This week will be devoted to a discussion of terrorism. Since the term is a pejorative one, and reasonable people disagree as to its meaning, the discussion has to start with a definition:
The extra-legal use of physical force at a level intended to cause death or severe bodily harm on unsuspecting people for political purposes.
There are a number of issues that inevitably rise when one attempts a definition:
1. Can a government engage in terrorism? Absolutely. If the use of force takes place outside of the operation of law, it can be terrorism.
2. Is it fair to call it terrorism if there is no peaceful, legitimate alternative? Yes. As I use the term, it is a tactic, not an insult. There was plenty of terrorism in the American Revolution.
3. Can attacks on security forces ever be considered terrorism? Yes, if they have no reason to expect the acts will occur. Acts of violence during what both sides acknowledge is a guerrilla war are not terrorism under my definition.