Terrorism is defined by dictionary.com as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes".  This definition has its problems.  Supposing people from country A blow up people in Cafes in country B and country B than retaliates by bombing military installations of country A.  Country B is trying to intimidate country A into stopping terrorism.  Does that mean country B is engaging in terrorism?  According to the above definition it does.

    Generally deliberate attacks on civilians are considered terrorism.  What if in one attempts to take out country A's military factories their is collateral damage resulting in the deaths of civilians.  Is that terrorism.  In that case the bombing of Dresden by the allies during World War II was terrorism.  Likewise the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States was terrorism. 

    The Israeli organization, the Irgun, fought the British and the Arabs before the birth of the modern state of Israel.  The Arabs had been placing bombs in Jewish markets for about a year, and then the Irgun put a bomb in a market Ramla.  That led to a big reduction in the Arab practice after that.

    The bombing of Dresden as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably led to there being less deaths in the long run than if they hadn't been carried out.  The same applies to the Irgun bombing of the Ramla market.  They were all terrorism yet they were good terrorism because they ultimately saved lives.

 

 

 

Table of Contents