« Searching for Backup: McCain Doesn't Know Own Website? | kfogel's Blog | The Difference That Speaks Volumes. »
There is no terrorism without terror.
If Bill Ayers was a "terrorist", who was terrorized?
I'm not defending him. Bombing public buildings is wrong, and even trying to do it when no people will get hurt is risky -- you might mess up and become a murderer.
But that's not the same as terrorism. Terrorism is about sowing fear: after 9/11, people were afraid to ride in airplanes or go up in tall buildings. That's terrorism: people feeling actual terror, which is, after all, part of the point (if you're a terrorist).
Did anyone walk the streets trembling because of this stuff in the 1960s and early 1970s? I don't get the feeling they were.
I'm not defending him. Bombing public buildings is wrong, and even trying to do it when no people will get hurt is risky -- you might mess up and become a murderer.
But that's not the same as terrorism. Terrorism is about sowing fear: after 9/11, people were afraid to ride in airplanes or go up in tall buildings. That's terrorism: people feeling actual terror, which is, after all, part of the point (if you're a terrorist).
Did anyone walk the streets trembling because of this stuff in the 1960s and early 1970s? I don't get the feeling they were.
Advertisement
They were terrorists because they hoped to influence US policy through fear and disruption. That they were few and did little harm and were barely noticed (I was around in the 70's) does not mean they were not terrorists. Which is not to deny that in a later time with much more lethal and effective terrorism I think the name is overblown and kind of silly, like calling a dozen purse-snatchers an urban street gang.
November 5, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink