Here's a bunch of different definitions of terrorism:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=oi=defmore&q=define:Terrorism
Some of these definitions are vague, but a few are pretty good and mostly agree on the basic elements of terrorism:
1. (unlawful or clandestine) use of violence
2. with the intent to intimidate or coerce
3. to further social or political objectives
I believe the definition should include a reference only to attacks against civilians, but not everyone agrees with that. Some of the definitions talk about terrorism by states, some do not. I believe the definition should include state-based terrorism. For instance, North Korea has an ongoing campaign of terror against its population. Iran has an ongoing campaign of terror against its population. The Soviet Union for years conducted a campaign of terror against it population. The Taliban had a serious campaign of terror against the population of Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein conducted a campaign of terror against the population of Iraq. (We took care of these last three).
Let's try these words on for size in your context:
-"Israel is conducting a campaign of terror against the Palestinian population."
-"The U.S. is conducting a campaign of terror against the population of Iraqi Sunnis."
These statements do not hang together logically. Here is why:
- Self-defense is never illegal and morally ok everywhere. The Israelis are clearly defending themselves, and U.S. forces are defending themselves and the rest of the Iraqis from the murdering bastards who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis under the last regime.
- Neither Israel nor the U.S. has any intention of intimidating or coercing anyone. We both want to kill the bad guys (and only the bad guys) and leave everyone else alone to live in peace. If you don't know who the bad guys are, check the news, they will be the masked guys with AK-47's blowing up hotels, bus stops, and restaurants and beheading civilians on video. And who says the good guy/bad guy thing isn't black and white?
- The U.S. and Israel are very good at using violence for military / security (read policing and law enforcement) objectives and leaving diplomacy for the pursuit of political and social objectives.
If war is the failure of civil political discourse, terrorism is the disdain for it.
>> Michael wrote:
>> I'll just be picking apart your very European idea (see link below) that
>> Israel is the source of terrorism and/or is responsible for it.
>
>I'll be grateful for the information, but there's a misunderstanding
>here. I don't think Israel is the "source of terrorism" - I think
>they've used terrorism to accomplish their goals. Since we can't even
>agree on what terrorism is (on this board) I'd say that's a safe
>assumption. Further, we also possibly agree that America has used the
>same tactics - possibly in its founding, possibly today.
>
>
>> AlJezera is a nice piece of fluff propaganda
>
>Right, and that makes it an excellent source of information. Know
>your enemy and all that.
>
>BTW - my wife is Jewish and we have relatives in Israel.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
