I have no time for this today. Lots of work to do. But I hope to say something soon about the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" and, to a lesser extent, the term "terrorism." These two terms are very dangerous because they are much in use right now, and yet they both appear to have no meaning.
If I was editor of this website I'd assign Bruno with the linguistic backgrounder on these terms - both their use and misuse - and Frank with the (L.R.J influenced) piece on the danger of words with no meanings. Of course I wield no such power, so you'll have to suffer through my no doubt inferior take on these matters.
As soon as I get a few moments.
I've got a freelance assignment right now (yay!) so not much free time either.
In a nutshell, the real weakness of the "weapons of mass destruction" rubric is that it collapses categories: it spans: milder toxins (e.g. ricin); lethal poison gases (which may kill many people or just cause harm, but are local and temporary in their effect); and highly contagious biological agents and nuclear weapons, both of which truly do cause massive (and long-term) destruction and/or illness. The WMD phrase confuses and alarms rather than edifying but it may be too ensconced to eradicate. An earlier acronym was NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) but it didn't catch on. GEe, I wonder why?
heres another one for the punkrock/war jargon/propaganda file. theyre not just 'thugs' anymore; theyre iraqi death squads by virtue of a rumsfeldian edict.
Calling anything and everything terror is a dangerous trend.
I noticed the term "terrorist" getting fuzzy around the time of the attack on the Cole. That was a classic guerrilla-style military attack. If militant Islamists are going to attack the US, don't we want them to focus on our military, who are presumably prepared to deal with hostility?
Actually, the trend of mislabeling guerrilla warfare as terrorism may go back to the truck bombing in Lebanon during the Reagan years. Actually, "criminally moronic barrack design" would be a better catch phrase for that incident. (Unfortuntately, we did it again an the Khobar Towers.)
The word ‘terrorism' was coined during France's Reign of Terror in 1793-94.
A study guide with links on the word "terrorism".
CBC analysis of the use of words
The moral insensibility that overhangs contemporary linguistical activity is a feature of the total confusion into which the human Quantity is dispersed. Where to look for, where to find, the moral sensibility that is the energy-source of the intelligence's power of knowing the Quantity as a unity? The conscience of intelligence, in these times, has been trapped into an ever intensified pursuit of methods of adding together the ever-multiplying parts of the ever more widely dispersed Quantity into a simulacrum of itself, to serve as the tutelary image of human self-knowledge. What can this be called that would truly name its character of portrait in reverse, constructed with a chaotic imitation of methodicalness, of the sanity of being human? L(R)J, RM, 555, from The New Grammar.
|
If I was editor of this website I'd assign Bruno with the linguistic backgrounder on these terms - both their use and misuse - and Frank with the (L.R.J influenced) piece on the danger of words with no meanings. Of course I wield no such power, so you'll have to suffer through my no doubt inferior take on these matters.
As soon as I get a few moments.
- jim 3-31-2003 6:24 pm
I've got a freelance assignment right now (yay!) so not much free time either.
In a nutshell, the real weakness of the "weapons of mass destruction" rubric is that it collapses categories: it spans: milder toxins (e.g. ricin); lethal poison gases (which may kill many people or just cause harm, but are local and temporary in their effect); and highly contagious biological agents and nuclear weapons, both of which truly do cause massive (and long-term) destruction and/or illness. The WMD phrase confuses and alarms rather than edifying but it may be too ensconced to eradicate. An earlier acronym was NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) but it didn't catch on. GEe, I wonder why?
- bruno 3-31-2003 7:46 pm
heres another one for the punkrock/war jargon/propaganda file. theyre not just 'thugs' anymore; theyre iraqi death squads by virtue of a rumsfeldian edict.
- dave 3-31-2003 8:04 pm
Calling anything and everything terror is a dangerous trend.
I noticed the term "terrorist" getting fuzzy around the time of the attack on the Cole. That was a classic guerrilla-style military attack. If militant Islamists are going to attack the US, don't we want them to focus on our military, who are presumably prepared to deal with hostility?
Actually, the trend of mislabeling guerrilla warfare as terrorism may go back to the truck bombing in Lebanon during the Reagan years. Actually, "criminally moronic barrack design" would be a better catch phrase for that incident. (Unfortuntately, we did it again an the Khobar Towers.)
- mark 3-31-2003 8:18 pm
The word ‘terrorism' was coined during France's Reign of Terror in 1793-94.
- mark 3-31-2003 10:59 pm
A study guide with links on the word "terrorism".
CBC analysis of the use of words
- mark 3-31-2003 11:31 pm
The moral insensibility that overhangs contemporary linguistical activity is a feature of the total confusion into which the human Quantity is dispersed. Where to look for, where to find, the moral sensibility that is the energy-source of the intelligence's power of knowing the Quantity as a unity? The conscience of intelligence, in these times, has been trapped into an ever intensified pursuit of methods of adding together the ever-multiplying parts of the ever more widely dispersed Quantity into a simulacrum of itself, to serve as the tutelary image of human self-knowledge. What can this be called that would truly name its character of portrait in reverse, constructed with a chaotic imitation of methodicalness, of the sanity of being human? L(R)J, RM, 555, from The New Grammar.
- frank 4-01-2003 6:24 pm