|
I'm going to stick by my definition. I think that the French Terror and the Soviet Purges are fantastic examples of state repression and totalitarianism, but the simple fact that the term "terror" factors into their descriptions does not terrorism make. By this logic, both Robespierre and Stalin would have been terrorists during these periods (I'm limiting it to these periods because Stalin was demonstrably a terrorist from c. 1896-1917 by any definition we've tossed out there including my own). That means, for instance, that Stalin was an active terrorist during WWII when he ordered the arrest, torture and execution of army officers who had escaped German prison camps.
I think that my definition most certainly fits the moral definition of the term, ratbastid's wholesale rejection of all terms notwithstanding. I think that there is a very definitive line between possible war crimes committed by an army and terrorist attacks, although the target and results may be exactly the same. I will even go so far as to extend the umbrella exemption from terrorist acts to well organized armies fighting in revolutions (those in the Congo immediately spring to mind). Those leading those armies (and the units within those armies) may be guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they inherently cannot be guilty of terrorism. The reason for that is the hierarchical structure necessary for any government or army to function, and that is the reason that neither the French nor Soviets could have been terrorists - you would brand thousands of 18th Century Frenchmen and (literally) millions of 20th Century Soviets as terrorists, and I just can't accept that label, espeically as a Russian historian (amature that I may be). The hierarchical command structure lends itself to at least the illusion of the consideration of justice and morality of actions and attacks, and while they may be judged later to be crimes, they are just that - crimes, not terrorism. The use of excessive force to coerce a civilian population can be many things (consolidation of power, distraction from other issues, etc.) but the use of force on civilians by the military is by all definitions a military action.
If I accept your expanded definition, then we have to start considering whether or not the Allied bombing of Germany during WWII was a terrorist action along with the Soviet attack on Berlin or the Cambodian bombings of Vietnam or any military attack where civilians are injured, killed or even displaced. I will argue vehemently against any such expanded definition.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|