2006-08-09T15:16:06Z https://www.taurillon.org/The-language-of-dissuasion#comment947 2006-08-09T15:16:06Z

<p>Please allow me to make some quick comments :</p> <p>David, my article is not intended in any way to argue on who is right and who is wrong, because simply I belive no one is right. It is just a cry to express my refusal of a number of assumptions contained in the language used by one of the respective parties in the conflict and its allies since the « war of terrorism » started. My assumption -which I possibly didn't make explicit enough- is that the other party's language -at least as far as the armed actors are concerned- is plainly unacceptable. Nevertheless I simply don't buy this depiction of fight between « good and evil » or, for that matter, between « our interests and theirs » that I have seen in other articles in this section.</p> <p>Valéry-Xavier, notwithstanding the remarkably interesting debate you and other people I know and respect are having on the French version of the site, which, at least in its latest posts, appears to me to be as related to the issues you point out as my article, I admit again I possibly should have made explicit something I understand as implicit but yet evident : Europe must have a position and a role in the resolution of the problems in the Middle East, owing to its historical responsibility and to its interest. I believe such role should be on the lines of the one it had so far, but with much more impetus. In addition, the language of Federalism is by definition the language of dialogue, not that of dissuasion.</p> <p>I wish I had more time to develop these points more extensively. In any event, I have to admit I am a bit dissapointed that the reactions to my text focused on its pertinence rather than on its content.</p> <p>With my best regards,</p> <p>Ferran</p> <p>PS : Please also note for the record that 1. the original title I submitted was « The language of dissuasion », meaning that not only Israel uses it. 2. I am not responsible for the titles of the paragraphs. I do not feel comfortable with "(Mis)use of the word 'terrorist', to which I would at least put a question mark. The paragraph was intended to reflect on the use of this word with a practical example, which is to my understangind important since a proper definition in legal terms has not been internationally agreed (yet).</p>

2006-08-09T14:23:21Z https://www.taurillon.org/The-language-of-dissuasion#comment946 2006-08-09T14:23:21Z

<p>I think everyone agrees on what you say Peter, but still, this article has no link whatsoever with Europe or federalism. It is possible to speak about the present crisis in a European perspective or in federalist perspective. But it is not the case of this article who simply tries to say who's right and who's wrong in the conflict.</p>

2006-08-09T13:15:58Z https://www.taurillon.org/The-language-of-dissuasion#comment945 2006-08-09T13:15:58Z

<p>I believe it is important to tackle issues from different points of view and sometimes it is very useful to also 'think out of the box' and analyze the use of language by parties implicated in a conflict. Doing this can provide additional information that one might not think of normally and serve as a basis for a broader discussion on the role of JEF, federalism and Europe in the Middle East. But that's just my personal opinion ;)</p>

2006-08-07T19:26:41Z https://www.taurillon.org/The-language-of-dissuasion#comment941 2006-08-07T19:26:41Z

<p>How does this article relate to the editorial charter of this magazine or website ? what is the connection between this isue and JEF, Europe, federalism ?</p> <p>I understand that the presetn events and the war against terrorism in Lebanon are interesting issues but I wonder if this website is really the place to deal with these issues.</p>