cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/04/85)
The recent discussion of the hostage crisis has led to a lot of use of the
words "terrorist" and "terrorism". Some of the use has been real careless
and sloppy.
terrorism: the systematic use of terror esp. as a mean of coercion
terror: 1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear
b : a frightening aspect
c : a cause of anxiety
d : an appalling person or thing
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bomb-throwing) committed by groups in order to
intimidate a population or government into granting their
demands
(Above definitions from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 7th ed.)
Clearly "terrorist", by dictionary definitions 1 through 2c of "terror",
includes all revolutionaries, the Soviet Union, the IRS, and the
policeman who pulls you over for a speeding ticket.
I think what most people intend when they use the word "terrorist", is
a little more narrow --- probably what they mean is what *I* mean when
I use that word. Until I opened the dictionary, the word "terrorist" meant
to me:
Someone who endangers, threatens, or causes serious injury or death
to non-combatant person A, in order to intimidate person B into taking
or not taking some action.
By this definition, the gunmen who hijacked TWA 847 were terrorists.
The secret police of any country where non-combatants are killed or
tortured are terrorists. The gunmen who shot up the cafe in San Salvador
recently are terrorists (because of the Wang employees who were murdered ---
the embassy guards are not quite so simple of a definition). The bank
robber who takes customers or employees of the bank hostage is a terrorist.
Bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism (not to mention politically
counterproductive). The IRS methods of collecting debts are terrorism
because jeopardy assessments are used as ways of forcing people to
agree to debts that they do not owe, by threatening the individual's
economic destruction.
Note what is *not* included in this definition of "terrorist". A secret
police force that tortures or kills a violent revolutionary while getting
information is *not* a terrorist. They are immoral, but they are not
a terrorist. When the Soviets (or even our side) assassinate a head of
state, that is not terrorism (depending on circumstances, assassinating
a governmental official may be morally imperative). Bombing a building
filled with Marines while hostilities are in progress is not terrorism
(though you might argue about the definition of hostilities in the Lebanon
environment).
Gray areas: Fighting a civil war in which civilians are accidentally
killed is not terrorism, but purposeful killing of them is. (Not that
an action may be taken by an individual and be terrorist, but if his
actions are specifically not sanctioned by the group, it does not
necessarily follow that the group is terrorist.)[Nicaraguan rebels]
Withholding food ration cards from people when it is possible to obtain
food by other methods is not terrorism [Sandinistas], although it is
pretty disgusting. Withholding food ration cards from people when it
is impossible or nearly so is terrorism [Iran vs. Bahais], because it
is threatening a person with starvation.
Well! I'm sure this will cause great excitement for months to come
in this newsgroup. Have fun!