| |
|
Forgive me, but I think you'll find that 'some' is in fact 'nearly all'.
No, and no.
What you (and I *think* Fridge though I may be wrong there) seem to be doing is scrabbling for a definition of terrorism that will include what you call state terrorism, the existence of which is, for you, beyond question or analysis.
I'm trying to offer a meaningful definition of an existing word, in use long before the War On Terror. You could call it reclaiming the language, except I don't think the language is so far gone. I'm not trying to shoehorn facts into the word or vice versa. If we accept your definition, we then have to come up with another word which is less rhetorical and more useful to describe what I'm talking about, which won't go away just because you try to change the dictionary definition to suit yourself.
Before you ask, the dictionary definition is as follows:
Terrorism
1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the "Terror".
2. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised.
That's the OED, by the way, which I tend to consider as definitive, but in case you were in doubt, here's the relevant section of U.S. Law:
US CODE: TITLE 18 Section 2331
(1) the term ''international terrorism'' means activities that
-
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term ''national of the United States'' has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
(3) the term ''person'' means any individual or entity capable
of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term ''act of war'' means any act occurring in the
course of -
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term ''domestic terrorism'' means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
In other words, you may think the word is over-used and has no place outside a newspaper article, and I might even agree, save that it has considerable historical meaning and massive legal weight, and a fairly clear definition which isn't the one you ascribe to it, despite the hard work of the G.O.P.
As 'state terrorism' being something used only in histrionics - no, I don't think your proposed change of term is much better - I would draw your attention to the fact that the term is not oxymoronic but strictly tautological; and point out that you are proposing giving states a free pass to avoid the label, when in truth they are often guilty of acts which fall clearly under the defintions. Yes, the label is emotive. It is emotive because it describes an act of political bullying which is repugnant to anyone with a desire for democratic government. It should be emotive, because it describes a very bad thing. Describing terrorism in such a way that state by definition do something else - 'unlawful nation-state violence' or similar euphamisms - serves no one.
And I didn't demand satisfaction from you. I told you that if you didn't back up 'histionics' - which is a pretty offensive term when you're talking about people objecting to having their lives destroyed by a state - I'd get irritated with you.
Guess what? I'm irritated.
Just exactly what are these preconceptions of mine you seem to think need examining? And are you prepared to name your own? |
|
|
