Here's a word that gets used a lot

[nicky g]

"Possibly, although stretching the definition to its utmost extent will result in a diluted term with no real meaning."

How is it stretching the defintion?

"The bombing of Hiroshima was set in a different scenario in which each of the players in that war used bombing of cities as part of their strategy, and thus bombing of cities was recognized by each one of the countries -- including Japan -- as a legitimate military option. "

So? Where in your definition does it say it's not terrorism if both sides agree to it?

[ QUOTE ]
"Possibly, although stretching the definition to its utmost extent will result in a diluted term with no real meaning."

How is it stretching the defintion?

"The bombing of Hiroshima was set in a different scenario in which each of the players in that war used bombing of cities as part of their strategy, and thus bombing of cities was recognized by each one of the countries -- including Japan -- as a legitimate military option. "

So? Where in your definition does it say it's not terrorism if both sides agree to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. I agreed that a case can be made for the label "terrorism" there, but you better be consistent and call every country that bombed a city during war a terrorist state. Terrorism is certainly somewhat subjective "in the eyes of the beholder" so to speak. The point about both sides is just that I don't think it helps understanding the term if past global conflicts in which populations used any and all means available to achieve victory in a global war over 6 continents which left 25+ million dead are used as examples. Of course, the term itself evokes such "they're wrong, we're right" reactions that it already has become useless to some extent and is not a very productive in the debate, either.

[nicky g]

"The point about both sides is just that I don't think it helps understanding the term if past global conflicts in which populations used any and all means available to achieve victory in a global war over 6 continents which left 25+ million dead are used as examples."

OK, but would it not then be better to narrow the defintion? Eg non-state/military, peacetime, or something along those lines?

"f course, the term itself evokes such "they're wrong, we're right" reactions that it already has become useless to some extent and is not a very productive in the debate, either."

Agreed.

[Jdanz]

i specifically used the wording not capable of directly meeting their demands instead of civilians, as that's an incredibly ambigous term in todays less state oriented para-military world. In palestinian eyes the gaza settlers weren't civilians nor do many iraqi insurgents consider workers at the oil fields civilians, but as occupiers.

I think that clearly there have been acts of terrorism committed against both, but i wouldn't call either civilians without some reservations.

[ QUOTE ]
i specifically used the wording not capable of directly meeting their demands instead of civilians, as that's an incredibly ambigous term in todays less state oriented para-military world. In palestinian eyes the gaza settlers weren't civilians nor do many iraqi insurgents consider workers at the oil fields civilians, but as occupiers.

I think that clearly there have been acts of terrorism committed against both, but i wouldn't call either civilians without some reservations.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I specifically used the term civilian for the reasons you described. Otherwise, any violent action can be outside the scope of your definition. If I blow up a London subway, well those people elected the government and support the British way of life and thus are legitimate targets. If I fly a plane into the WTC, well I'll say those people aren't civilians but part of the American economic machine, and thus legitimate targets. Etc.

[Jdanz]

that's exactly what my definition is taking account of, while they may be legitamate targets they aren't directly capable of meeting the demands of the terrorists.

[mackthefork]

Can we not agree that the word terrorist has been applied to many attacks on military targets recently? How would you describe the IRA attack on the UK Conservative Party in Brighton (in government at the time), that's a military target as far as I'm concerned, but it would certainly be described as terrorism. I think to say terrorists only target civilians is too narrow a definition for me.

Mack

[nicky g]

I don't see how a political party conference is a military target.

[mackthefork]

The government decide what the army does. Actually it's not fair because a lot of people there were not even Members of Parliament.

You don't think the government is a military target though? I have to disagree, though I am dead against cold blooded murder of any kind.

Mack