Well, I'm very confused by all the different subjects and phrases that get thrown around.
Terrorism, for example, has the word "terror" in it. Originally, it meant to incite fear and terror in people (usually as means to an end). So when a person commits an act of terrorism, the idea is not to kill innocents, but to incite fear and terror so that the results based on those emotions will be to his preference.
From that point of view, the effectivness of terrorism is "terror", as it is the driving factor that makes the act of terrorism successful. That would mean that terrorism is focused on spreading fear - whether through action or word is irrelevant. It is a means to coerce a situation to unfold to that person's will. Which means that politicians who spread fear across the media, so that new expensive secutiry measures are bought by the state (and thus the taxpayers) is also a form of terrorism, for example.
There are a few analogies that mention one's "terrorists" are another one's "freedom fighters", especially referencing to the War of Independence. Concerning "freedom fighters" sadly deceased comedian George Carlin made a wonderful pun about the words we use in english.
It includes the famous line "Well, if crime fighters fight crime, and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part, do they?"
There is also a lot delivered about the idealistic idea of "freedom", which really is an ideal that moves ad infinitum. Which means, it's something infinite, unreachable. The very idea of freedom cannot be fullfilled. It's frightening how often ideals (beliefs! talk about war based on religion-beliefs, the "outdatet form of belief-wars") are used as justification or gloryfication. The War of Independence, for example, was not a war to ensure freedom, but (among other reasons) to end the "taxation without representation" that forced and coerced the trade relations of the colonies according to the will of the british crown. They did not wake up one night and decide: "It's time for freedom". Benjamin Franklin, one of the most important figures in the set up, originally was in favour of not ceceding and remained in Britain for quite a few years before his opinion changed and he was "thrown out" for some of the publications that Britain did not quite agree with.
In any sensible discussion about this event, perhaps it would be much more wise to consider what the status in general was (how have the mage-people-templar relations been the last centuries), how the situation at the time globally and locally can be defined, how the problem at hand can be examined in relation to how other nations deal with it (Tevinter Imperium) and from there, you make an educated guess about the results that might arise from this act, what the ramifications might be, and whether this act and the (implicated) following war can even lead to a conclusion, or whether the matter itself is, in fact, of such nature that it is impossible for potent mages who utilize blood magic to coexist peacefully without any kind of organization that governs it.
Especially interesting might be a crossexamination with both Tevinter and Orlais as the behaviour of Chevaliers and Tevinter Mages seem to have a common denominator in their abuse of magical and unmagical authority and power that goes unchecked.
In such fashion, maybe more interesting conclusions other than "you are wrong, and I am right" can be produced.
Although I must admit, having just left a certain seminar an hour ago that postulates according to the more recent ideas of modern models of communication and media that seems to suggest that there is not, and never will be, understanding of any kind between humans but only misunderstandings that can be negative (no understanding) or positive (the belief to have understood something, while, in fact, it cannot be understood as perception of reality is so subjective that there can never be a common denominator between two humans that can be verified.), the idea of a productive conversation in a world of miscommunication seems to be awfully unlikely.
On that note, should anyone of you ever wish to royally annoy the hell out of another person in a discussion, please refer to Luhmann's model of communication and take a look at Scheffer's more recent ideas about media. It's especially helpful if you know a teacher that you really, really want to drive into despair by telling him that it is impossible for him to ever make a student really understand what he means, because perception of reality is limited by the viewer to such a degree, that only a distortion remains and no understanding can ever be accomplished.
Now, after writing this huge wall of text, I consider delicious ice cream well earned.
Such a sunny day...ice in the sun...yes, will do that now. Note to self: banana and stracciatella.
Nach oben
