Yes, there is a connection between the three, if you don't mind listening (well, reading) to a little bit of a rant from one person's point of view.
If so, you know where to click. Don't say I didn't warn you up front.
ter·ror·ism (n.):
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear. (WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)
That was two of the four results that Dictionary.com turned up. (Thank you, Grissy, and if you'd be so kind as to tell me how to properly display dictionary entries in HTML?) I do note that the second puts much more emphasis on what today's terrorists seem to prefer--civilian targets rather than "legitimate" military targets.
Oh, but hang on. They're not terrorists (and for calling them such here I should be hiding my URL from all the politically-correct people out there). They're activists. Or militants. Or whatever the P.C. euphanism of the hour is. How dare we call them by such a tainted name when all they're doing is fighting for a cause? How dare we actually take up arms and try our best to kill them for what they've done? 9/11 was caused by American provocation (Bin Laden even said so himself!) and if the US would just back off and leave the terrorists (sorry, militants) alone, then they would be quite happy to leave the US alone (Bin Laden said that, too).
So, say the apologetics, the US should get out of the war. Out of the Middle East, out of the whole peace process and terror-fighting business. Go and sit on the side and just let all the militants (see, I remembered this time!) do what they want. And in Israel, the government should just give everything back to the Palestinians and go meekly back to their indefensible 1967 borders (Did I get the year right? Or do they want them to go back to the 1948 borders?) and then say, "Okay, we appeased you and did what you wanted. Now we have peace, right?"
Right.
Now, go have a look at the latest novel in the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. It's called Naked Empire.
Now, I'm not going to put any spoilers here for those who haven't read it. But if you think the above rant is even slightly right, please do go take a look at it. It's a rather large book, but it does help give some serious perspective on this issue that society at large (worldwide, I mean) is facing today.
Good one, Terry. If even half of the people who read this book get this message, you've done a heckuva job.
Posted by adam at November 22, 2004 02:28 AMGood political commentary aside - I stopped reading Terry Goodkind about five books ago. I almost always stop reading a writer when they don't know when to shut up. There are (or should be) other people on that planet who can do something about all the 500 million disasters that occur. Richard and Kalann need a break. :-D
Also, he had some serious sex issues that were beginning to grate on my nerves.
Posted by: KT at November 23, 2004 05:02 PMThey kind of have been in every major event for far too long, haven't they? The eighth book isn't the last one, either. Looks like Terry Goodkind's trying to best Robert Jordan or something.
(If you are, best of luck, mate. You'll need it.)
As for the other issues...well, you'd have to explain them, so I definitely won't ask ;-)
Posted by: Stam at November 24, 2004 03:23 AM