I disagree with the premise that an attack is or is not terrorism based on
whether the target is military, or whether war has been declared.  I think
Wayne's definition is more accurate.  The attack on the pentagon, even if
more successful at inflicting damage on the building, would not have given
the Al Qaeda killers any military advantage in their "holy war" against the
west.  The purpose was not to cripple or damage the military.  The purpose
was to strike terror in the hearts of Americans by striking a very visible
and presumably secure target.  Therefore, it was terrorism by definition.
The word "terrorism" describes the intended effect of the violence, and is
not really a value judgment.

As was implied by Fred's earlier post, dropping atomic bombs on two Japanese
cities was terrorism.  I do not intend to place a negative value judgment on
the tactic by using that label.  It simply recognizes the fact that the
purpose was to scare the Japanese into submission.  It worked, and arguably
saved many Japanese and Allied lives in the process.  Even if the bombs had
been detonated over strictly military targets, their use would have been
terrorism, because the intent would be to cause terror or fear.

I repeat, this is a technical argument.  I do not intend to legitimize the
attacks on the Pentagon or the Cole by making these comparisons.  I agree
with Denys when he said, "You can debate all you want whether some of OBL's
targets where legitimate or not or whether what he did was terrorism or not,
it's irrelevant.  OBL represents a gang of thugs..."

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *