[WikiEN-l] Sep 11
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 16 10:14:47 UTC 2004
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)
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list