Photo: Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90

We discuss whether, in calling the flaming kites that Palestinians are lofting from Gaza into Israel “terror kites,” we are not distorting and cheapening the word “terror” (despite the tens of millions of shekels of damage the kites cause).

This is a segment from The “Terror with a Tail!” Edition.

 

Show your support on Patreon

Looking for extra segments and other patron-only perks?
Find them on Patreon.

Previous Episodes

2 comments on Terror with a Tail!

  1. Ezra Walker says:

    “‘Terror” is NOT used because of it use being using it forms a victim mentality! You’re wrong! The “Terror Kites” are legitimately ‘Terror’ because Terror is a random attack that threatens damage or loss of life which legitimately “Terrorizes” a population who lives not knowing if their family’s home or business or fields will be burned or if in the night their family could be burned to death. That is LEGITIMATELY ‘Terror! NOT HYPERBOLE! Yes, I agreee that “cancelling a soccer game” cannot legitimately be considered ‘Terror’ in the classic term . But can we find an accurate term for politics that are excessive in their reaction to an issue rather than progressive in negotiating terms? It is not terror politics but rather the politics of ignorance and those who don’t wish to solve an issue but simply try to ‘advertise it by making themselves the long suffering martyre.

  2. Peter Wheeldon says:

    Are we focussed too much on the “act” as opposed to the “intent”? I’d be fairly confident that the kite flier would would just as happily stab a Jew if he had the proximity and the opportunity. I believe terrorism is product of intent. If a bomber blew up an empty bus it would still be an act of terror even though there were no casualties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *