There have been more attacks that have been incorrectly labeled
“terrorist” attacks by many. These are
the latest examples of what I have made a regular subject to try to prevent the
word terrorism from being diluted or
misused.
As I note
regularly, terrorism is the strategy
of violent attacks on innocent civilians that are intended to intimidate the
populace to urge a government acquiesce to the demands of the terrorists. Thus, terrorism is defined by its target and
its strategy, not by who its perpetrators are or their religious or political
motivation or their affiliations and not by its tactics. Terrorism is a great evil and a war
crime.
There are often other evil acts
committed, which may be terrifying to the populace, that are not necessarily
terrorism. There were three recent
examples.
The chemical
weapons of mass destruction attack in the United Kingdom by the Russian
Federation on a former Russian spy for the British several weeks ago was not an
act of terrorism because it was targeted at an individual for retaliation,
though indiscriminate in its tactical application. It was not intended primarily to intimidate
the populace. The attack was nonetheless
an act of war.
The bombings
earlier this month in Austin ,
Texas were not terrorism for a
number of reasons. They appear to have
targeted blacks particularly, not the whole populace, which suggests bigotry or
possibly even genocide was the motivation, not political intimidation. The lack of a known demand made by the
perpetrator means that the acts lack a central element of terrorism, as there
can be no intimidation of a populace to urge a government to acquiesce to the
terrorist’s demands if there are no demands made.
The suicide
bombing at a military base in California
last week was an act of violent jihad by a militant Islamist associated with
the Islamic State. As the attack targeted
the military, not innocent civilians, it was not an act of terrorism.
All of
these attacks were evil, but of a different kind from terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment