So you don't consider gassing thousands of Kurds to be an act of terrorism
That is called "state terror", I believe. That is, using the military, arms, and in general power of the state to oppress your own people. Like what Turkey used to do to its Kurdish population in the SouthEast parts of the country. Or what Russia does to Chechens.
"Terrorism" is something else. It involves hit and run attacks against one's enemy. It is the fighting technique preferred by those who do NOT have armies but fight enemies who do have armies. Hence they cannot afford open confrontation (i.e. warfare) and use terrorist attacks to hurt the enemy.
cfrterrorism.org
Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:
(1) It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
(2) It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
(3) It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
(4) It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.
Hence, what Saddam did to the Kurds, while horrible and obviously homicidal, was not "terrorism". |
