« Personas | Main | Indian summer »
October 22, 2004
War on terrorism
According to Google:
As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives.
(Source: http://www.mema.domestic-preparedness.net/glossary.html)
Google brings up a few definitions for war, most of which don't fit when those on both sides cannot be easily identified. Here's one:
Condition of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. 2. The period of such conflict. 3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. 4. Condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. 5. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war on drugs.
(Source: http://www.gunnerynetwork.com/glossary/w-glossary.html)
Definition 5. seems to fit. So a war on terrorism amounts to "a concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives."
That definition casts a fairly wide net.
What conditions would bring about the end to a war on terrorism? Would those unlawfully using force simply have to stop doing so? Or would they have to prove they wouldn't do so in the future? Or would it suffice to use force unlawfully in desperation, rather than the in the furtherance of political or social objectives? Is a war on terrorism like a war on drugs, in that it's never really over?
Posted by Mark at October 22, 2004 10:08 PM