Poll: Can governments be guilty of "terrorism?"

[Chris Alger]

By this I don't mean support for terrorism, I mean actually committing it.

I define "terrorism" as deliberately targeting civilians or their property with lethal force for political purposes, specifically to terrify them so much they'll change their behavior and perhaps the policies or attitudes of their government.

The mass media and the US government tend to limit their discussion of "terrorism" to the non-state variety, so that governments with military forces cannot, by definition, be guilty of "terrorism." Title 22 of the U.S. Code, for example, defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Do people agree that this make sense? (This has nothing to do, BTW, with the Haifa bombing or Israel's retalliatory raids).

[MMMMMM]

I don't think bulldozing a home is necessarily identical to terrorism, at least not to nearly the extent that deliberately killing civilians would be. Also as I understand it it is an attempt to discourage terrorism and support for terrorism because the threat of death is obviously more an inducement than a deterrent to would-be suicide bombers. And if a family supports a would-be suicide bomber in his preparation and quest, they are at least partially guilty too.

Your definition needs to be less broad, or at least more discriminating, IMO.

I notice the definition you cited from the U.S. code specifies "noncombatant targets" but YOU in your poll specified that noncombatant targets means also non-living non-combatant targets although that is not put forth in Title 22 of the U.S. code as you cited it. In other words the section you cited does not appear to include homes, schools, etc. so I am presuming that is an Alger insertion and a sly attempt to place destruction of homes on full par with deliberate murder of civilians in this discussion of terrorism.

[Chris Alger]

Your understanding of why Israel usually destroys houses is mistaken. The more common reason are the absence of building permits that Israel won't let Palestinians have.

I don't think bulldozing homes amounts to "lethal force" unless the people doing it should think people are in the home. Israel's home destruction policy is pretty brutal but I wouldn't label it "terrorism" in most cases.

Civilian property would be a civilian "target" under the statute. I specified it just to make it clear, not because destroying property is no more worse than destroying people (it isn't).

[ACPlayer]

Your poll is clearly biased to produce a desired result.

Tsk, tsk.

[Gamblor]

There is more bias here than on the BBC.

My personal favourite is the moral equivalence:
"Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian today" ignoring the fact that the Palestinian was a terrorist, as well as the shooting occuring in cold blood rather than the usual collateral damage experienced when terrorists are operating out of civilian homes. I don't remember anything about the "terrorist" Israeli army building bases in the middle of Tel Aviv to hide their operations.

On the other hand, it seems that some Israelis "were killed today in a market".

By whom, may I ask? Did it say that the Palestinian planned out this act for a week, packed his explosives with nails and shards of metal so that those not incinerated by the blast would simply be punctured throughout their internal organs, dressed as a religious Jew, boarded a bus at rush hour to catch as many Jews as possible, then prayed to Allah that his bomb goes off properly? Perhaps they simply forgot.

Look out for this sort of thing. This kind of journalism, rampant in CNN, BBC, and pretty much every UK newspaper, is what influences people people to leap to their conclusions - because they don't watch. They read a book and assume what they already believe to be true is true.

Assuming Chris is a lawyer as he has led us to believe (I think) he should be (if he is a GOOD lawyer) well versed in reading critically, as well as manipulating questions, polls, etc to produce a desired answer.

[ACPlayer]

[Phat Mack]

I've always thought of terrorism as an act designed to produce a reaction, as opposed to an act designed to produce an immediate military objective.

Any organization, governmental or not, can engage in terrorism. In one of his books, GTOT?, Mason talks of Churchill's decision to bomb civilian targets in Germany. This was done, according to Mason, to provoke the Germans to retaliate against civilian targets in Britain (reaction), thereby diverting them from bombing military targets. If this was indeed what happened, it would be a classic case of "terrorism".

[Chris Alger]

"Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian today" ignoring the fact that the Palestinian was a terrorist....

No such "news" report exists. Again, your examples of supposed US media bias against Israel are all fabricated.

[Chris Alger]

Why shouldn't that be called terrorism, or something worse? If a bunch of anti-Nazi Britons, acting on their own, had travelled to Germany and done the same, wouldn't that be terrorism? Why should Churchill avoid the moniker just because he uses planes?

[Gamblor]

CBS Feb 12

"Israeli soldiers shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian boy during a raid on Tuesday"

"In Gaza, soldiers shot and killed a Hamas militant carrying a Kalashnikov rifle near the Kissufim crossing into Israel late Monday, the military said"

"Militant"? Don't you mean terrorist?

5 seconds that took me.

On the other hand, the AP reports on Oct 7, that

"An Israeli soldier was killed in an exchange of fire on the border with Lebanon on Monday..."