I'm probably the only one who didn't participate in this discussion -
until now! :-)
This might be a little naive of me, but isn't terrorism defined by the
very word it is based on - terror? Because that's what a terrorist does.
He doesn't destroy an important military target or kill an important
person - that's what military and assassins are for. A terrorist's goal
is, in the end, to create _terror_. Fear that *you* or your loved ones
could be next. Uncertainty. Trust in the state's ability to protect you
melting like butter in the fusion reactor.
And that's what 9-11 was about. Bin Laden (or whoever) didn't gain
anything directly through the death of the people in the WTC or the
Pentagon. The only "gain" of these peaople comes from the fear, from the
*terror* their actions produce. That's why they are called terrorists,
and their actions are terrorism.
And it worked. Terror they got. The patriot act alone speaks volumes.
Magnus
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
John asked, somewhat plaintively, "Does terrorism
only occur if it's NOT
directed against Americans or Israelis?"
This is a good question, and we should develop an article to answer this
question. As a start, let's consider what the definition of terrorism
is, or list multiple definition.
"Violence directed against civilians"
Ah, but what about the bombings of Coventry or Dresden?
"Not an act of a state"
Ah, but what about state-supported terrorism?
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Hmm. Maybe the issue is "injustice".
That is, X will label a given act of violence against civilians
"terrorist" if he considers it unjust. Like, how dare those bastards
bulldoze this Arab man's house?
Meanwhile, Y might say that the same act is not terrorist, because he
does NOT consider it unjust. Like, we were destroying tunnels used to
smuggle weapons, etc.
Same logic applies to blowing up a bus or pizzeria. My side calls it an
act of war, a blow against oppression (i.e., justifiable). Your side
calls it cowardly, unjust, etc.
It all boils down to the point of view of the person classifying the
act. So let's identify the POV and its advocate. *yawn* case closed. Not
too hard, eh?
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: John C. Penta [mailto:pentaj2@UofS.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:07 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Date: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:13 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11
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).
OK, this makes me sick.
If 9/11 wasn't terrorism, WHAT IS? Does terrorism only occur if it's NOT
directed against Americans or Israelis?
What the hell is wrong with you people?
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).
<growls> Must we bring the Palestinians into EVERYTHING?
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.
Somehow I doubt a middle-class twenty-something, or a middle-class
mom-turned-suicide-bomber, is really hit by poverty or ignorance.
Try another one.
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.
Precisely.
Now, pardon me while I vomit at this unique expression of human
foolishness.
John
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l