All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Friday, June 04, 2004

The Definition of Terrorism

Andrew Sullivan (gay conservative)
Semantics: Don't Say "Terrorist"
Check out this strange story on Salon. It's a memoir of a young Palestinian terrorist by a young woman who knew him while he was being protected in the 1980s by Yugoslavia's Communist regime. The essay attempts to show how the young man came to recognize at one point the humanity of those Israeli civilians he was about to murder. But the euphemisms in the piece are priceless. Take this sentence:
The recent (and bumbling) Achille Lauro assault, during which young Palestinian commandos hijacked a Mediterranean cruiser and killed an elderly, wheelchair-bound American tourist, coupled with those ghastly shootouts at the Rome and Vienna airports, had made a mockery of the Titoist soft spot for resistance groups and rendered dinner chats with Western diplomats unbearably awkward...
The problem with the Achille Lauro hijacking was that it was "bumbling"? If only they'd killed more Jews more effectively! Notice also that it was somehow "during" the "assault" that a murder took place. Hmmm. Wouldn't it be more, er, accurate to say that the hijacking occurred in order to murder civilians? Notice also here the unequivocal use of the term "commando" for "terrorist." ...Elsewhere in the piece, the terrorists are called "operatives." Like Valerie Plame. The author knew that her friend was about to kill innocent civilians but glosses over this ugly fact by saying:
Looking back now on that snowy afternoon at Abu Moses' place, the last time I would see him, it took longer than one might expect for me to comprehend what the trip to Cyprus meant. Indeed, months of denial and doubt.
It appears those months of denial and doubt are now indeed years. And denial has morphed into excuse. And excuse into euphemism. Who is the author? We are told: "D.N. Rosina is the pseudonym of a Bay Area writer now reporting from the Middle East." So there's a reporter out there who thinks that terrorists are commandos. Who is she reporting for? Why has she decided to remain anonymous? And why have the editors of Salon decided to grant her that anonymity?
Here is a simple definition for terrorism.

A terrorist is anyone who intentionally kills, attempts to intentionally kill or knowingly helps others to intentionally kill an unarmed civilian, for any ideological reason.

The World Trade Center was clearly terrorism under everyone's definition (except the terrorists themselves).

The attack on the Pentagon was terrorism because they killed civilians (in the hijacked plane).

The more difficult definition revolves around attacks like that made against the USS Cole. The attack on the USS Cole was terrorism because it was carried out by terrorists. This requires some explanation.

A "freedom fighter" organization who spends most of their time and energy fighting a military occupation is not a terrorist, but is instead a "rebel", "guerilla", "insurgent", "resister"...whaterver. But when that same "freedom fighter" then goes around killing school teachers in order to force its will on the populace then they become terrorists.

Once you cross the line into terrorism you don't get to go back.

If that same organization then attacks the occupation military again, they are still terrorists - and any act of a terrorist is terrorism. This is why the attacks on the USS Cole is considered a terrorist attack.

Another example: a man who kills a child and then kills several adults is still a child killer.

The validity of the cause/ideology/theology is irrelevant. The reasons don't matter. Everyone's got a reason.

Posted by: Zayphar / 6/04/2004 12:11:00 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home