Facing Up to the Meaning of 'Terrorism'

So what distinguishes terrorism? Is it the scope of the harm? Most terrorist actions are fairly small-scale compared with the death and destruction committed by nation-states acting in their official capacities. Even Sept. 11 killed fewer people than, say, the bomb on Hiroshima -- an act that many Americans find easy to defend.

Michael Kinsley

Terrorism should be defined as follows: it is military action aimed primarily at noncombatants. By that standard, the bombing that ended the war with Japan ranks among the greatest terrorist acts of all times. At Hiroshima, 130,000 people died; at Nagasaki, 75,000. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was utterly unconscionable and utterly unforgivable, one of the worst crimes and worst atrocities in a century of nightmares, related closely to the holocaust, the Killing Fields, Rwanda.

There are important differences between the American use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the 9.11 attacks. The nuclear detonations took place in the context of a grueling war started by the Japanese. They took place in the context of a struggle between nation states.

But, as Kinsley points out, there is another difference. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs took many, many more civilian lives. The bombs killed tens of thousands more children.

It may be thought that what distinguishes 1945 and 2001 is that the one is an act of a government, the other of a paramilitary organization. But that an act is performed by a government cannot distinguish it from terrorism. When you get right down to it, a government, even our government, is just a bunch of people, and in that sense exactly like Al Qaeda.

But let's get something straight: that Hiroshima and 9.11 are morally equivalent cannot justify either one. When I compare the two, am not doing it to provide any moral cover whatever to bin Laden. Nothing, nothing can justify flying airliners into office buildings. It doesn't matter, finally, whether we call it terrorism or war or love or charity. The words, in the mouths of the various parties, are nothing, literally nothing. The word 'terrorism' is a propaganda device, finally. But the lives destroyed are real, are true, are precious beyond speaking.

The insane equation of death in which person a kills b and c because person d kills e and f, has got to stop. When Palestinian terrorists car bomb a shopping district, Israel replies by lobbing a rocket into a refugee camp. Then the Palestinians detonate another bomb, etc. It's all terrorism because no one is even pretending to kill killers. Everyone is a mere murderer, whether he's called the General or the Jackal.

In my view, we must respond with force. But we had better try as hard as we know how to kill the people responsible and not cities full of non-combatants. Otherwise, you can call what we're doing infinite justice or shoo-fly pie, but it is mere murder.

___