[WikiEN-l] Re: terrorism

[Sheldon Rampton]

Zero wrote:

>Another problem with the word "terrorism" is that the number
>of cases that are really clear-cut and unarguable is not so
>great. The extreme cases that most people here are giving as
>examples are not really representative.

This is also true, though, regarding many useful and important words 
-- in fact, most words. Language is a very complex and subtle thing. 
Take for example the word "democracy." There is a simple definition 
for it: a system of government in which the people rule (as opposed 
to dictatorship, monarchy or anarchism, which is a social system 
marked by the absence of government). In practice, though, there have 
been endless debates over whether a given society is truly a 
democracy. In all existing democracies, some people have more 
influence than others. Does this mean that "the people" aren't really 
ruling? How oligarchic does a country have to get before it no longer 
qualifies to be a democracy? No one can answer that question to 
everyone else's satisfaction. But does this mean that term democracy 
has no meaning or value? I think it has a great deal of meaning and 
value, notwithstanding the impossibility of finding examples of its 
perfect implementation.

The same thing can be said even about very precisely defined 
mathematical terms, such as "zero," "infinity," or "line," none of 
which can be found in nature but are nevertheless indispensable. 
There are no perfectly straight lines in nature, but the CONCEPT of a 
straight line enables people to achieve some very close 
approximations which are very useful to architects and engineers.

Getting back to the word "terrorism," personally I favor a fairly 
strict definition of the term. All acts of war and violence instill 
fear, but I think terrorism should be defined to mean specifically 
that ASPECT of warfare in which instilling fear is the primary goal 
of the warrior. This is how most military strategists use the term. 
The anthrax mailings in the United States, for example, only killed a 
few people, but they did billions of dollars worth of economic damage 
by spreading fear and compelling the U.S. to devote extensive 
resources to protecting against similar attacks in the future.

Following this definition, the 9/11 attacks would be classified as an 
act of terrorism, but the bombing of Hiroshima or the firebombing of 
Dresden or the U.S. invasion of Iraq would not, nor would the Nazi 
holocaust against the Jews. All of those actions were considerably 
more lethal than any terrorist act to date, but instilling fear was 
not their PRIMARY purpose.

Of course, some people here are bound to disagree. Suit yourselves.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------