4 ms·
This is a fun discussion because you're both right and tomes have been written about the definition of terrorism. Some of the actions of the IRA or the bombing
by aaron-lebo 9y ago
This is a fun discussion because you're both right and tomes have been written about the definition of terrorism. Some of the actions of the IRA or the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 82 are interesting events to consider in the civilian/military distinction.
It's also worth noting that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terror under most definitions.
This is a good definition, which IIRC was compiled from a lot of other academic sources:
Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman: “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.”
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/51172_ch_1.pdf https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/511...
- slg 9y agoThat is a better definition than mine since I used the word civilian. You are right that terrorist attacks can be directed at military members. I would maybe challenge or tweak the state actors inclusion in potential perpetrators. The bombing of population centers like London, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. during WWII feels like a separate category. Those should still be war crimes, however the fact that they were carried out during an active war by the military would seem to make them a little different than traditional terrorist attacks.