thomas81 wrote:
TM wrote:
To be honest, the discussion shouldn't be "Who are the biggest terrorists" it should be "Who is enabling terrorism and making excuses for it?"
Again its open to your own interpretation of what terrorism means.
The right wing seems to have a very selective definition.
Bruce Hoffman used the following 5 points;
- Political in aims and motives.
- Violent or threating the use of violence.
- Designed to have far- reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate target.
- Conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure.
- Perpetrated by a sub-national group or a non-state entity.
Now, I'm sure that you'll either come back with a redefinition of "
aggression" or "
violence" in order twist the concept to be applicable in order with your somewhat special view of morals. I'm also quite sure you'll contend with the "
sub-national" group point and possibly try to make
"non-state entity" applicable to corporations. The same would likely be true for
"far reaching psychological repercussions" and
"political in aims and motives" as well.
I would for this reason be inclined to include violence or aggression against non-combatants, but you could most likely put a textbook anti-corporate spin on that. After all, the sea life in the gulf were anti-combatants and those BP terrorists murdered them in cold blood.
Terrorism is one of those things that are hard to define precisely for this reason. If I say "Suicide bomber" most people think of it as synonymous with "terrorist" if I say "IRA" quite a few people may be inclined to agree with me, if I were to say Baader-Meinhof, Black September, Aum Shinrikyo, or LRA, some may agree with me. It would appear that "terrorism" is a bit like pornography,
"I know what pornography is when I see it." as I believe a Supreme court justice once said it.