The word "terrorism" is grossly overused of course. In my book it means an attempt to create a climate of terror for political ends and I think, if I remember rightly, that some of the Russian nihilists tried to formulate it as such as a political philosophy?

It's so partisan in the way it is actually used though as to be of quite limited use. Normally (with regard to states we like) "terrorism" is only applied to opponents of the state.

One might apply it particularly to deliberate attacks on civilians of the type favoured by Al Qaeda. However logically one might ask whether the creation of a state of terror by bombing cities is not also a kind of terrorism. The apologists for arial bombardment insist of course that they are attacking specific targets for military reasons and unfortunate civilians who get in the way are suffering collateral damage rather than terrorism. One might, however forgive the victims of collateral damage for thinking that there was no difference between this and terrorism (and of course the numbers killed by arial bombardment staggeringly outweigh the numbers killed by terrorism).

But it would be hard to argue, to my knowledge that either Mandela or Washington were terrorists on the definition I advance above.

[ Parent ]