terrorism ch. 1

I love how language evolves and I love how meanings can change over time. Does this change the actions behind the definition or does the definition change the action? Because humanity doesn’t change. Sure, it can show up in different forms, but people six centuries ago and people today are still cut from the same cloth. People are still driven by survival, by love and by opinion. They’re driven by passion and by hope and by the desire for things to change.

I still stand firmly behind the notion that a person can be viewed as a terrorist just as easily as they can be viewed as a rebel or an advocate, an activist or a freedom fighter. It just depends on whether or not you’re on the receiving end of their ‘activism’ or their ‘terror’. That stipulation is not me condoning violence or me condoning the actions of others that have caused and continue to cause great amounts of pain and suffering. But I think it’s important to look at their motivations. I don’t remember if it was this article or the next, but it was talked about how Franz Ferdinand’s assassination sparked World War 1 because of someone’s hope that the Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, etc. would be then drawn together under a united front. Arguing if he succeeded or not is a different question, but his murderous intentions had a reason behind it. One one side it’s viewed as killing, on the other it’s viewed as a necessary evil for a greater good.

The human race is still as complex as they were when they were born, and I don’t think that that stands to change anytime soon.

Leave a Reply