Top Priority in Lebanon?

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

Terrorism is a crime in many countries and is defined by statute (see below for particular definitions). Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and cooperation amongst law enforcement personnel in different countries.

Among these definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence

Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.

Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries
would be biased towards those countries.

Almost every serious attempt to define the term have been sponsored by governments who instinctively attempt to draw a definition which excludes bodies like themselves.

Most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations. Virtually no organisation openly calls itself terrorist.

Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist".

The word is very loosely applied and very difficult to challenge when it is being used inappropriately, for example in war situations or against non-violent persons.

It allows governments to apply a different standard of law to that of ordinary criminal law on the basis of a unilateral decision.

There is no hope that people will ever all agree who is "terrorist" and who is not.

The term as widely used in the West reflects a bias towards the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as "defence", even when that claim is considered dubious by some; any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labelled "terrorism".

If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents perceive them, such labels would be very controversial, for example:

SOURCE

 

More at link:

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1148

 

One word in response: Qana:tear:

 

Surely there is something with less POV than wiki?

FYI - that was not a study by the US Army . . . paratroop defense forces (PDF?)

I think that was: Schmid & Jongman's book . . .

​

​

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:15 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Yesha Rabbinical Council: During time of war, enemy has no innocents

The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that "according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy."

All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians," the statement said. (Efrat Weiss)

SOURCE

That's plain enough for me, there are no innocents so we'll have no more discussions about "Christian morality".

 

Closed. LE