[Reader-list] Is the singular Rhetoric of Terror flawed?

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear Kshmendra, (Dear All),

Thank you for your mail.

Please allow me to go through your points, one by one-

1. Reference missing? Where is this definition coming from?
An act of "Terror" needs  initiator(s)/executor(s) for that act with the
end-purpose being to "Terrify".
As, the etymological reference of terror that I gave certainly have nothing
to say anything about the intention of an executor or end-purpose. Hence
please clarify.

2.  An act of "Terror" needs  initiator(s)/executor(s) for that act with the
end-purpose being to "Terrify".
Going by above logic, what would you call members of an army of a country X,
who are stationed at place Y for the past, say Z years and regularly indulge
in rape, murder and torture of local population not because they want to
massacre everyone but because they want to terrify and maintain a perception
of fear and insecurity, and it is peace time in that country?

3. Even if you dismiss any single one of the 'Flood Deaths' as being due to
Nature/GOD, you would have to prove with evidence that the causing of the
Flood was intentional and the motive was to 'terrify'.

Sir jee do you have any conclusive evidence that all terrorists caught
anywhere in this world had the intention to terrify?

4. Only then would the Floods be an "act of Terror". Think over that..

I think I never made an assertion to the effect, that all floods are acts of
terror. Please allow me to re-state, I said WHY are floods not framed as
acts of Terror?

5. Connectedly, though not very pertinent, very many times Etymology can be
nothing but academia and the flogging of a dead animal when current usage
has picked up newer definitions to the meaning.

You make academia sound so un-cool and sterile, but anyways etymology is
important because it gives us an important point of reference which is
pertinant to go back to in in order to make sense of a meaning of a word
that we are asked to imbibe. For instance if we start using the word love
for murder and use it for a couple of hundred of years then don't you feel
that it would be nice to have someone refer the etymological roots of love
and make that connection between what it meant or refered and what it means
now. I think it will. Some times it is necessary to flog dead animals to
make sense of the fact that, that once that animal was alive, and think and
ponder about the nature of that animal and the nature of the life it might
have lived.



6. I suggest to you to first fixate yourself on understanding "Terrorism" as
an ideology as followed today.

What do you mean by this, please explain?

7. the referred to "Flood Deaths" are not due to 'acts of Terror'.

I did not said those words, all I am doing is asking, Why are floods not
framed in the language of terror?

Regards

Taha