks were primarily media and political icons such as Sen. Tom Daschle or news anchormen.




--------------------
The times are good. The living is easy. The vibes are zingy.


Edited by RastaMon502 (05/01/03 12:56 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
Re: Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous [Re: Prodijal_Son]
    #1511819 - 05/01/03 05:38 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

It sounds pretty good. The part that stood out for me was....

"Whitbeck conveys that ?terrorism? is a concept that is entirely subjective, and ?? is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning. Therefore, laws that deem the aforementioned violent acts as ?terrorist acts?, thus exempting their perpetrators the normal amenities of due process, are overtly defiant of Constitutional Statutes. These laws circumvent and undermine the inalienable liberties afforded to all participants of the United States? judicial system, and, furthermore, promote intolerance to political diversity."

I thought that was well writen.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProdijal_Son
slowmaster

Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 1,573
Loc: derby city
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous [Re: Azmodeus]
    #1514337 - 05/02/03 11:07 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Thanks Azmodeus. I appreciate the input!


--------------------
The times are good. The living is easy. The vibes are zingy.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Liquid Bomb Terror Plot is a 'Fiction' Underscoring Police Failures StroFun 1,177 13 09/20/06 10:30 AM
by ZippoZ
* Remarks by Vice President Cheney on the War on Terror lonestar2004 937 13 11/26/05 12:50 AM
by gregorio
* Oil, Climate, and Terrorism EchoVortex 723 2 09/06/02 08:13 AM
by EchoVortex
* WAPO ..terrorized by "war on terror"...
Annapurna1
663 3 03/26/07 12:21 AM
by Annapurna1
* The WAR of Terror Psilocybeingzz 332 0 11/11/03 01:47 AM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Whats truly wrong with the "war on terror"
( 1 2 all )
Nephlyte 1,851 20 12/18/07 07:16 PM
by Alan Rockefeller
* Britain to pass Indirect Terrorism Law Swami 1,094 4 08/17/05 08:48 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Iraqi Constitution ratification halts terrorism?
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 3,224 44 10/17/05 09:10 PM
by Prosgeopax

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
534 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.071 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.