Friday, June 18, 2010

On Language

Pedantic as it may be, over-use and abuse of terms tends to cheapen the term and trivialize the events it was actually meant to describe.

I would suggest that if it doesn't involve blood, boom, or the use of WMD (atomic, bio, chem) or attempts there at - an activity may be an awful lot things, but terrorism it ain't. In other words, to do terrorism, you have to *work harder*.

A brick through a window or a mob of screaming protesters in front of a politi-critters house may be less than fun (and in the first instance, chargeable), but it's not terrorism. Death threats get into the ball-park...but out in the back forty, given that a threat, by itself, involves no actual mayhem or bloodshed/boom/ABC weapons.

When folks use actual violence against persons or parties as a tool to intimidate third parties into either action or inaction, THAT'S terrorism. When property damage is used for similar intimidatory ends, that MAY be terrorism...but it needs to be at a level somewhat more significant than micturating on the outer perimeter of the target to really qualify as more than a pain in the neck.

No blood, no bodies? No boom, no rubble? Probably not terrorism, kids.

1 comment:

John B said...

Rottweiler with an uncropped tail.

We're talking MASS Destruction.