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

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear Taraprakash,

1. If we start stretching the definitions of any word like "terrorism" there
will be no limits.

So should we stretch the definitions of those words only which are limited
or we should we have only limited definition of words or should we stretch
those words only which have limited definition?

Kindly elaborate on this rather complex framework that you have posed.

2. The question, what can be called terrorism and what not, brings back to
one of the properties of language known as arbitrary relationship between
the signifier and signified.

You have raised a very important point by stating that the relationship
between the signifier and signified is arbitrary.

If I remember correctly you used the same definition few weeks ago when you
were trying to define identity.

 I do not have anything to add to that, except that I may want to quote you
to other people in case of discussion on the national identity card. I hope
you do not mind.


Regards

Taha