Dresden?
American troop actions against Native Americans.
Firebombing Tokyo?
Vietnam?
The examples above all included much direct killing attacks on civilians but by official armed forces.
Another issue. When does collateral killing become terrorism?
Seems like all the same issue to me, as I don't know the real intentions of the people making the plans for each event.
Collateral killing becomes terrorism when attacks are intended to incite terror to gain political leverage. *shrug* So really it's one of those things that happens, but we can't always be really be sure of where and when it did given the lack of mind reading and such.
Can economic policies be terrorist?
Sure. I think "economic terrorism" is likely quite real, yeah. But can a policy itself be intended to cause terror to garner political leverage? Probably so sure.
I ask these not because I think they will suddenly put you in a box or point out a contradiction. I am trying to see how flexible your definition is and how much the 'official' armed forces component shifts the definition.
Well first I'd say that any political or military entity of strong conviction is basically mandated to shift every definition of relevance to what they find to be advantageous. Such is politics. Terrorism is a nice one because it's hinged upon intent - and we can't ever really know anyone else's intent, so it's sweet and maleable political goodness.
Can one be a terrorist and be a leader in an official army?
Sure, but people can of course (as greenburg has repeatedly pointed out I think, and perhaps yourself) can be more than one thing eh? If I blow up your children's bus stop while they're there, am I to be forever referred to as a terrorist? If so by whom and what if they choose to consider me a freedom fighter? That's kind the problem, not to mention intent. It's a nice squishy word.
In the Palestinian/Israeli struggle more children and civilians are actually killed by the official actions of the armed Israeli forces than by the Ps. However the former deaths are called collateral.
Well of course. Seriously if you're convicted enough in your belief to do what israel and palestinians do to each other, how could you expect less than the maximum spin, regardless of the reality?
I also think in terms of primary goals and side effects.
Sure.
For example Thorazine. The side effects of lethargy, lack of affect, oversleeping were often the real reasons the drugs were given in residential treatment facilities and the anti-psychotic effects were less important to the prescribers and nurses. Some of these were willing to admit this, at least to themselves.
The beauty is the lie eh? It's so easy for most, at least at first. The bullshit we weave for ourselves is fucking fascinating. It's hard enough keeping honesty straight, yet people can't seem to resist the power of disinformation, lies and ALL that jazz. I think it's exactly however, because it's powerful. It's a way not only to live with yourself, but to live with the other humans. So long as you can sustain the lie or whatever dishonesty, you're a-okay in the minds of those you might have to face at whatever time of day.
I hope you can see the collateral/intentional issue I am raising here. How do we determine what someone 'meant' to do.
Exactly. We can't unless we believe them. To believe them we have to believe that they're being honest with themselves and to us as well. Sometimes I'm sure it's true, sometimes not so much. Lots of factors to consider if you really want to break it down. Then there's a more subtle consideration of the scope of the decision. For instance in a military operation: Location A is determined to be an operational imperative. It must be taken by friendly forces. It is decided that Location A will be bombed to shit, so if there are opposing military forces there - they won't be. Must I consider whether or not civilians will be there? If I do consider it, and have discovered there won't be, then bomb the shit out of it and it turns out the military personel were in fact, not - but all civilians.... is that terrorism? I could see that intentionally limiting the scope of your investigation prior to an action could be used in attempt to avoid such potential negative allegations. Ah, the warm cloak of pausible deniability.
Is indifference morally preferable to hatred if both result in the deaths of civilians?
Well that question can only really be answered in consideration of the "to whom". It gets quite complicated.
Is cool, rational killing better than angry 'irrational' killing?
Again the same scenario, but one might hypothesize that "cool rational killing" is less detrimental to those who survive in terms of "societal stability" than "irrational" killing, as the latter is less predictable and thus, at least slightly more disturbing when considering the generalized "how safe is it to walk the streets", given I suppose that the cool rational killing is understood by the survivors - they could use that information to assess their chances, whereas "irrational" killing is entirely unpredictable - assuming I take your meaning correctly.
I realize I raised a bunch of issues, but in a sense I think they are raised by your post.
No problem I enjoy thinking it through a bit.
My questions, actually, are not so much seeking answers, but to let you know what comes to mind when I hear your position.
No problem, but I'm inclined to answer stuff - so sorry if that's annoying - it just is.
if the Ps had an air force and were carpet bombing Israeli cities would we view this less as terrorism because of our own habits?
I don't know how you'd view it, or how person x would view it, but I do know that the political and social entities would choose a position on it and try to pimp it onto those it sways because that's what they do. Every big issue will be spun to justify a policy. There's probably some theoretical social law about that.
