Convenient definitions of terror

In a paradigm where we have declared “war” against an elusive and amorphous enemy….a war that strains the normal framework of the definition….when infrastructure and officials of our Government are attacked, is it really an act of terror?

Or is it an act of war?

“It’s hard to define because one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.” George H.W. Bush, on supporting the Contras and UNITA.

Seems that we like to have it both ways, since we like to think that we get to define the rules.


4 thoughts on “Convenient definitions of terror

  1. It get's even muddier than that with the definition of the term “act of war” which is implied to mean a nation perpetrates an aggressive and overt act against our sovereignty. When a terror affilliate that has no flag or turf, so to speak commits this type of “act” we tend to think of it in terms of “legal/police” frameworks. Something that needs to be legal adjudicated vs. aggressive military action.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s