brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/26/86)
Recently there have been lots of uses of the word 'terrorism.'
What exactly do we mean when we say that word? It's too new for a
dictionary to be definative, but it is certain that lots of people
are using it to mean, "a violent act I didn't like or by somebody
I don't like," and this is pointless. It's just name calling.
Here are some possible definitions for terrorism, all of which I
have seen used at one time or another.
1) Any attack directed explicitly against civilians or other innocents
for the purpose of evoking fear amongst a general group of such
non-combatants
2) Any attack that deliberately uses civilian victims to obtain military
objectives
3)a) Any attack that harms innocent bytstanders through negligence.
b) Any attack carried out with total disregard for civilian casualties
4) Any military or para-military threat or attack that violates the
rules of "civilized" war.
5) Any attack by a private military force, or by a national military
force without a declaration of war.
6) Any attack which harms civilians at all.
---------
Now to my mind, #1 and #2 are the primary definitions that were
originally meant for the word. The strike on Libya is allegedly guilty of
#3a, and certainly guilty of #5 and #6.
The essential elements of terrorism are:
a) Deliberate attacks with intent to harm civilians
b) To gain advantages by invoking terror in civilians.
with, to a lesser extent:
c) Unconventional forms of attack, such as geurilla warfare
or suicide squads.
So, to those who have called the attack on Libya 'Terrorist', what
defintion of the word do you use to make your claim? To make such
a claim, I believe it is necessary to claim that Mr. Reagan gave orders
to *deliberately* target civilians.
I don't think it can be considered terrorism to attack military targets
because it is their job to be subject to attack. You can't strike terror
into their hearts in the same way that this is done to civilians.
--
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473dml@bu-cs.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) (04/29/86)
In article <529@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: | Recently there have been lots of uses of the word 'terrorism.' | | What exactly do we mean when we say that word? It's too new for a | dictionary to be definative, but it is certain that lots of people | are using it to mean, "a violent act I didn't like or by somebody | I don't like," and this is pointless. It's just name calling. | | Here are some possible definitions for terrorism, all of which I | have seen used at one time or another. | | 1) Any attack directed explicitly against civilians or other innocents | for the purpose of evoking fear amongst a general group of such | non-combatants | | 2) Any attack that deliberately uses civilian victims to obtain military | objectives | | 3)a) Any attack that harms innocent bytstanders through negligence. | | b) Any attack carried out with total disregard for civilian casualties | | 4) Any military or para-military threat or attack that violates the | rules of "civilized" war. | | 5) Any attack by a private military force, or by a national military | force without a declaration of war. | | 6) Any attack which harms civilians at all. | | --------- | | Now to my mind, #1 and #2 are the primary definitions that were | originally meant for the word. The strike on Libya is allegedly guilty of | #3a, and certainly guilty of #5 and #6. | | The essential elements of terrorism are: | a) Deliberate attacks with intent to harm civilians | b) To gain advantages by invoking terror in civilians. | with, to a lesser extent: | c) Unconventional forms of attack, such as geurilla warfare | or suicide squads. | | So, to those who have called the attack on Libya 'Terrorist', what | defintion of the word do you use to make your claim? To make such | a claim, I believe it is necessary to claim that Mr. Reagan gave orders | to *deliberately* target civilians. | | I don't think it can be considered terrorism to attack military targets | because it is their job to be subject to attack. You can't strike terror | into their hearts in the same way that this is done to civilians. | | -- | Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Well, this is the definition that dear old Webster has... ter.ror.ism \'ter-*r-.iz-*m\ n : the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion -- ter.ror.ist \-*r-*st\ adj or n -- ter.ror.is.tic \.ter-*r-'is-tik\ adj Cross references: 1 fear _ ter.ror \'ter-*r\ n [ME, fr. MF terreur, fr. L terror, fr. terrere to frighten; akin to Gk trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE] 1 a : a state of intense fear b : TERRIBLENESS 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; esp : BRAT 3 : REIGN OF TERROR -- SYN see FEAR I do not think that the US air raid on Libya can be considered a terrorist act. It was a one time action, not a ``systematic'' action. Also, it's purpose was not to cause terror, the intention was to disable (at least temporarily) Libyan military/terrorist facilities as well as to make a point that the US is not kidding. Hopefully, although not likely, Khaddafi took note. -- David Matthew Lyle dml@bu-cs.CSNET (dml@bucsa.bu.edu) Boston University dml@buenga.BITNET Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (05/04/86)
In article <507@bu-cs.UUCP> dml@bucsd.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) writes: >In article <529@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >| Recently there have been lots of uses of the word 'terrorism.' >| >| What exactly do we mean when we say that word? It's too new for a >| dictionary to be definative, but it is certain that lots of people >| are using it to mean, "a violent act I didn't like or by somebody >| I don't like," and this is pointless. It's just name calling. How about: An attack without a declaration of war which is deliberately designed to cause "terror" in an attempt to cause the opposition to either "do something" or cease "doing something". With such a definition you can (at least try) to eliminate political bias. Also with this definition, you'll notice that "terrorism" isn't automatically "bad" (there may be very good reasons for it), while leaving the word "terrorism" to denote the purpose and part of the method. I'm tempted to leave out the "without a declaration of war" for three reasons: 1) When the perpetrator's aren't a "state". 2) It's hard to tell when everybody is screaming about "holy wars" 3) I think I want to include some acts of war as "terrorism" (eg: Dresden, Coventry, London, Hiroshima) The major distinction, in my mind, between terrorism and more "ordinary" acts of war is whether the objective is the physical result of the attack itself (and related "tactical" objectives), or primarily an attempt to sway opinion one way or another. I rather tend to think that it is irrelevant whether it's civilians, military personnel or politicians that get killed. All three groups are human (tho, perhaps less so in the latter case :-) Guess it depends on whom "terror" would have the best results. It seems quite reasonable to assume that terrorists aim at the targets most likely to yield results. So, if it's a "democratic" country, nail civilians because they do the most screaming. If it's a dictatorship, they could care less about their own civilians - military and political targets make more sense. >I do not think that the US air raid on Libya can be considered a terrorist >act. It was a one time action, not a ``systematic'' action. Also, it's >purpose was not to cause terror, the intention was to disable (at least >temporarily) Libyan military/terrorist facilities as well as to make a >point that the US is not kidding. Hopefully, although not likely, Khaddafi >took note. - what the heck does "one time action" have to do with it? "Air India" was a "one time action"! - "one time action"? In addition to the bombings, the US has provoked Libya twice with the Gulf of Sidra. Maybe the US was "right" according to international law, but it *still* was provocation. Plus all of Reagan's brilliant commentary ("Mad Man of the Middle East") doesn't lead one to believe that the political situation is amenable to any sort of reasonable negotiation. - I assure you that Khaddaffi *did* take note of the precise surgical strikes at military/terrorist facilities like: - his family - the French Embassy - various and sundry civilian homes (that's supposed to be sarcastic) - I'm perfectly willing to accept the assertion that the US was really aiming at military/terrorist facilities. So what? The US is *still* responsible for the deaths of those civilians. ("But officer, I didn't mean to shoot the sherrif - I was varmint hunting - you can't blame me for bad aim!") - "Webster's Dictionary" for the definition of "terror"? Hardly definitive - it doesn't even have the correct spelling for "colour" or "centre"! :-) Next time you quote a dictionary definition, I suggest you include the OED too! I greatly fear the US has made the problem worse by turning Khaddaffi into a martyr without the inconvenience of having to die first. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321