Subject:
|
Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:52:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
567 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
>
> "Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message
> news:Hv3IF7.BuF@lugnet.com...
> > I agree with the second sentence, but regarding the first I checked a very old
> > dictionary I have and came up with a pretty short definition for terrorism: "act
> > to rule thru fear and violent action".
>
> Hmm, by that definition, almost all acts of war are acts of terrorism. It is
> not practical in a military action to eliminate all opposing forces by
> killing, so the goal is generally to break morale, which seems like "fear
> and violent action."
The nuance is that terrorism is performed by violence exclusively, but you can
break an enemy's morale using other tactics. Not to mention a great deal in
fighting a war has to do with destroying the opponents' ability to inflict
damage on your side, whilst terrorism does not oppose a tangible threat.
> Either that, or if the "to rule" part is really
> important, than I don't think many of what most of us seem to agree are acts
> of terrorism are (the folks who flew aircraft into buildings certainly
> weren't trying to "rule" anyone, though they certainly wanted to cause
> fear).
My understanding of the "to rule" part (which I translated from the portuguese
original) is that it extends to cover "to limit" or "to condition" behaviour.
The exercise of power does not necessarily mean one has to dictate others'
actions, rather that one has to *control* them - and that the 9-11 terrorists
have achieved, since their goal was obviously to cause a reaction thru shock,
fear, astonishment, outrage or whatever you wish to call it.
"Terrorism" as a policy is based on the premise that isolated acts of extreme
violence are enough to keep the victim under control thru fear; we've had an
average of 1 "big" attack per year since 9-11, which is hardly demonstrative of
sustained action capability, and yet the fear and the extreme insecurity have
remained: in a terrorist optic, minimum investment, maximum gain.
You can't be "winning a war" on terrorism; either terror exists, or it doesn't.
Terrorists have the advantage until they are no longer able to inflict damage
(and everyone becomes aware of it).
> This is my problem, I just don't see any reasonable definition of terrorism
> that includes flying aircraft into buildings and does not include most acts
> of war.
The act of flying aicraft into buildings is unreasonable, but don't mistake that
with the definition being unreasonable or insuficient to cover it. Did the
terrorists intend to cause fear? Instile terror? Spread panic?
Did they achieve it?
As much as you may dislike it, the answer is yes.
Has US policy (internal and external!) been shifted to reflect the impact of
9-11 in the collective psique?
Yes.
Has it diminished the threat of terrorist acts?
No. There was one again less than two weeks ago.
Regarding acts of war as acts of terrorism, I will admit this to be a lot more
blurry: bombing Dresden *may* have been terrorism, such as it *may* have been
bombing London before that. But blowing up a tank and its crew? Levelling a
bunker? Cluster-bombing an airfield? Those are acts that reduce the enemy's
fighting capabilities in a tangible way. You can claim the aim is to crush
morale, but you're being blind to the opposite effect, which is rage.
> Ultimately, it comes down to which side do you think has the moral
> high ground.
I was defining terrorism in abstract and provided examples. The moral high
ground is irrelevant for that.
"Moral justice" is nevertheless the argument either party in a conflict will
cling on to, since there are no universal laws to deal with violence. In the
Middle Ages, kings sought support from the pope to wage their "just" wars; now
leaders make eloquent speeches to the masses advocating their cause as "just".
Things haven't changed that much. Miserably.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| "Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message news:Hv3IF7.BuF@lugnet.com... (...) old (...) terrorism: "act (...) Hmm, by that definition, almost all acts of war are acts of terrorism. It is not practical in a military action to eliminate all (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
