Hey Erin,
ERIN
> But DMB nor I was trying to glorify terrorism. We all know religous
fanaticism
> is not something to admire. But his point is still valid that to their
> country they are not terrorists, they are the heros and we appear as the
> terrorists.
RICK
I made a similar point to DMB's in the post I sent in on September 12th,
"They say we are the terrorists, we say they are." However, this outlook
can't get us off of the intellectual treadmill of cultural relativism and
provides very little in the way of practical understanding. We are still
left to wonder... Are both sides right? Are we all terrorists? Or is only
one side right (and is it us or them)? Or is neither side right? Is there
really such a thing as a 'terrorist' at all? Or is it just an epithet one
hurls at an enemy regardless of any other factors? Perhaps a more valuable
way of thinking about it is called for. I offer the following suggestion I
found on the net...
Definition of "Terrorism": Let's Have Some Clarity
October 5, 2001
"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" as
the use of violence where one would reasonably expect harm to 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.
a step in the right direction?
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:58 BST