According to Merrian-Webster the definition is
Since, as far as I can tell, this was not systematic, but rather a one time occurrence, then it is not a terrorist attack.
But regardless of dictionary definitions, if we’re gonna call the bombing of civilians during war “terrorism”, then I don’t see what the outrage about Guernica is, take Dresden, take London, take Hiroshima, and on and on, each one was more horrific and deadly than Guernica.
A couple of points, first Franco’s forces were not yet a government when the attack on Guernica took place. There was a ongoing civil war in Spain, Franco, who had been a officer in the Spanish army, led a revolt against the leftist Republican government. So, in that sense the attack on Guernica was not “approved by a government”.
And second, the point that I and others have made is that military bombings against civilian targets can be called a number of things, but calling them “terrorism” flies in the face of the definition, and the general understading of that term.
Finally, I think others have done an outstanding job of pointing out the difference between the deliberate attack on civilians at Guernica, and the incidental civilian casualties that are the result of any war.
The Guernica by Picasso is in the UN? I thought it was in the Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid and several web pages I have found seem to agree. http://www.wesleyan.edu/romance/intl_studies/madrid_5.htm Is it a copy in the UN?
I suppose it depends on which side of the bomb you’re on.
But let’s get away from definitions of terrorism. This is a nitpick that does not answer the issue I thought I had (had intended to bring) up. The question in my mind that was raised by the broadcast was this: Is it right to pre-emptively strike Iraq because Saddam Hussein might do something or might have the ability to do something? Or by conducting a first-strike, are we making a bad situation worse?
Perhaps I framed the question badly. I was hurrying, as I had to get out the door to go to work. When I responded I was taking a minute’s break from a rather frustrating task. The issue I wished to bring up, as I said, is whether it is right to conduct a first-strike.
sailor: It is undoubtedly a copy. I haven’t seen it.
Guernica = surprise attack
Iraq = has been on notice for months of impending US attack
foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…
The notion that governments cannot commit acts of terrorism surprises me and would, I think, surprise Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell, all of whom use the term “terrorist state” with reference variously to Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Libya and Sudan.
Of course states and governments can commit or sponsor acts of terrorism. And an act is not terrorist or not depending on whether the individual who pulls the trigger or drops the bomb holds a formal military appointment.
The UN has a mural copy of the work.