The US, for one more of many examples, was not in a state of war against Cambodia, yet bombed them, and without any democratic decision behind it. I fail to see much distinction between a Cambodian child blown to bits by carpet bombing and an Israeli or British or Lebanese or Spanish or Canadian child blown to bits by a car bomb. How many Cambodians killed Americans in response? SFAIK: zero. Was the US brought to trial for war crimes, for terrorism? No. And if you think I'm talking about the past (not that I see any distinction to whether it happened 10 minutes or 10 years ago) perhaps you should visit Columbia, where children are being maimed and poisoned (I don't see much distinction between that and being blown to bits either, except the first is slower) by US cropdusting in the war on drugs (and that war is another one that has no legal standing, the US has legally declared a total of 6 wars in its history, the scores of others had no more legality behind them than a car bomb). And don't tell me that because it is state sponsored terrorism that it is somehow more OK, unless you agree that if it is OK for the US then it is OK for Iraq or Libya or Afganistan under the Taliban or...|
But let's take a realworld example I know a bit more about, lest you think I am somehow only against US terror. In 1970 I was going to university (which staledates me, I know) in Vancouver, Canada. Thousands of miles away in Quebec, Canada there was a 'terrorist' group called the Front De Liberation Du Quebec, or FLQ, which wanted Quebec secession from Canada. They were involved in numerous bombings and other 'terrorist' acts, leading up to the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, a Quebec government minister. Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau then declared the War Measures Act (essentially martial law). In addition to tanks in the streets and hundreds of arrests without trial (the FLQ never amounted to more than a few dozen individuals), Canadians were forbidden to use the term FLQ. A prof at my university, thousands of miles from the 'troubles', wrote FLQ on the blackboard. The next day there were three plainclothes Mounties (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) sitting in on his class to ensure he didn't do the same thing again. A few miles away in a high school a Social Studies teacher talked to his class about a current event, the FLQ. He was fired. Similar events went on across Canada. Hardly anyone, and certainly no-one I knew, supported the FLQ, let alone their actions, but the government just brought itself into disrepute by banning a word, FLQ graffiti popped up everywhere, mostly written by those who didn't support the FLQ.
Now I suppose at some point the government again OK'd the use of that character string (although perhaps not and I'm guilty of sedition). And some of the FLQ went into exile in Cuba, and some of them have since come back and become government ministers, federal judges, and university professors. And some Quebecois still want separation, indeed they held a referendum on that a few years ago which failed by less than 1%. And the Canadian government let it be known that even if Quebec legally voted to secede it wouldn't be recognized and military intervention wasn't out of the question. And Quebec Indians let it be known that the land which they are still fighting (in a legal sense) to regain in Quebec would remain part of Canada, and Quebec let it be known that they might then intervene militarily. And so on... Thankfully saner heads prevailed, for the moment anyway. And let me just add that Indians in the Americas were probably subjected to the longest and bloodiest reign of terror in global history, a considerable amount of it at the hands of the Spanish. Do I support the ETA or their actions? Of course not. Did they invent terrorism, are they its only practitioners? Of course not. Will banning a word do any good? Not bloody likely. -g