Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
No, it is wrong to make a roadside bomb if you are not a member of an army or other military organization. It would be terrorism for the same roadside bomb builder to drop "huge bombs from the air" since they are officially noncombatants. Terrorist, by definition, are not declared and acknowledged member of any government or acting in accordance with any orders.
|
So self-declared national status, of the kind declared by the nacent United States in 1776, qualifies military actions of that group as legitimate non-terrorist action, yes? So by your definition Hizbullah can't take terrorist actions, since they self-identify as an army. Not the official state army of the Lebonese government, but a military group nonetheless. So, arguably, does Al Qaida.
And what about this so-called "state sponsored terrorism" that was our justification for taking out the governments of two weak little nations? Where does that fall under your definition?
Face it: there "is" no "is" about terrorism. You want to know what terrorism "is"? It's a pejorative term applied in the context of propaganda, a term that exists ONLY to sway public opinion. Your terrorist might be my freedom fighter (another propaganda term). I believe that any discussion of the "true" definition of terrorism misses the boat entirely. The thing missed is that our opinions and feelings are being manipulated for political purposes by the selective and judicious application of terms like "terrorism".