I apologize in advance if this blog offends anyone. This is not directed at any particular state or group but merely intends to stimulate thinking. Early Wednesday morning, the United States ground forces infiltrated Pakistani territory in pursuit of terrorist targets. In the raid, the US forces ended up killing 15 villagers, all of whom were declared innocent. No connection was found what so ever between those killed in the attack and any terrorist organization. Women and children were among those killed. This was the first US ground infiltration into Pakistan, an American ally in the war on terror. Earlier this year the US was responsible for various air and mortar strikes on Pakistani territory. Both innocent civilians and Pakistani military personal have died in a series of such attacks. One of the recent US air strikes in Afghanistan killed (according to the UN) more than 90 civilians, 60 of whom were children.
The question i would like to pose is what many of us think we know.. Who is a terrorist? The United Nations unfortunately does not have a definition, if anyone can come up with a definition, any post would be appreciated.
4 comments:
Well here is what I did.
The word "Terrorist" has a smaller word in it. The word "terror". So I looked up terror and that will help me define a terrorist.
According to merriam-webster online dictionary a terror is an "a state of intense fear". So I can deduce from this that a terroist is any person(s) who induces that intense fear.
By my definition I, unlike the terribly corrupt yet well intention United Nations mentioned in the blog, can include people and/or countries. Those countries could also be the terribly corrupt yet most of the time well intentioned United States.
I tried to define terrorist by more academic means, than by modern conventional standards,so for better or for worse the the United States is a terrorist.
I think the definition of the word terrorist is such a hard one because what is at stake when people revert to terror tactics is usually much too great for the label terrorist to truly mean anything to them besides affecting the way they can market themselves. The phrase thats always stuck with me is that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Whether you buy into the US fighting for terrorism is relevant to your definition, as is whether you believe that the US wears uniforms and doesn't pose as civilians to be of great consequence, which it probably isn't to the people having the bomb dropped on them. I personally find the semantics to be frustrating because I feel they distract from the real human cost of such actions.
According to the "Wall Street Journal" on Aug. 16, 2008 terrorism is the "dark child of globalization." I know this doesn't directly answer your question, but I thought it was an interesting view.
Post a Comment