Ray Saintonge wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
by definition governments cannot commit terrorism.
We are far from unanimity about that element in the definition.
Granted this part of the definition is disputed (I would not characterize the dispute the way you do - IMO it is not as disputed as you let on), but the intent to cause terror in a civilian population is not. Nor is the fact that few people in the English-speaking world call the 9/11 attacks terrorist acts (what English speakers say is relevant to naming conventions).
Terrorism by government is no less atrocious. Destroying the homes of innocent Palestinians is done with the intent of terrorizing them even when the troops are careful to make sure that there is no-one in the house when it is blown-up.
This is a practice I find abhorrent but I would not call it terrorism (esp when it directed at people who somehow aided suicide bombers or were the family of the suicide bombers - terrorism is directed toward a much larger population which causes general fear for *everybody* in that population).
Of course, a country that depends on the application of massive force to achieve victory finds it difficult to comprehend why small groups of people would ever want to continue to use their meagre weapons to secure their freedom.. Perhaps the way to prevent them from engaging in terrorist acts would be to give them something to lose.
No argument from me here. The U.S. could save billions on military spending and terrorism security if they invested in ways to stomp-out the root causes of terrorism - poverty and its close cousin ignorance.
Ahh! then our common name naming convention depends on who is taking the "terrorist" action.
No - it depends on how English speakers use the English language.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)