BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

So, terrrorism - what's that, then?

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Evil Scientist
11:27 / 22.06.05
One possible argument is that once a state of war has been declared between two countries/states then acts which could be considered to be terrorist fall under the heading of war crimes. But that's basically a semantic difference isn't it?

IMO A terrorist is anyone who uses the infliction of fear as the primary method of achieving their political aims. Terrorism is something that can be utilised as much by governments as by individuals and subversive groups.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done during wartime, the prevailing belief being that destroying them would convince the Japanese to surrender far earlier than it would have done. So although the destruction of vast numbers of civilians was an extremely unethical act, I do not believe it constitutes terrorism. The Holocaust was not a terrorist act as it's intention was genocidal and the Nazis attempted to cover it up rather than use it as a way of forcing political process. However it could easily argued that their rise to power was achieved via propaganda designed to scare the populace about Jewish people which could constitute a terrorist act.

I don't believe most terrorists are Muslim (although I have no evidence either way). It just seems that way as the terrorist groups which target America and it's allies are from Muslim backgrounds. Back in the day all Irish people were percieved to be terrorists by the British people, didn't matter what side of the divide you came from if you had the accent you were under suspicion.
 
 
w1rebaby
12:19 / 22.06.05
IMO A terrorist is anyone who uses the infliction of fear as the primary method of achieving their political aims. Terrorism is something that can be utilised as much by governments as by individuals and subversive groups.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done during wartime, the prevailing belief being that destroying them would convince the Japanese to surrender far earlier than it would have done. So although the destruction of vast numbers of civilians was an extremely unethical act, I do not believe it constitutes terrorism.

So hold on - presumably this "convincing" would involve scaring the Japanese. That's not terrorism by your definition?
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
12:32 / 22.06.05
Er no.

Posted by Evil Scientist

"It just seems that way as the terrorist groups which target America and it's allies are from Muslim backgrounds."

Although I have no hard evidence to hand at the moment certainly before 9/11 and I think it is still very much the case now the majority of terrorist (in this case I am using the definition of political violence not from a recognised state) attacks against US interests where form Southern & Central American sources (I have one of the articles I am taking this from somewhere and will dig it out if necessary it is taken from an American government report, it is an interesting report because although it makes it clear that the greatest threats comes from South & Central America it still goes on to blame the Middle East for terrorism. It is almost as if Muslim and terrorist are becoming synonymous). The idea of a Muslim attack on America is an image massaged by the media, I am not saying that it doesn't happen just that it is exaggerated, even the insurgency in Iraq although occupying troops of various nationalities are being targeted still the majority of the violence (it would seem to me from an admittedly shallow analysis) is aimed at the Iraqi people.

Posted by Evil

"One possible argument is that once a state of war has been declared between two countries/states then acts which could be considered to be terrorist fall under the heading of war crimes."

Also no, first off war tends to be declared by one side, not both (so the side that has had the war declared against it may well look at the aggressors as terrorists) and secondly acts that would be considered Terrorist (a somewhat nebulous description baring in mind the point of the thread) for example bombing/shooting civilians is considered unfortunate but completely legitimate. It would seem that torture is now back on the menu as "legitimate". So again we see that legitimacy is an important factor in whether something is or isn't "terrorism". Further complicating this is the implied illegitimacy of states that harbour "terrorism" or otherwise disagree with the policies of other more powerful states (North Korea, Iran etc.)

Also posted by Evil

"Back in the day all Irish people were percieved to be terrorists by the British people, didn't matter what side of the divide you came from if you had the accent you were under suspicion."

What do you mean by back in the day? The 1970's? 1916? 1690? Because you'll excuse me if your statement would appear to be a huge sweeping statement with no substantiation. I've grown up in Britain throughout the most recent spate of troubles (70's onwards) and nobody I know thinks like that (including the service men I have met or know) and it would not even seem to be the prevailing view of even the right wing media.

I agree with Fridge when he said:

"That's accomplished by challenging the word each time it is used and saying "who exactly do you mean by 'terrorists' here?" or "so you mean anyone who disagrees with Michelle Malkin should be shot?" Perhaps threads pointing out the problems with the word are a useful resources on such occasions but there's not much more they're going to achieve."

Personally I feel what may be more useful is asking what the words terrorism and terrorist are generally thought to mean when used.
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:55 / 22.06.05
Eep, that's me slapped down.

Could you let me know where to find some info on terrorist attacks on the US from South America? I had no idea that was the case.

Regarding Hiroshima. Yes the point was to cause intimidation, but as it occurred during wartime between two nations who were formally in a state of war with one another it was not an act of terrorism. As you say, what could be considered terrorism in peacetime is not necessarily considered terrorism in wartime. That was the point I was trying to make, apologies if I wasn't clear there.

Also, apologies for the Irish comment. Can't back it up at all, just going on what my Dad and various others had told me. I retract that comment. Apologies again.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
13:15 / 22.06.05
In terms of what your father told you it may very well have felt like that to him but I assure you it was not the case from the other side of the fence so to speak.

What I have said has come from a number of different sources (the Politics of Fear programme on BBC2 a little while ago as well as scatterred articles and documentaries on hand). The particular article I reference is from: You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths. I don't have a copy to hand so I can't even tell you the name of it I'm afraid. If you have a look at it much of the book isn't all that good although I remeber being impressed with that article purely because it seemed well substantiated.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:32 / 22.06.05
Just to clarify, neither I nor my Dad are Irish. But my Dad was a police officer from the 1960s to 90's. His perception was that many Irish people over here were automatically under suspicion as potential terrorists. This was something that was confirmed by members of my brother-in-laws family who are Irish.

As I said, not something that can really be backed up.

I would think that part of the reason that Muslim terrorists are being touted by Western media as THE BIG THREAT is because of the sheer audacity and success of the September 11th attacks. What form has South American terrorism taken? What is their motivation? Are we talking attacks on US army bases or terror attacks on US soil?
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
13:55 / 22.06.05
It tends to be attacks on US business interests and personell in Southern & Central American countries as well as near endemic kidnapping. Arguably nothing on the scale of 9/11, unless you count actions of governments (Chile, El Salvador) and whether or not you consider the Contras (and their CIA and Special Forces friends) to be terrorists, in which case they are way ahead on the bodycount stakes. Of course they weren't targeting American interests so they would not have been included.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
13:57 / 22.06.05
As for the Irish thing what your Dad's talking about is a relatively small group of people compared to all British people.
 
 
TeN
17:49 / 22.06.05
"Ten could you tell me what terrorist acts the Black Panthers commited?"
from wikipedia: "The BPP advocated and practiced armed self-defense of black communities against what they viewed as the "foreign occupying force" of "racist" white police. One of the very first activities undertaken by the BPP was the citizens patrol in which they followed officers around, armed with a gun and a copy of the California Penal Code in order to protect the citizens of Oakland. The Oakland Police were greatly angered by this behavior, however because the Panthers' guns were registered and not concealed they were not in violation of any state or federal gun laws." sort of a legal terrorism, no? they broke no laws, and yet their aim was to terrorize the police.

now, I put them on the list because during the 60s they were very much considered a terrorist organization by the government, as well as by much of the public. you'll notice, however, that I also listed COINTELPRO/CIA, because I think it's obvious that the actions taken by that organization against the Black Panthers (which included several outright assasinations) were far worse than the actions of the Panthers themselves.
 
 
grime
17:57 / 22.06.05
""though this sort of attack is the worst type of cowardly and inneffective warfare, i don't think it's terrorism. the fear is incidental."

I'm afraid I disagree with this. I don't think it is a case so much of cowardice as the hypothetical commander's responsibility to those under his command."

But is it terrorism?

I understand what you're saying about a commander's responsibilities, but i think waging war with some sort of standard is also an important responsibility. different people just have different standards.

as far as nuking japan goes, i'd say that it's one of the biggest terrorist acts of all time. As i understand it, japan was desperately trying to surrender before the attacks and the u.s. was trying to terrify not just one nation, but the entire world (mostly the ussr).
 
 
w1rebaby
18:24 / 22.06.05
Scientist: the trouble when you introduce "wartime" into the definition is that you get into lots more problems.

For a start there's the whole "what is a war" thing - we have a "war against terrorism" at the moment, which would mean that terrorists were also soldiers in a war, which completely disagrees with your definition, though I'm not for one second accusing you of believing in the coherency of TWAT. But there's an immense amount of playing around done with the concept of a "declared war" in general, which I consider has culminated in the current US situation where they're at war or not when it suits them. Who is qualified to declare war? Why? Why should it rest on statehood, when that itself is pretty arbitrary (what about unrecognised governments that nevertheless control a large area, what about movements that have been suppressed but believe they should be able to form a state)? What is the relevance of statehood to terrorism anyway? Is "terrorism" a quality of an action or of its actors? What really are soldiers - what about mercenaries, paramilitaries, auxiliaries? If the US uses paramilitaries to destroy villages in Vietnam, how are their actions different to those of soldiers doing the same thing? And so on.

It's possible to form an arbitrary legalistic definition of terrorism based on statehood, standing armies etc but that has the same problems as any other arbitrary definition, such as, uh, my own opinion - it doesn't describe the many many ways in which the word "terrorism" is used, and if you use it in the context of debate in that way it's going to lead to confusion.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
20:00 / 22.06.05
I feel that in terms of a useful definition of terrorism the idea of statehood is very important. I agree that the use of violent actions to create an atmosphere of terror is central to terrorist actions, but I don't think that that is all of it. I think that another essential element is that terrorists do not (for the most part) present an obvious target. A state has structures (government buildings, army bases, supermarkets) and an attack on these is an attack on the state. Terrorist organisations do not have these kind of targets. Take the IRA actions that all of us here in the UK grew up with. When the IRA blew the centre out of Manchester it was an attack on the UK. When the UK British army killed Irish Catholics it was not a counter attack on the IRA, it was simply a crime.

What I'm trying to get at is that a terrorist organisation has to be hunted down (if that is what needs to be done) man for man. The French resistance during WWII was a terrorist organisation because the Nazis had to track them down. The occupying Nazi army was not, because it presented targets. I'm not saying that state actions cannot be as bad, or worse, than terrorist actions; simply that the two are not interchangeable.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:02 / 22.06.05
"The BPP advocated and practiced armed self-defense of black communities against what they viewed as the "foreign occupying force" of "racist" white police. One of the very first activities undertaken by the BPP was the citizens patrol in which they followed officers around, armed with a gun and a copy of the California Penal Code in order to protect the citizens of Oakland. The Oakland Police were greatly angered by this behavior, however because the Panthers' guns were registered and not concealed they were not in violation of any state or federal gun laws." sort of a legal terrorism, no?

Well, no. I mean, your first question is whether something legal can be terrorism. Generally, terrorism is considered by its nature to be extralegal. Second, where is the terror here? We have anger, definitely - it says so in the article. But are the police terrorised, or just pissed off? In the absence of violence against the person or damage to property, to make that terrorism means that terrorist actions are actions liable to generate strong emotion in others, by which logic publishing CDs by Tindersticks might count as terror.
 
 
TeN
21:05 / 22.06.05
lord henry wotton said what I was about to say
 
 
Slim
03:22 / 23.06.05
Apologies for getting to this topic so late, it's been a busy week. Though this thread doesn't need my comments, I'll post them anyways.

First off, I feel that some things should be clarified. When I posted that Muslims make up an oddly large proportion of terrorists, that does not mean I believe they make up the majority of terrorists across the globe. All I meant was that the number is larger than one would expect. Secondly, people shouldn't think that I meant that all Muslims terrorists are fighting for Islam or any religious ideals. Their motivations might be attributed to politics or nationalism. However, a Muslim terrorist engaged in a separatist conflict is still a Muslim terrorist. The oddness that I spoke of is a reference to the multitude of Muslims fighting for a number of reasons across a number of continents.

TeN wrote, and for those of you who claim that "most terrorists are muslim,"

I hope he wasn't making a reference to myself. I'm well aware of the dangers posed by non-Muslim terrorists. Between the McVeigh bombing, an attempt to purchase strains of the bubonic plague (for a whopping $247)by a white supremacist and the production of ricin by an extremist outfit, there's plenty of white Americans at home to worry about.

For example, it could be argued that the firebombing of Dresden—even the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—were terrorist tactics.

I would hesitate to suggest that the bombings were acts of terrorism. They were conducted by a recognized government during a declared state of war. I see the bombings as falling under the umbrella of total war, a concept that's existed and been practiced for centuries.

That's all I can post for now. Hopefully I'll get around to my thoughts on a definition of terrorism tomorrow. Normally I wouldn't make such an incomplete post but I thought it wise to clear up any possible misconceptions before proceeding.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:40 / 23.06.05
All I meant was that the number is larger than one would expect.

That's still a pretty confusing statement, though. How many Muslim terrorists would one expect? Is there an index, where you take numbers of practising members of a religion and then pass it through a multiplier representing the propensity of members of that religion likely to be be terrorists - say one in 400,000 for Ba'Hai - then hold that figure up to the actual numbers of terrorists? Or is there a flat per capita figure regardless of religion, which muslims in your opinion exceed significantly?

However, a Muslim terrorist engaged in a separatist conflict is still a Muslim terrorist.

This is presumably about demographics - that is, in the same way that if that terrorist is a vegetarian then her or she is still a vegetarian terrorist even if the aims he or she seeks to achieve have no relation to vegetable rights, or if a terrorist is left-handed they are still a left-handed terrorist even if there is nothing sinister in their motivations. If this is the case, how does one determine at what point the number of people, in particular in poor or autocratically-ruled countries, constitutes an "oddly large" proportion?

Anyone got a copy of Jane's handy?
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
08:00 / 23.06.05
Posted by Ten

"The Oakland Police were greatly angered by this behavior, however because the Panthers' guns were registered and not concealed they were not in violation of any state or federal gun laws." sort of a legal terrorism, no? they broke no laws, and yet their aim was to terrorize the police."

No their aim was to stop getting beaten up by the police. If we use the definition of terrorism as the rather hazy causing fear then Oakland PD where the party that was creating a climate of fear and in certain cases breaking the law.

This was the funny thing about the list on the previous page, I was sitting there wondering why I was unhappy with the inclusion of the KKK, they fit just about every criteria of terrorism I could think of, however they are a legal organisation, they have rallies and bake sales (whatever that is) etc. and are allowed to do so, they are not proscribed. On top of that you then have the militias who are often looked upon as America's domestic terrorists yet these "terrorists" have a constitutional right to form militias.

Posted by Grime

"But is it terrorism?"

Not by my definition and certainly not by what I would consider to be most people's definition if I understand the media correctly. However it is definitely terrorising.

Posted by Grime

"I understand what you're saying about a commander's responsibilities, but i think waging war with some sort of standard is also an important responsibility. different people just have different standards."

Well it is fought with certain standards certainly by America and its allies, even if we were going to be cynical about it they have to be mindful of how they look in the public eye.

Also posted by Grime

"As i understand it, japan was desperately trying to surrender before the attacks"

I have never heard that before, could you source that information for me please?

Originally posted by Lord Henry

"When the UK British army killed Irish Catholics it was not a counter attack on the IRA, it was simply a crime."

I agree with much of what you are saying as regards being a question of statehood and legitimacy but I disagree with what I've quoted above. The majority of actions by the IRA where considered crimes and throughout it's existence captured IRA people have been asked to be treated as prisoners of war, which was refused and they were treated as criminals. However things like the SAS assassination of IRA suspects in Gibraltar (sp?), cross border incursions, arming of loyalist paramilitaries etc. were considered by many people in Britain to be justified.

Posted by Slim

"All I meant was that the number is larger than one would expect."

I'm not going to reiterate what I've said earlier, though I believe this is a perception rather than one of those oh so awkward facts that have been flying around recently, also I am not sure Slim would be able to substantiate this anymore than I would be able to substantiate otherwise (without turning this into a very dull statistics exercise) but I would like to know why you feel this is the case Slim?

Also if we were to take this as the case, why would a proportionately larger amount of Muslims become terrorists? Would that be indicative of oppression faced by Muslim people? A result of the religious practice of Jihad?
 
 
jbsay
00:26 / 01.07.05
So, as has been mentioned, "shock and awe" are conceptually quite close to "terror", and the way modern warfare is waged is far more civilian casualty intensive than the good old days of battlefields, but it is still possible to distinguish between the actions of a state, which even if illegal in terms of international law nonehtheless have the weight of statehood behind them, and simple "terrorism".

why bother distinguishing non-state versus state terrorism? a rose is a rose is a rose. a State has no more legitimacy when they unleash terror than does a lone suicide bomber.

if it's not legal for individual to do it why should you give the state a pass. sort of a reverse "fallacy of composition". giving the state a different word for terrorism can tend to legitimz it
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:49 / 01.07.05
Evil Scientist Could you let me know where to find some info on terrorist attacks on the US from South America? I had no idea that was the case.

Wasn't Nicaragua considered a terrorist state at the end of the Eighties?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
20:46 / 20.07.05
Charles Clarke is talking about a Database of Unacceptable Behaviour in the UK. Of course, he says he's aiming to thwart "terrorists", but I've never been one to trust such suspect legislature. Indeed, I can't wait to see the "list of "unacceptable" activities."

Hmmm.... sounds suspiciously like another attempt at sneaking through the dodgy ideas we once saw under the guise of The Police Bill. Also, as has been said elsewhere on this board, surely there are laws about this already?

Mr Clarke said he had concluded his powers to exclude people from Britain needed to be used "more widely and systematically", both for foreign visitors and people already living here.

If I ever get wrongly accused, seeing as I was born here, I wonder if they'll let me choose where to send me? I'd love to go to Canada.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:08 / 23.07.05
Guardian fires Dilpazier Aslam.

“The Guardian accepts that it should have explicitly mentioned Mr Aslam’s membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir at the end of his comment piece.”
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:07 / 24.07.05
Wrong thread, surely?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:33 / 24.07.05
Question:

An individual submits a videotape to the police, disguised with a balaclava, say, and states that they have the capability to poison the water supply to the South East of England - they then expound their religious views, which are apocalyptic, and the tape ends.

The tape is broadcast on the evening news, and people in the South East of England are fucking terrified. Although no specific threat has been made, only a statement of capability and load of apocalyptic mumbo jumbo.

Is the perpetrator a terrorist? Would they be charged, if caught, under the Terrorism Act?

Is this an inane example?
 
 
Char Aina
19:51 / 24.07.05
i'd say yes.
one would conclude that the intent was to terrify, otherwise why would the tape have been made and sent?
i also think if you went into a bank with a gun and a balaclava and asked to make a withdrawal you might still be charged with armed robbery, even if you had an account there.
 
 
grime
05:06 / 25.07.05
"Is the perpetrator a terrorist? Would they be charged, if caught, under the Terrorism Act"

you can definately argue that scaring people on the news counts as terrorism . . . but then i think you have to say that at least half of all television is terrorism.

is it terrorism when an advertising company attempts to play on your fears in order sell product?

i could tell my neighbor that i was going to kill him, would that be terrorism if it scared him into turning down his music?

for the sake of a useful term, i would limit "terrorism" to actual violent or military strikes. to me terrorists perform attacks and let the body count do the talking.



and regarding the hiroshima thing . . . i have no facts, but does it matter?
 
 
feathered_up
19:13 / 27.07.05
There has been a lot of really interesting discussion here that I have enjoyed reading, but I think it might be valuable to consider a more operational definition along with all of the items that have previously been discussed.

When one examines the common threads that run through most terrorist groups, one finds that it nearly always occurs as a minority (this definition of course does not necessarily apply to race/religion/etc., it could be a political minority as well as anything else) striking against a democratic government, most often one that is an occupying force (or is at least percieved to be). One finds this among all strains of terrorism: Islamist (directed against Israel and western nation), nationalist groups like the IRA (directed against England). While it is harder to think about it in terms of occupier/occupied with groups like the Red Army Fraction and the Symbionese Liberation Army, they are certainly opposing Democratic governments that they view as oppressive regimes.

I do not think that this definition addresses all aspects of what makes a terrorist, but I think it does help draw some lines.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
19:16 / 27.07.05
And what about when these democratic governments fund terrorism, arm terrorists, or order their own military to perform terrorist acts?
 
 
sleazenation
19:59 / 27.07.05
Or indeed loan foreign dictators money (which they promptly default on repaying) to buy weapons and armaments later to be used in a war with the people who sold them it in the first place...
 
 
sTe
23:37 / 27.07.05
Surely a terrorist is someone who is not acting alone (that would be a madman), who has believes about stuff that is not media friendly and does things that the 'victims' of their act are not happy about' ???

It seems quite obvious to me. Statehood has a large effect on the reporting media at large, but basically if someone in power wants to bomb somewhere then it's an act of war at worst, or a 'calculated strategic strike' however if groups of people with a comman belief kill random people, it's terrorism!!!

I do not agree with any of these methods of resolving issues. It amazes me that anyone possibly can
 
 
Slim
01:38 / 28.07.05
When one examines the common threads that run through most terrorist groups, one finds that it nearly always occurs as a minority (this definition of course does not necessarily apply to race/religion/etc., it could be a political minority as well as anything else)striking against a democratic government, most often one that is an occupying force (or is at least percieved to be)

I think that goes without saying. If the group represents the majority then it's likely that they're quite fine with how things are going because they're the ones running the show.

One finds this among all strains of terrorism: Islamist (directed against Israel and western nation), nationalist groups like the IRA (directed against England). While it is harder to think about it in terms of occupier/occupied with groups like the Red Army Fraction and the Symbionese Liberation Army, they are certainly opposing Democratic governments that they view as oppressive regimes.

I might be wrong but I believe that currently there are Muslim "terrorists" in China. What about all the assassinations that have occured in dictatorships? Perhaps terrorism is more prevalent in states that are only perceived as oppressive (that's a bucket of worms, I know) as opposed to those that actually ARE oppressive. I don't know if there were Russian terrorists in Stalin's time. If not, maybe it's because he killed or jailed anyone who might have been a threat?

Democracies make terrorism easier than more oppressive styles of government. If this is true then I guess they do tend to breed terrorists, albeit inadvertantly. You're also excluding cults and millenialist organizations whose aims are not always tied to political or religious oppression.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:09 / 28.07.05
Democracies make terrorism easier than more oppressive styles of government.

They certainly do when they fund, arm or train them, or when they order their militaries to commit terrorism acts. But other forms of government can do that too. Or is that not what you meant?
 
 
sleazenation
08:50 / 28.07.05
When one examines the common threads that run through most terrorist groups, one finds that it nearly always occurs as a minority (this definition of course does not necessarily apply to race/religion/etc., it could be a political minority as well as anything else)striking against a democratic government, most often one that is an occupying force (or is at least percieved to be)

I think that goes without saying. If the group represents the majority then it's likely that they're quite fine with how things are going because they're the ones running the show.

Does it actually go without saying that terrorist acts are carried out by minorities? It's certainly the case that Protestants statistically out-number Catholics in Northern Ireland (although that demographic is changing), but Irish Republicanism is a cross border and cross borders thing. Disaffected Republicans joining the IRA could hail from anywhere, and with funding for the IRA coming from Irish ex-pats around the world, including the States, the number of people contributing to the IRA is boosted again.

Meanwhile, much of the British population are relatively clueless and unsympathetic to violent/terrorist Loyalist organizations. Few, if any, Britons see much nationalistic cause to fight against the forces of Catholicism and Irish nationalism.

So, yes, I think it problematic to say that the IRA represents the minority's interests.
 
 
sleazenation
08:55 / 28.07.05
As far as China goes - there are the Maoist rebels who are making massive inroads into capturing Nepal, a country that is in a state of crisis and that has shifted away from a constitutional monarchy to a less democratic form of monarchy...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:42 / 28.07.05
Surely 'terrorism', like 'revolution' and assorted other terms, is a word without a distinct meaning - it expresses a sense rather than a pure concept, for all that political scientists, newspapers and lexicographers try to lend it solidity.

If that's the case, its definition becomes a question of power - terrorism means any act which belongs to the group described as terrorism. Battles of words (and sometimes more) are fought over whether a given action counts, and the loudest, most powerful voice - whether powerful by dint of military and economic strength, conviction, or apparent justice - wins.
 
 
feathered_up
13:13 / 28.07.05
Just to clarify, my intention was not to portray terrorists as victimizing just democratic countries...I do not think that a country is just simply by the virtue of it operating by a democratic system, or that a group is necessarily unjust by opposing it.

What I am trying to get at is that maybe there is an aspect of terrorism that one could view purely as a form of warfare particularly suited for a specific type of conflict and a particular set of circumstances. Once more, not an encompassing definition, but maybe something to consider.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply