Terrorism

Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com
11 Jan 2002 02:59:54 -0500


>>>>> "M" == Marty Halvorson <martyh@nmcourts.com> writes:

    M> ... To attack the U.S. is terrorism because he is attempting to
    M> alter U.S. policy by attacking its citizens, not its army.

Hmmmm ... let's do some regexps ...

    >> ... To attack Afghanistan is terrorism because he is
    >> attempting to alter Taliban policy by attacking its citizens,
    >> not its army.

(btw, I believe the earlier US casualties at the hands of ObL were
indeed military, just as General Grant - or was it Lee? - did not
start out with a Scorched Earth policy)  Violence always escalates
because the next junkie fix has to be stronger.

    M> My definition of terrorist: A terrorist is one who commits acts
    M> of violence against an unsuspecting civilian population in an
    M> attempt to discredit or change the policies of a particular
    M> government while avoiding the engagement of the military of
    M> that government.  Note that this implies the acts of violence
    M> are not intended to overthrow the established government.

So the IRA were not terrorists because they engaged the british army
and indeed wished dearly to overthrow the gov't of northern ireland?
and ObL is also not a terrorist for the same reasons?

IMHO, all these words (terrorist, revolutionary, 'military operation')
are masks over identical and inexcusable horrors (don't tell me the
"daisy cutter" is a cool way to die) terms dreampt by speechwriters.
grown men should know better than to buy into any of them.

-- 
Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@teledyn.com> TeleDynamics Communications Inc
Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com
"Computers are useless.  They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso)