Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:08:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
494 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > > I think the bigger question is what is YOURS?
> > >
> > > I believe most people in here can see the difference between the WTC attack • and a
> > > nation trying to end a protracted war (with an enemy that had proved time • and time
> > > again that it would suicide, use geurilla tactics, and dig in until wiped • out at
> > > enormous cost of lives on both sides) as quickly as possible while • minimizing the
> > > lives lost.
> >
> > You're probably right, Tom, and I can see the difference, too. I simply
> > asked what your definition of terrorism is?
>
> That's a good question. I don't know if I'd pin it down to a hard definition • applied
> universally. It almost needs a case-by-case analysis.
>
> But I certainly don't see Hiroshima/Nagasaki as acts of terrorism, and DO see • WTC as
> acts of terrorism.
Thanks, Tom.
I agree that there's no single "catch-all" definition of terrorism. There's a
bit of a discussion about it here
http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/bpart1.html.
A quote from there: "The essence of terrorism is the intent to induce fear in
someone other than its victims to make a government or other audience change
its political behavior."
Most attempts at definition seem to include similar statements, along with
something about "use of violence".
The Sep 11 attacks are, I think, considered by most (including me) to be acts
of terrorism.
With regard to the Aug '45 attacks, they were violent attacks on
(predominantly) civilian cities, with little or no warning, in order to coerce
the Japanese to surrender (and probably to strike fear into their allies as
well).
While it may not have been an attempt to change political behaviour, it was
certainly an attempt to change policy, and a vast number of it's victims were
not directly involved in deciding that policy.
I consider that terrorism.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) Hmm, I'm not sure this is a workable definition. I think this is the general purpose of most military action (just about no military action expects to eliminate much more than a fraction of the enemy forces, what it seeks to do is eliminate (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) That's a good question. I don't know if I'd pin it down to a hard definition applied universally. It almost needs a case-by-case analysis. But I certainly don't see Hiroshima/Nagasaki as acts of terrorism, and DO see WTC as acts of terrorism. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
