"You are desperate to lay down some sort of hypothetical context to justify Ayers' terrorism ."
Nonsense.
Sorry, Taro. I've tried to respect your request, but...
What you are seeing is the result of debasing the term "terrorism". Technically speaking, what the WU did was terrorism. But that is a long way from strapping on a suicide belt and walking into a market. Or parking a truck full of explosives in the basement of a building that contains a daycare. Now, spiking trees may be closer, and it is worse that pouring water into the fuel tank of a bulldozer or breaking into a building and splattering an office with red paint.
Yet all of these have been described as "terrorism". There is a bright, red line when people start to get injured. Much less killed. And there is another line crossed when the injuries or death is deliberate. Below that, well, I don't know. It isn't a prank. But it doesn't class with the others. Calling it terrorism, however, only weakens the term.
If you want to classify terrorism as some sort of ultimate, then you need a different term for the other stuff. Or vice versa. I don't really care. Because I felt a real need to break into Exxon's boardroom and do a little damage when they decided to use surfactants to clean up after the Valdez. No explosives, no fire. Probably some paint. I would never hurt anyone, or even come close. But I did want to send a message. Yet, that would have been a terrorist activity.
Why is that? |
