Defining Terrorism
July 24, 2005 · By Peter Rempel
There will always be those who defend the CBC not matter what idiocies escape from it. The latest defense concerns the CBC’s new stated policy to replace the word “terrorist” with “bomber,” apparently with the intention of equating those who perpetrated the murderous London attacks with teenagers who drop cherry bombs down high school toilets.
The policy conforms to the much more sinister, leftist view of terrorism. Take, for example, this leftist’s use of the term:
“I regard terrorism as violence carried out by non-state groups seeking to achieve political aims through fear.”
It’s all about politics to leftists. Take Iraq: The American occupation of Iraq if immoral and unethical. Therefore, terrorism is just another legitimate means of achieving political ends (the end of the American “occupation”), along with writing letters to the editor or participating in a civil protest.
Not only does this definition ascribe legitimacy to terrorism, it completely mischaracterizes the nature of the Al Queda cells. When suicide bombers head out to murder indiscriminately for the express purpose of acquiring a harem of virgins upon their deaths, politics does not factor into the equation. And yet these people would not be considered terrorists?
Terror tactics seek to induce ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ on a mass scale.
The delusion is complete when the citizens identify with the terrorists and perceive their security services and government as the threat.