The word itself is often nebulous as to its exact parameters, but Anders's actions fall under almost any textbook definition of terrorism I can find. Hell, I'll use your link as an example:
"Terrorism sprouts from the existence of aggrieved groups. These aggrieved groups share two essential characteristics: they have specific political objectives, and they believe that violence is an inevitable means to achieve their political ends. The political dimension of terrorist violence is the key factor that distinguishes it from other crimes."
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-)clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are use to manipulate the main target (audience(s), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought".
"Terrorism is illegal violence or threatened violence directed against human or nonhuman objects, provided that it: (1) was undertaken or ordered with a view to altering or maintaining at least one putative norm in at least one particular territorial unit or population: (2) had secretive, furtive, and/or clandestine features that were expected by the participants to conceal their personal identity and/or their future location; (3) was not undertaken or ordered to further the permanent defense of some area; (4) was not conventional warfare and because of their concealed personal identity, concealment of their future location, their threats, and/or their spatial mobility, the participants perceived themselves as less vulnerable to conventional military action; and (5) was perceived by the participants as contributing to the normative goal previously described (supra) by inculcating fear of violence in persons (perhaps an indefinite category of them) other than the immediate target of the actual or threatened violence and/or by publicizing some cause."
It is interesting how, say, in the link you provided, the definitions given become progressively less technical and more reactionarily emotional following 2001.
Getting anyone to admit that terrorism can be a valid tactic nowadays is like pulling teeth.
I admit that terrorism can be a valid tactic.
That I've been willing to say things that could be construed as a defense of al-Qaeda several times should suggest I don't buy into the emotionally charged pejorative use of the word terrorism and that's not what I mean when I use it :innocent:
In effect, I think I'm arguing the same thing you are, but rather "terrorism has an actual definition clouded by media flanderization" than "terrorism no longer has a definition
because of media flanderization". But I do think it has at least a concrete framework of a definition, and that it should be used dispassionately rather than discarded entirely. In effect, I disagree with disavowing Anders of the label because of possible pejorative connotations because I think those pejorative connotations are useless and extraneous to the word terrorism.
Guest_ElleMullineux_*
Retour en haut
APPROVAL +100
