Re: The Truth About What The Palestinians REALLY Want

In <1bidnTJNnvhcSKTanZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@xxxxxxx> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@xxxxxxx> writes:

See what I mean? It's just not a particularly descriptive word - it's
really a euphemism.

Not really. Gandhi and King and the Lubavitcher rebbe aren't "extremists."
An extremist is someone outside of the mainstream, even if they are
controversial. Thus Jesse Jackson is not an extremist, but Al Sharpton is.
Arafat and bin Laden and Kahane were/are extremists, Abbas and Netanyahu are
not.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I honestly don't get your
definition. Gandhi and King were pretty far outside the mainstream, they
galvanized enormous protests. While they were non-violent, there's nothing
in the word "extremist" itself that requires or even implies a propensity
towards violence. One could most certainly be an extreme pacifist.

It's not having controversial views. It's going beyond that to the point of
taking or advocating action requiring others to submit against their will.

No, that doesn't work for me either. How does Al Sharpton try to get
others to submit against their will? He works within the legal system - by
that definition any advocate is an extremist.

The point is, "extremist" just means that they're taking something,
typically a philosophy or point of view, in a direction that the so-called
mainstream considers to be "too far." It doesn't imply anything about
violence, or even about the direction they're taking that philosophy, or
anything about their intent. Just because you're an "extremist" doesn't
necessarily mean you want anybody to do anything, maybe it just means
you're doing something yourself.

All I'm saying is the word doesn't work for the purpose you're trying to
use it -- as you proved yourself above. As both Osama bin Laden and Al
Sharpton are "extremists," clearly we need a different word to describe
bin Laden's agenda.

--s
--

.

Relevant Pages