Can that include hate crimes?
Certainly; not all hate crimes are terrorism but some are.
Gaybashing, if intended to keep gay people in the closet, is terrorism.
Attacking women who, say, dress in a way disliked by the attackers, if done to discourage such dress, is terrorism.
Can a State commit terrorism?
Certainly; one could argue many wars, especially those of religion or ideology, would be terrorism. Internal "police" actions can count too.
The Spanish attack on Elizabethan England would probably count as violence designed to intimidate for an ideological purpose.
The Chinese crackdown on some but not all dissidents certainly is violence designed to intimidate.
My point is that terrorism is a broad category of human action -- and it is wrong world wide.
11 comments:
I hope you're not calling Philip II a terrorist. The Duke of Parma I could see. That guy was a stone cold badass.
Let’s look at the facts.
Philip was England’s legitimate king. He had previously co-ruled England with his Queen, Mary, and then had the crown stolen from him by Elizabeth’s supporters. The rule of law and historical precedent was on his side. By right England should have been his. The whole thing was basically Tudor England’s version of Bush versus Gore.
It’s not a stretch to say the Elizabethans were the first neo-conservatives. Look at how they operated. It's totally Bush's the Younger’s first term in office. The same emotional appeals to nationalism, weird religious figures operating behind the scenes, all held together by a constant parade of changing lies. A foreign, unknowable, insatiable enemy, in their case Catholic, in ours Muslim.
I mean, Sir Francis Drake was a pirate. A pirate!! And piracy is terrorism.
Support your local women’s shelter.
WSAM,
That's a very thoughtful reply -- thanks!
I am glad that you state that states can be terrorists. Israel is a terrorist state. If you state that then many will really respect your point of view including me.
"Terrorism" is a nugatory category. It means just about anything you want it to mean. Just re-read your definition:
Terrorism is violence designed to intimidate for an ideological purpose.
That applies to nearly every state act of violence--on which states have a legal monopoly--that I can imagine. What state act, after all, is free of ideology?
And at the individual level, it's no less useless. If throwing a rock through an embassy window constitutes "terrorism," as it would seem to under your definition, what about cops pepper-spraying demonstrators, or counter-demonstrators hurling their own rocks and bottles?
"Terrorism" is just a floating signifier that we attach to people to whom we are ideologically opposed.At best it's a tactic, if selectively named, and, as such, it's about as common-or-garden a tactic as it gets.
I'm nothing if not thoughtful.
Dr.Dawg, you summed it up so well. Those who are terrorists for us we are terrorists for them.
I agree with D. Dawg. Brain washing is just that, brain washing when we want to put forth our ideology as being correct.
I'm not brainwashed.
Does that render the violent oppression of West Bank Palestinians terrorism? Just asking.
Defining terrorism is like defining art: I know it when I see it.
Suicide bombs against civilians - terrorism. Beating up gays - not terrorism. You might as well try to define "life" such that abortion is legal and infanticide is wrong. No matter how you try it will be an arbitrary definition based on the biases of the definer.
Hey Morton, be a man an answer the question of The Mound of Sound.
Post a Comment