Re: Re: [OT] Bali terrorist attacks
Agback said:
Umm. What else could it be than a terrorist attack? Is there any way that anyone could detonate a bomb in a crowded nightclub and not be a terrorist?
Regards,
Agback
Umm, doesn't that just deny any independent meaning to the word "terrorism?
If you call any act of violence against “terrorism” you put a bank robbery in with the Columbine High School Massacre in with that thing that happened in Helsinki in with Nelson Mandella’s ANC campaign of infrastructure destruction in with flying two airliners into the World Trade Centre towers.
That just seems strange to me. What is your definition of terrorism?
To me, terrorism is the use of force against civilians in order to bring publicity to a political cause and/or to disrupt political opponents through fear of further violence. Others have defined it as violence against civilians used as a means to a political end.
If these Bali attacks were done by some crazy who hated the world or wanted revenge on the bar owner or even who just hated drunken Aussies, then it probably wasn’t ‘terrorism’ in my book. It was a crime, mass murder, in all its sordid simplicity.
If it was by al Quaida (sp?), Jamiah Islamia (sp?), or Indonesian Nationalists angry over Australia’s role in supporting the successful separatist majority in East Timor, then it probably was terrorism – the use of violence to achieve a political end.
But I don’t think it’s a good idea to turn ‘terrorism’ into a word that means ‘violence against a lot of people’ or ‘violence by people we don’t like’.
Detonating a bomb in/outside a crowded nightclub is not, in my opinion, ipso facto 'terrorism'. Like most crimes, it depends on the intent of the criminal.
But I agree, based on the news reports, this is almsot certainly terrorism. For example, the new York Times says:
With cold calculation and meticulous planning, including reconnaissance, the bombers chose an unusual target, one that was certain to sow fear far beyond Bali, said a Western security analyst in Jakarta.
It was on a faraway island, primarily populated by Hindus, with a reputation for tranquillity, and popular as a resort with backpackers and the wealthy alike.
It was one of the deadliest attacks on civilians anywhere in the world in the last decade, one that seemed intended to undercut feelings of safety even in a remote enclave.
Use of terror to paralyse a civilian population and make it feel unsafe. Apparantly directed at nationals of Australia, a staunch US ally in Bush's 'War on Terror'. No idea what the political agenda was, but it can be inferred: either Islamist anti-westernism of the Al Qada sort, or Indonesian nationalists angry at Australia's role in East Timor, or a bit of both...
To put it another way, a guy mugs you and kills you for money - he's a crook; if he mugs you and kills you becasue, say, you're a British army officer in Northern ireland and he wants to scare the bejesus our of your buddies until they get out of Ireland and let him drive the proddies out after them - he's a terrorist.