And I would point to the targeting of US soldiers in the Marine barracks in beirut (I know you mentioned this one as propaganda, but many would still insist it’s terrorism), and the attack on the USS Cole. Both have been labeled terrorist attacks, but they were on millitary targets.
Even closer to the line, and probably highly debatable, is where the Pentagon attack lands in all this. A millitary target, attacked by a hijacked civilian airliner. Terrorism or no? It could be argued either way. It could be said that it was not only specifically targeting the civilian airliner, but by being tied in with the attacks on the WTC towers, it was much more aimed at civilians than the millitary, and therefor terrorism. It could also be argued that the airliner was simply a means to an end and merely “collateral damage” much the same as the civilian deaths in Afghanistan are. But to try and blur the line further, what if the attack on the Pentagon had been the only attack? Terrorism or not? (If it matters, personally, I would say it was)
Actually, furt, I agree entirely with you. It’s just that the line between the two seems to be very indistinct at times.
No, JubilationTCornpone, I wasn’t suggesting that a mosquito’s life is equivalent to a human’s. What I was suggesting was that Colinito67’s theory:
takes the concept of self-defense to an illogical end. It is my government’s duty to protect its civilians against this sort of thing, and not by saying, “Well, three thousand-plus people dead isn’t going to disable the government, so we’ll just step up our security and not attempt to find the responsible parties and bring them to justice.”
** Yes, it was**. For gods’ sake, I was an avid Gore supporter, and I think the Supreme Court’s decision was one of the dumbest I’ve ever read (and I’ve read a lot of them), but the election and the resolution of the election dispute were made in complete accord with democratic principles - the rule of law and the legally and democratically established judicial process for resolution of disputes. The fact that that system (probably) came to the wrong result does not implicate the system itself.
The fact that Bush is a minority President is irrelevant. Do you think Tony Blair is the legitimate Prime Minister of Britain? What about Bill Clinton? The majority of voters voted against both.
But enough about the election. As for the OP, first, I have to disagree with the theory “if governments do it, it’s not terrorism.” This places such actions as the Lockerbie bombing outside the ambit of terrorism, and I don’t think many would agree with that.
My roommates and I were talking about this issue last night, and I believe that there is no true way to separate out government actions that kill civilians from non-governmental ones. Further, I don’t think that there can be a universal definition - no action is going to be looked at as “terrorism” or “not terrorism” by all parties. If Joe Sudani’s sister is killed during a “legitimate” military operation (however you define it) fully in accord with the rules of war, he is not going to think “well, she’s dead, but she was killed legally. That’s OK then.”
I think the definition is simpler - if your side does it, it ain’t terrorism. If the other side does, it is.
Sounds almost stupid, but the whole point of citizenship, nationality, etc. is collective defense of the members’ lives and values. If another person or group harms my group’s lives or values, they are the ones in the wrong, and vice versa. This is a universal precept, not U.S.-centric.
Where your side’s actions may slide into terrorism is where the action causes harm to your side’s lives or values. And those values, of course, are those espoused by the society.
The problem we’re having is that the US government has been unclear in defining what they think terrorism is, and, like everyone else, has used that ambiguity for PR purposes. Part of it also is that Pentagon types reflexively call asymmetrical warfare “terrorism.” Many of them are still in the mindset that “war” is only something nation-states do, with uniforms and orders of battle, etc.
The Pentagon case is closer to the line, but I have to believe there would be other ways of attacking the Penatgon. Suicide truck bomb; learjet kamikazi; put a big bomb on the subway that runs underneath the Pentagon; or just hijack a jet, dump the passengers, and do what they did. Of course none of those options has the same combination of success probability and destructive potential as what they did, except possibly the learjet if it was packed with explosives; and that would be quite expensive. So maybe they could make a case.
But of course, they don’t see a distinction between legitmate and illegitmate acts of violence. To them “terrorism” is a meaningless word; enemies are defined by their national, ethnic or religious identity, and all members of that group are fair game.