Maybe there is a reason terrorism defies definition

Submitted by S. Klein (United States), Oct 26, 2014 at 09:01

It is not politically correct to say so but isn't there "defensible" terrorism? The firebombings (terror-bombings) of German cities (Hamburg, Dresden, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, etc.) in the later part of the second world war by USAAF and RAF bombers fit most definitions of terrorism. These were civilians specifically targeted for annihilation for military and political reasons. They were intended to strike fear and terror into the hearts of the German people thereby (it was hoped) demoralizing them into surrender. The firebomings of Tokyo; the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorism.

Clearly the tactics Menachem Begin and the Irgun used in response to Arab terrorism -- to drive the British out of 'Palestine' fit the definition of terrorism. Some or many would argue these acts of terrorism are legitimate terrorism by peoples / actors who are not terrorists and by countries that are not state sponsors of terrorism. If Iran were to detonate a nuclear device in an American city (an act of state sponsored terrorism) wouldn't the United States respond in kind and then some? Terror for terror?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".