[WikiEN-l] Sep 11

Fri Jan 16 10:14:47 UTC 2004

Ray Saintonge wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>> by definition governments cannot commit terrorism. 
>
>We are far from unanimity about that element in the definition.

Granted this part of the definition is disputed (I would not characterize the 
dispute the way you do - IMO it is not as disputed as you let on), but the 
intent to cause terror in a civilian population is not. Nor is the fact that 
few people in the English-speaking world call the 9/11 attacks terrorist acts 
(what English speakers say is relevant to naming conventions). 

>Terrorism by government is no less atrocious.  Destroying the  
>homes of innocent Palestinians is done with the intent of 
>terrorizing them even when the troops are careful to make 
>sure that there is no-one in the house when it is blown-up.

This is a practice I find abhorrent but I would not call it terrorism (esp 
when it directed at people who somehow aided suicide bombers or were the 
family of the suicide bombers - terrorism is directed toward a much larger 
population which causes general fear for *everybody* in that population).

>Of course, a country that depends on the application of massive 
>force to achieve victory finds it difficult to comprehend why small 
>groups of people would ever want to continue to use their meagre 
>weapons to secure their freedom..  Perhaps the way to prevent 
>them from engaging in terrorist acts would be to give them 
>something to lose. 

No argument from me here. The U.S. could save billions on military spending 
and terrorism security if they invested in ways to stomp-out the root causes 
of terrorism - poverty and its close cousin ignorance. 

>Ahh! then our common name naming convention depends on who 
>is taking the "terrorist" action.  

No - it depends on how English speakers use the English language. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)