Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hiredgun
I think the problem with the strictness of your definition, The_Jazz, is that it doesn't reflect the moral message carried by the word as it is commonly used. The limitation of this definition is an inherent bias in favor of governments, who apparently are above terrorism.
Terrorist activity can be carried out by any individual or group, even if they are part of a government hierarchy. The French Terror of the late 18th century and Stalin's Great Purge of the 1930's are examples.
Don't you think that the use of excessive force used to coerce a civilian population (with, as you said, "zero regard for life") ought to be seen as terrorism?
To clarify, I'm not at the moment talking about Israel and Lebanon; the question is a general one.
|
I think the definition developed to exclude actions of the state due to the acceptance of inprecise bombardment of strategic areas such as cities before and during the second world war. Such actions were essentially targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. As the deliberate destruction of such targets increasingly became to be seen as an illegitimate tactic, it has become customary to call such an action state sponsered terrorism or perhaps more accuratley as state perpetrated terrorism.
Though it is often the case that non-state actors acknowledge their attacks to be deliberatley targeting the civilian population, it is unheard of that a state would publicly declare to be engaging in terrorist activity. The result is that even if such an act did occur, it would be less likely to be widely regarded as a terrorist action (due to denial and cover up).