LogFAQs > #950314182

CableZL posted...

I'm not sure if you're having trouble reading, but I've said this repeatedly in this topic. The term carries a different connotation based on how it is used. There is nuance that you either can't understand or you're refusing to understand.

Situation 1: Person calls the 9/11 hijackers terrorists.
* This is fine. They committed terroristic acts.
* People of all races responded to this event emotionally and wished harm on anyone who was responsible. People of all races and creeds lost family members. Fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, daughters, etc. in his event. An emotional response that calls for violence is pretty much expected.

Situation 2: Person uses the events of 9/11 to label anyone who they believe is a Muslim as a terrorist.
* This is frowned upon.
* It is not at all fair for people who have lived peaceful lives to be labeled as criminals or terrorists just because people who happen to look like them participated in the events of 9/11.

I'm not sure how many times I'm going to need to repeat this ITT for you to understand, but I'm not going to continue repeating it through the whole topic just because you don't get it.

Those are very different from the examples that I gave and you keep trying to pigeonhole them into those two categories.

There is a big difference between a history professor who refers to the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists

AND

A white redneck type who keeps repeating the word terrorist with a lot of anger and implies he would do something violent if left alone in a room with one of these terrorists

It is a very different way of using the word terrorist.

---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156