This is regarding Don Wycliff’s “Sorting out usage of the T-word; When is it OK to label an event a terrorist act?” (Commentary, March 21).
What a total jingoistic copout. In the eyes of the Chicago Tribune, the murder of innocent civilians by bombing and shooting only rises to the level of terrorism if it is perpetrated against Americans.
I would suggest a much different view: If the attack is specifically intended to kill or injure only civilians, it is terrorism.
Military action by a country to find or destroy terrorists or soldiers of an enemy that has declared war on that country, which results in civilian casualties, is not terrorism, because the intent is not to kill civilians.
So the attack on our country on Sept. 11 was a terrorist act because the attackers intended only to kill our citizens. The response by our military, which caused civilian deaths and the destruction of homes and property in Afghanistan (a country that did not declare war on us but was harboring terrorists), was clearly not terrorism.
The same definition works in the Middle East. The attacks by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade are specifically intended to kill and maim innocent men, women and children.
In fact, by packing their bombs with nails, broken glass and metal shards and sending their fanatics into pizza restaurants, crowded shopping malls, bar mitzvah parties and buses, these attacks are specifically designed to kill and injure the maximum possible number of innocent people. These actions are most certainly terrorism.
The military response of the Israeli army in trying to find, arrest and, if necessary, kill the terrorists and destroy their organizations is not terrorism because innocent civilians are not the intended targets.
Are innocent Palestinians killed? Yes, unfortunately they are. But these casualties are no different than innocent Afghanistan civilians killed by American bombs and bullets.
Most Americans see the difference. Why can’t the Chicago Tribune?
