|
From: Walker Robin
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:19 AM
Subject: Terrorism definition What about Rwanda Net-users,
The United Nation is trying to find out and give the real definition of Terrorism given the fact that Governments including those who lack good governance use Terrorism to establish their influence on other nations/countries or to distroy their opponents by killing/exterminating the innocent people. By definition, act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act is known the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
Remember this definition:
Definition
of "Terrorism": Let's Have Some Clarity "Terrorism"
is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear
meaning.
This
is a proposal to lend some clarity to the definition, and thus hopefully to the
use, of the word "terrorism."
Currently,
the term "terrorism" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of
whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the
_expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Alternatively,
or sometimes even in conjunction with the foregoing, some people condemn any
violence by a non-governmental entity -- whatever the target -- as terrorism,
and approvingly label any action by a sovereign country's military forces
-- again, whatever the target -- as "military strikes" or the
like.
In
determining whether an act is "terrorism" or not, it would be more useful to
eliminate subjective evaluations of the goals of the violence, and instead,
utilize two other factors -- the expected result of the violence, and the nature
of the actor -- to then distinguish among four different types of acts involving
the application of force:
Expected
result of the violence: Let's
define an action as "terrorism" if the use of violence would reasonably be
expected to harm innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a
"military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm
innocent civilians.
Nature
of the actor: A
"state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government. A
"guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental
entity.
Four
different types of violent acts: Hence,
we can have both state military actions and state terrorism actions.
Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorism
actions.
Under
these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the
water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a
state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected
to result. On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack
military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military
action.
Similarly:
if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign
power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a
guerrilla act of terrorism. In contrast, if such a group sends a small
boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a
guerrilla military action.
While
these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the
killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for
however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.
Some
may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some
civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true. But similarly, a
guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who
happen to be on board. In defining "terrorism," as with all definitions, a
bit of common sense has to be applied.
And
again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex
socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions of
"terrorism," the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would
trigger the "terrorism" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and
non-governmental actors.
Moreover,
by not allowing the use of the term "terrorism" to be used as an
"argument-closed" condemnation of guerrilla military actions, those discussing
the situation will be forced to debate the merits or not of the goals of the
guerrillas, not hide behind an inappropriate labeling of the guerrilla's
tactics.
At
the same time, guerrilla forces committing atrocities against civilians would
not be able to deny committing acts of terrorism because of the alleged validity
of their goals.
All
in all, then, these suggested definitions in connection with "terrorism" would
tend to force the parties involved to focus on avoiding harm to civilians, and
to deal with the real issues at stake in their disputes -- two results I hope
most people would welcome.
We do have to emphasize and this comes up always as the origin of guerrilla's, the fact that any government using governement forces (police - military forces - paramilitary forces - intelligence organisation) by committing attrocities against its own people would neither be able to deny committing acts of terrorism because of the alleged validity of its goals. "With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy" Groupe de communication Mulindwas "avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie" |
_______________________________________________ Ugandanet mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet % UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
