Isn't "terrorism" really just a matter of perception? After all, it doesn't independently define anything quantifiable, it only describes a fear-based emotive reaction, so how can it have any meaning at all apart from that?
All harmful acts perpetrated against others create "terror" in the minds of their victims, do they not?
And yet if someone is committing a wrongful act that is not within the context of an armed conflict, then that person is simply a criminal, is he not? So isn't "terrorist" a totally superfluous description when "crime" already describes the act in question?
Shouldn't "terrorism" only be used in instances where the sole intent of the wrongful act was to induce the emotion of terror and terror alone?
Otherwise, it's all really just a matter of subjective perception, isn't it? E.g., in the American Revolution the colonists would have considered themselves "freedom fighters", while the British would have considered them terrorists, wouldn't they?
2007-05-28
08:12:47
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics