<div> </div>
<div>Roger et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Military action by government sponsored armies could be defined as terrorism, given your definition, and is by many. Did the US military's "shock and awe" campaign bombing Iraq during the invasion "terrorize, intimidate or make them fearful?" I don't mean the Iraq army, I mean the civilian women, children and men of Iraq. How many civilians were killed? But of course many will jump to defend this as legitimate sanctioned use of "terror" by a government sponsored military to pursue a "legal" war.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You can define the word any way you want... But there are dangers in adopting a too broad legal definition of terrorism. I attempt to clarify what is and is not terrorism in the discussion below. If adopting a wide definition of terrorism, entire classes of crime, even constitutionally protected political protest, can be redefined as terrorism. Burglars could be defined as terrorists, striking fear into the heart of home owners of further retaliation, even violence, by burglars, due to the violation of their residences, broken into, property stolen. "Burglars terrorize neighborhood," the headlines sometimes read. But do we really want to define them legally as "terrorists," like we define those who engage in deliberate targeted killing of civilians for political purposes?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-October/048248.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-October/048248.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Comments below from web link above:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, I think a few of your points below require qualification:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given the limited definition of terrorism I have been using, deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes, I am not sure that tree spiking qualifies as eco-terrorism. Again, just as with Kai, I ask you to offer documentation that anyone has been killed by tree spiking. And even if this
<br>was true, you would need to argue that the person who spiked the tree intended to kill. Terrorists who put bombs on crowded buses and detonate them, know full well they are going to kill civilians. This is their clear and deliberate aim. Suicide bombers with vests know full well when they
<br>walk into a marketplace or cafe and blow themselves up, they are taking civilians with them. They are not just trying to cause economic damage, or slow or stop an industry, such as may be intended via tree spiking. The
<br>9/11 hijackers knew full well that the people on the planes, and those in the buildings, were going to die. Even protest movements using civil disobedience, though they know in advance that violence is possible, and someone could get killed, are not terrorists, to my mind, though our government appears ready to define them as such to squelch dissent, if they have not already. Though these activities are political, they are not aimed at killing civilians, even though deaths may result (think Kent State for an example), and the protesters know this.
<br><br>Let's not be deceived regarding the power over the public that our government is attempting to extend by creating a very broad definition of "terrorism."<br><br>Let's consider more examples of what is or is not "terrorism."
<br><br>Consider scaring a juror with threats of death, to control the outcome of a trial. Let's say that someone the juror knows is murdered to show the juror that they are next if they don't comply. Is this terrorism? If the aim is to let a buddy, with some scary and dangerous friends, walk free from a criminal charge, I would say no. It is not the killing of civilians for political purposes. However, if civilians were killed to influence a court decision, such as a judicial proceeding deciding how the so called enemy
<br>combatants at Guantanamo are handled, then maybe these actions could be defined as terrorism. Maybe. Also, perhaps a drug cartel killing civilians to influence governmental policies (Columbia) impacting their business,
<br>might be defined as terrorism. But some of the clear cut cases of terrorism are the bombings in Spain and the United Kingdom in recent years, aimed randomly at civilians, by groups opposed to the Spanish, British etc.
<br>presence in Iraq. Even a targeted assassination, like Chile's leader Allende during the 1973 CIA supported coup, I would not label terrorism. His assassination was not aimed at civilians for political purposes.<br>
</div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/2/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">lfalen</b> <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ted<br>Terrorism is not just the intent to kill. It is anything that is intended to terrorise, intimidate or to make them fearful. Arson in that context is terrorism.
<br>Roger<br>-----Original message-----<br></blockquote></div>