>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
Hello Rick,
I really like the defining of terrorism, and I think what you wrote is a step
in the right direction. I do think it is a lot easier for a country with
high-tech weaponry to do follow this. I think that perhaps from another
country why we look as terrorists is that by using our advanced weaponry we
show the message the loss of our lives and destruction of our country are not
as important as the loss of your lives or your country.
Arianna:
But let us not forget how many innocent civilians we killed when we bombed
Yugoslavia to rubble, because we did not want to have a single American
soldier die.
And now we have over 5,000 innocent civilians die because we were cowardly
when it came to our military personnel.
And that goes across the board to Iraq, many parts of the country where we
bombed innocent civilians.
Alan: I don't think we should get in to the blaming mode, as you've suggested.
But it seems to me that blaming is somewhat different from understanding why
people hold the animosities they hold.
And I think it behooves us, as Americans, to ask ourselves some foundational
questions as to what prompted these folks to do what they did.
>>
>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
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