XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, alt.usage.english, alt.english.usage   
   From: jerry_friedman@yahoo.com   
      
   On 10/15/17 11:51 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:   
   > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:48:04 -0700, Paul S. Person   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:06:53 -0600, Jerry Friedman   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>> By the way, I think the people who are calling it terrorism may have a   
   >>> different definition from yours.  I think they use "terrorism" for any   
   >>> atrocity that causes terror.  But I don't have any evidence.   
   >>   
   >> I tend to extend "act of terror" to "anything that terrorizes",   
   >> although I would agree that that should be "possibly an act of terror"   
   >> and that certain intent to terrorize is needed to reach "act of   
   >> terror" itself.   
   >>   
   >> I would also aware that "terrorism" is usually connected with a cause   
   >> of some sort. This means that I can recognize an "act of terror" (one   
   >> that is intended to terrorize) that is not terrorism (because it has   
   >> no cause associated with it).   
   >   
   > As I pointed out, people may be terrified by armed robbers, who may   
   > also try to terrorise them into revealing information like the   
   > whereabouts of stuff they want to steal, or the PIN of a bank card.   
   > But they are not normally described as terrorists, but as armed   
   > robbers.   
      
   That probably wouldn't be called an atrocity, just a garden-variety crime.   
      
   However, if your definition is based on "normally described", then if   
   enough people call the recent murderer in Las Vegas a terrorist, he is one.   
      
   > The airline pilot who committed suicide by crashing his plane no doubt   
   > terrified the passengers and fellow crew members, but he was not a   
   > terrorist.   
      
   That's a good example, though.  I'd say it shows that my suggested   
   definition was incomplete.   
      
   > On the other hand the guy who poisons bars of choclolate in a   
   > supermarket with the aim of terrorising people into not buying that   
   > brand of chocolate probably is a terrorist.   
      
   I think most people would agree with you there.  But what about the guy   
   who poisons chocolate bars to try to destabilize capitalism and hasten   
   the day when it's replaced by his preferred ism?  Or the one who does it   
   for revenge against the country where they're sold, without any hope   
   that it will coerce the country into anything?  Or the guys who hijack   
   planes hoping to bring publicity, and oddly enough, sympathy to thier   
   cause?  (That's what the PFLP is often said to have done in the late   
   '60s and early '70s, though I'm not turning up a statement from them on   
   their reasons.)   
      
   --   
   Jerry Friedman   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)