aeondaze
12th June 2013, 03:18 AM
I once knew someone who told me about a student who was studying for his doctorate. This guy was writting his dissertation on thermodynamics and claimed to have figured out a way coal fired powerstations could increase efficiency which woul've been huge. The probelm was that his supervisors couldn't understand where or how his maths added up to make that conclusion. When asked for clarification the guy refused, all they wanted was for him to re-write certain portions so that they made sense because the definitions he was using to justify his conclusions were vastly different at the end than the beginning, it was explained as concept drift. In the end the guy threatened to sue the university for not giving him his PhD (all his supervisors had abandoned him at that point) and it was left to the chancelor who granted him his doctorate just to get rid of him, even knowing there was no sound basis for his claims! ...and yes the guy was of the tribe (no surprises there)
The point of all this is that since 911 the henchmen at the helm of the west and in particular the US, have gone out of there way to transform the definition and understanding of what the state defines as a terorist. Initially it was easy to understand in the context of that fatefull day, the rush of patriotism and unity that was invoked at the time would have made it inconcievable to even the most ardent government supporters that someone with a differeing view would be labeled as a terorist. Since then however, the definition has undergone a drastic redefining to the point that anyone who vaguely critisizes governement policy and has a sound arguement outside the bounds of the artificialy constructed Hegelian dielectic is a terorist. If you diagree with ANY foreign policy then you are a terorist. If you question the suposed benevolence of the system then you are a terorist and I could go on.
In the end NONE of this would have been possible if we either refused their efforts to establish 'laws' pertaining to such wishy washy concepts and forced them to use perfectly sound existing criminal laws or alternatively asked for a rock solid limited definition to what constitutes a "terorist" and refused them the dangerous practice of engaging in concept drift.
:(
The point of all this is that since 911 the henchmen at the helm of the west and in particular the US, have gone out of there way to transform the definition and understanding of what the state defines as a terorist. Initially it was easy to understand in the context of that fatefull day, the rush of patriotism and unity that was invoked at the time would have made it inconcievable to even the most ardent government supporters that someone with a differeing view would be labeled as a terorist. Since then however, the definition has undergone a drastic redefining to the point that anyone who vaguely critisizes governement policy and has a sound arguement outside the bounds of the artificialy constructed Hegelian dielectic is a terorist. If you diagree with ANY foreign policy then you are a terorist. If you question the suposed benevolence of the system then you are a terorist and I could go on.
In the end NONE of this would have been possible if we either refused their efforts to establish 'laws' pertaining to such wishy washy concepts and forced them to use perfectly sound existing criminal laws or alternatively asked for a rock solid limited definition to what constitutes a "terorist" and refused them the dangerous practice of engaging in concept drift.
:(