Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!talcott!gjk
From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (John)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish,net.politics
Subject: Re: Terrorism Inc.
Message-ID: <521@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 11:03:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: talcott.521
Posted: Thu Oct 10 11:03:46 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 06:16:00 EDT
References: <488@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <885@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 31
Xref: linus net.religion.jewish:2107 net.politics:10746
Summary: War versus terrorism

In article <885@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>, ravi@mcnc.UUCP (Ravi Subrahmanyan) writes:
> 
> I've often wondered if 'state supported terrorism' is really all that
> new; it seems more like a new term for something that has been 
> going on for a long, long time.  It appears as though violent actions by
> a (usually politically unrepresented) group are termed terrorism, while
> similar actions by governments, both covert and overt, are called war,
> or something less objectionable.  Is there such a big difference between
> actions by a government that lead to civilian casualties, and actions
> by terrorists (who, being fewer in number and probably low on resources,
> certainly lower than a government) choose to pick on smaller numbers of
> people (eg. a car bomb versus overthrowing a government)? 

Terrorism obviously comes from the word terror.  Therefore it is the practice
of acheiving political ends by evoking terror.  Usually this means evoking
terror in the general populace of some nation.  War, on the other hand, is
an attempt at direct takover (by violence) of some nation's resource or ruling
body.  Thus, it is clear why a politically unrepresented group would favor
terrorism over war:  Such groups usually don't have the means for the direct
takeover of anything, but they may well have the means for random destruction
of life or property.  Of course, there is such a thing as state terrorism, and
terrorism does often accompany war (Schrechtlichkeit [sp?], for example). 
Moreover, the dividing line between terrorism and war is not always clear. If,
for example, you were to ask an Iranian about His Holiness's latest raid over
Bagdad, he may say, "It is strike fear in the hearts of the enemy," or he may
say, "I don't care whether or not the Iraqi's are scared, so long as they
realize that we have a superior force," or he may say, "The attack was not a
matter of psychology; it was a direct attempt at weakening the Iraqi state."
-- 
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
      ^  ^^