The definition of Terrorism

Gautam, your foray into politics could well stir up some spirited debate. My take is that Terrorism, as it is generally practiced, is perpetrated by civilian or paramilitary forces primarily or exclusively against civilian targets.

The impending US/UK military intervention is specifically targeted at the military assets and military ruling apparatus of Iraq, not against Iraqi civilians per se, and, in fact, will be conducted with extraordinary care to minimize civilian consequence. I see that as a big, big difference.



timber

Gautam

You seem to have forgotten that our proposed attack on Iraq has been promulgated by Iraq's refusal to live up to the agreements made ending the gulf war.

Timber, Yeah, to some extent I agree with you. But my confusion arises from the fact that the US defense department itself defines terrorism as "intimidate governments or societies" - the key word being "governments". Even for a short while if we agree taking out "governements" from this defintion as you have pointed out, then the attacks on embassies in Kenya, Tanzania, the attack on Pentagon and the attack on the naval ship in Yemen cannot be defined as terrorism simply because they were attacks on "governments" and not "civilians".

au1929, no I havent forgotten the promises which Iraq made. But as far as I remember, and pls correct me if I am wrong, these promises were made to the UN not to US/UK. So what right do these countries have to punish Iraq for renegading on these promises ?

Gautam

You almost got it right. Allow me to fill in the small omission.

The US Department of Defence defines terrorism as 'the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.' -- IF SOMEONE ELSE IS DOING IT. IF WE ARE DOING IT, IT IS NOT TERRORISM -- IT IS ALTRUISM.

You can't leave that last part off or it doesn't make sense!

Ah...jeez...now that I look it over, it doesn't make much sense either way.

Oh, well!

Ok, but you have to be consequent. You have to treat all the countries in the same manner. This means sending troops to Israel in order to force Sharon to follow the UN resolutions. And this also means finding a solution for the war in Chechnya. The US says its fighting for peace but each day people die in Gaza, Hebron, Ramallah,... How inveracious can the US Govt be?

Secundo, you cant say the UN is irrelevant and futile. And in the same line say a war against Iraq is justified because they never followed the UN resolution. And that is what Bush and his fellows do now.

Gautam
The UN is a farce and a figure head with no power for action. It was primarily the US that fought the Gulf war. In fact all actions the "UN" participated in were taken by the US. From my purview it was the US they made the agreement with. And only the US has the wherewithal and the will to make them live up to there agreements.
The UN is now hailing the inspection as the do all and end all of the crises. Do you think by any stretch of the imagination that they would have been allowed by Iraq without the threat of attack by the US. The UN is an inept organization with the backbone of a jelly fish.

terrorism is what govenments do to their own citizens

If the UN is an inept organization why bother for that second resolution? Why bother the Blix-reports? Why bugging the phones of the members of the security council?

Just watching, but want to let you know Gautam that I agree with you and also agree with Dyslexia.

I'm not here though, lol ;-)

I had asked most of the highly qualified
guest professors about the legal definion of terrorism.
None had disapproved my clarification.

I still make some research to find a definition.
So far fruitless
Rama