I have tried to consistently use 'terrorism' to refer to the use of terror tactics against civilians as a means of seeking political power. Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism (they may be conventional or guerilla warfare), but attacks on teachers are. Random violence by criminals is not terrorism. Suicide bombing of civilians is.
I have tried to consistently use 'terrorism' to refer to the use of terror tactics against civilians as a means of seeking political power. Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism (they may be conventional or guerilla warfare), but attacks on teachers are. Random violence by criminals is not terrorism. Suicide bombing of civilians is.
Where it gets admittedly more complex is when one tries to define "state terrorism". It clearly exists - whether the Junta in Argentina diappearing opponents, or the Nazi's shooting Norwegian townspeople near where partisans had ambushed their soldiers. But the boundaries are fuzzier.
And Israel is a case in point. They seem to me to waver back and forth over the line between state terrorism and military offensives against assymetric warfare. If their goal was really to wipe out civilians, they could increase their casualty count by 100 fold very easily; it's clear to me that they do want to minimize civilian casualties, while their opponents want to maximize it on both sides (ie; killing Israeli civilians as well as launching missiles from civilian buildings to provoke a counter attack which would stir up more resentment). But Israel may be more willing to accept civilians casualties as a side effect than I am willing to accept. Morally, it's a quagmire.
I still apply terrorism only to those who try to gain power through terrorizing civilians. There are other words for other bad things which are not terrorism. I resist redefining it in order to inaccurately borrow the negative connotation.
passion your texts all makes much sense. here is the strongest counter argument against the focus on civilians. There are powerful groups... and less powerful groups. those with less power have no choice but to attack civilians if they hope to attack the opposition... this is not support for their terrorism. but powerful groups use that word to vilify the opposition while justifying their own actions. also not cool. I just don't like that word. The key is violence. beyond that it becomes quite political if it is more-bad or less-bad violence. just my thought....
I have tried to consistently use 'terrorism' to refer to the use of terror tactics against civilians as a means of seeking political power. Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism (they may be conventional or guerilla warfare), but attacks on teachers are. Random violence by criminals is not terrorism. Suicide bombing of civilians is.
Where it gets admittedly more complex is when one tries to define "state terrorism". It clearly exists - whether the Junta in Argentina diappearing opponents, or the Nazi's shooting Norwegian townspeople near where partisans had ambushed their soldiers. But the boundaries are fuzzier.
And Israel is a case in point. They seem to me to waver back and forth over the line between state terrorism and military offensives against assymetric warfare. If their goal was really to wipe out civilians, they could increase their casualty count by 100 fold very easily; it's clear to me that they do want to minimize civilian casualties, while their opponents want to maximize it on both sides (ie; killing Israeli civilians as well as launching missiles from civilian buildings to provoke a counter attack which would stir up more resentment). But Israel may be more willing to accept civilians casualties as a side effect than I am willing to accept. Morally, it's a quagmire.
I still apply terrorism only to those who try to gain power through terrorizing civilians. There are other words for other bad things which are not terrorism. I resist redefining it in order to inaccurately borrow the negative connotation.
passion your texts all makes much sense. here is the strongest counter argument against the focus on civilians. There are powerful groups... and less powerful groups. those with less power have no choice but to attack civilians if they hope to attack the opposition... this is not support for their terrorism. but powerful groups use that word to vilify the opposition while justifying their own actions. also not cool. I just don't like that word. The key is violence. beyond that it becomes quite political if it is more-bad or less-bad violence. just my thought....