The Logic Off Topic list

Someone asked Hendrik Jan:
> >Tell you what, why don't you venture a distinction between terrorism and 
> war?


Modern -- and I do mean modern -- terrorism is felt to begin with three 
specific acts:
(1)  when the PFLP blew up two planes full of media personnel at Dawson 
Field, Jordan;
(2) when the Japanese United Red Army and the PFLP massacred 26 people at 
Lod Airport;
(3) When the Black September Palestinian group seized and murdered Israeli 
athletes in the Olympic Village.

The other important thing about those events is that 'the West' was stunned 
and did not know how to respond. That very stunned reaction is also 
considered to be a part of terrorism.

The definition of terrorism that the US uses to guide its policy is that 
given by the US Department of Defense. It is also the one accepted as a 
foundation for action by allies of the US:
"a premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against 
non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine state agents 
usually to influence an audience".

Unfortunately, this definition is so broad as to be virtually useless. 
(Please also note that it was first offered in order to help define a very 
specific enemy who seemed to have come up with a new method of making their 
point). The reality is that there is no single reality called 'terrorism'. 
There are different kinds of terrorisms. Some terrorisms only concern 
specific groups (e.g. Shining Path) such that one person's terrorist is 
another's innocent citizen (only the Peruvians are really concerned with 
the Shining Path).

The above definition has been widely adopted simply because it is the 
definition used by the most powerful military power currently in existence. 
It can be and has been manipulated such that it has become little more than 
a means of stating that anyone whom a given group dislikes is automatically 
a terrorist.

Not trying to start another mini-war here.

Just offering my limited knowledge of military history to try to add to the 
attempt to define terrorism made by another master. Please don't flame me. 
If you disagree with the definition, take it up with the US State 
Department and not with me. I am just the messenger and I would rather like 
to survive.

Thank you.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool

Underneath please find Hendrik Jan's attempt:
>War is an armed conflict between nations -- i.e. political entities
>each occupying a piece of land and each having its own government.
>Terrorism is any form of violent attack by a (often minority) group
>on another group.  The group being attacked can be a nation, but as
>soon as the attacker also is anation, it's called 'war'.  Usually the
>terroist action is not condoned by the terrorist group's government
>(if it exists -- with international groups, it makes no sense to talk
>about "its government" of course).
>If the terrorists are 'native' to a country (i.e. not an
>international country-less group), and if their country condones
>their actions, then the situation is somewhat unclear.  If such
>terrorists attack a nation (instead of some particluar group of
>individuals), then this nation has every reason to declare war to the
>condoning government.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com