🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr17.064249.9382@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>   I'm not really sure what purpose a debate over whether a particular
>   event was terrorist serves; it's obvious that everybody feels their own
>   attacks *are* justified and that the other side's aren't.
>
>   Thus, to "Makowsky?", the King David is justified and therefore not
>   terrorist; to the British it WAS.  To George Bush, bombing dams in Iraq is 
>   justified and therefore not terrorist; to Iraqis it WAS.  To the IRA,
>   planting a bomb in London is good; to the British, shooting suspected IRA 
>   members in Gibraltar is good.  To the Palestinians, rock throwing is
>   justified; to Israelis, using force to stop them is.  To the Lebanese,
>   attacking Israeli soldiers in Lebanon is good; to Israel, bombing camps in 
>   Lebanon is justified.
>
>   Anyway, you all get the point.  I'm probably overstating my case, and
>   someone is going to be upset that I'm equating some of these actions.
>   But I'm not.  I'm pointing out that in the people's minds, they are
>   equal; either side feels it is justified in attempting to achieve its goals.
>
>   If we accept the goals, we ought to work towards them, whatever the
>   tactics of some of the parties, but we shouldn't accept the tactics.
>   Shouting terrorism is rarely a constructive approach, however.

Your argument assumes that terrorism is inherently unjustifiable.
That assumption is of course false.  I am quite sure that there are
people who consider themselves terrorists, and yet find their
activities justified.  You need to have a definition of terrorism that
doesn't contain the words "just" or "right".

I'm not sure that I can provide a perfect working definition of
terrorism, but here is my $0.02 worth.  Terrorism is essentially
politically leveraged violence.  It is violence that is wrought not
simply to destroy and render physically incapable of response, but
rather to shatter the political will of the enemy and thus render them
unwilling to respond.

Usually terrorism is restricted to parties not actively in a state of
war.  I am not sure that I would make that restriction.  It would
exclude the buzz bomb attacks on London from being considered
terrorist actions.

Usually terrorism is restricted to non-state organizations.  The
counterexamples are then termed state terrorism.

There, I think I have given a usable definition of terrorism that
avoids the concepts of right and wrong.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)