I can see terrorism as a tactic. I can also see it as an effect - did someone get real scared because someone else was threatened or killed? Well, then they were terrorized, weren't they?
I still don't think it's a useful legal definition, regardless of the perpetrators motive or intent. We have crimes. We have acts of war. We even have war crimes. What else is needed?
What useful purpose does debating whether or not an act of violence or intimidation should be called domestic terrorism serve? Is it not enough to call it murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, arson, property destruction, stalking, etc.?
I see the term "terrorism" as Wilf seems to see terms like manuever warfare, 4GW, OOTW, etc. It's a hip term for an ancient tactic/effect that serves no useful purpose and diverts attention away from the essence of what's really going on.
Bookmarks