I expanded on this page somewhat, rather than writing a separate 'Terrorism' article. I can move this over to Terrorism if it'd be more appropriate. -- BillGarrett
I see room for both, acknowledging distinction between the acts and the perpetrators. It seems that there can be instances where individuals or groups will be labelled terrorists, but without an associated act of terrorism; at least in the current vernacular of U.S. political scene. -- Maynard
- Clearly. The FBI for instance uses a different definition than other agencies. Also, the label "terrorist" is being voluntarily adopted by some comedians and film-makers in Britain and Canada, like that "comedy terrorist" who got close to the Royal Family recently.
There is also the perspective that "terrorism" describes a psychological condition, that is, the perception that an act has a malevolent cause, is likely to be repeated by others (and so remains a threat), and that one can "strike back" against it. In this view, it is Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Blair, Sharon, Netanyahu, etc., who are afflicted with terrorism, as, they believe they can find and wipe out the so-called "root" of their own fear - and convince voters they have done so, and that every one is now "safe" as a result. That is, a bunch of people who fear something, identify the cause outside their own conciousness, and attack it, and then at some arbitrary point declare themselves "safe".
Presumably, terror of these people who attack in great force, sometimes without much provocation from their actual victims, from the sky and sea at some point is supposed to terrorize those who might otherwise launch or assist these "acts of terror". This concept of safety seems itself to be derived from terror - like Peace Through Strength, Mutually Assured Destruction, etc.
As those previous doctrines have led among other things to a 34,000-nuclear-weapon disposal problem, this of course is a highly suspect theory of "safety". In Israel/Palestine such attacks have no reduced the prevalence of attacks. It may just as easily be, their actions against those who are not those who actually carried out the attacks, simply create more who are willing to "strike back" against them. The use of the term "back" in Israel, "retaliatory attack" for propaganda purposes, as with Afghanistan, and "pre-emptive attack" as in Iraq or as planned for Iran, is very closely related.
Admittedly, this is probably mostly a Buddhist or perhaps an anarchist view now. But it's spreading. In that view there can be no such thing as a "terrorist", and, it is the person who assigns a cause to an event, with the intent to justify an attack on related people, who has "terrorism" as a syndrome.
I deleted the sub heads - question marks in headlines of any sort is weak unless it adds to the story. The heads were on topic, but they tended to insinuate the copy represented a summary of "Western views" and "Islamic views", which it does not. At best, we have so far presented a few prevailing views and hit some theoretical high-points but I wouldn't consider it fair to represent two or three paragraphs as "Western Views". The ideal of a concencus is interesting, but it is mostly a vehicle for introducing a range of concepts. For that reason, it doesn't hold up well in as a sub-head, in my opinion. -prpgtr
- question marks in headlines of any sort is weak? why so? it's is a highlight of the unstability of them ...
- unless it adds to the story? it does [ala. adds the highlight]
- insinuate the copy represented a summary? this article isn't trying to summarize the topic?
- [ snip prevailing views / high-points]
- [un]fair to represent two or three paragraphs as "Western Views"? the head would be nice for a pointer for futher development [ala. signpost to put more content there ...]
- doesn't hold up well in as a sub-head? YMMV on that ...
- I do agree that the ideal of a concensus is mostly a vehicle for introducing a range of concepts (because total concensus probably is unattainable) ...
- Sincerely, Reddi