unt as terrorism. As I said in an earlier message, all acts of "political violence," including wars between countries, are driven by political considerations.
More generally, let us briefly consider the argument that the fact that "Sirhan was influenced by extremist propaganda, that he chose his target on the basis of political motive, and that he believed his actions were legitimate and were ideologically and politically inspired” proves that he engaged in terrorism. Putting aside the lingering debate over the degree to which Sirhan was ideologically and politically inspired, if you substitute "Hitler," or "Stalin," or "Pol Pot," or "Milosevic," you could make the same observation: that the individual "was influenced by extremist propaganda, that he chose his target(s) on the basis of political motive, and that he believed his actions were legitimate and were ideologically and politically inspired.” However, the actions of those individuals are more accurately branded as acts of genocide (or politicide, or ethnic cleansing), rather than being examples of terrorism.
In the same vein, previous acts of violence against American politicians have been called "assassination," despite the fact that most of those cases fit the same set of descriptive criteria that you lay out in your argument for why the RFK case should be defined as an act of terrorism. To reiterate what I've argued before, it seems to me, therefore, that the definition as proposed does not make a sharp enough distinction between terrorism and other types of political violence.
Mel Ayton - 5/15/2007
Thnaks for the input - I think your contributions are excellent and readily apply to any debate on the nature of Sirhan's act.
For my part I would just like to add two quotes which you may or may not agree with:
Paul R. Pillar persuasively argues that political motivation must be a prerequisite of terrorism : “Terrorism is fundamentally different from these other forms of violence, however, in what gives rise to it and in how it must be countered, beyond simple physical security and police techniques. Terrorists’ concerns are macrocosms about changing a larger order; other violent criminals are focused on the micro level of pecuniary gain and personal relationships. ‘Political’ in this regard encompasses not just traditional left-right politics but also what are frequently described as religious motivations or social issues.”
Mel Ayton: “From the definitions formulated by many government organizations and some leading political scientists, including Pillar, Sirhan’s act of murder can be described as terrorist in nature. Although there is no evidence that he was in league with Palestinian terrorist groups before Robert Kennedy’s murder, there is strong evidence to show that Sirhan was influenced by extremist propaganda, that he chose his target on the basis of political motive, and that he believed his actions were legitimate and were ideologically and politically inspired.”
Leonard Robinson - 5/14/2007
I'm impressed with your research (although frankly I'm not a big fan of Hoffman--trying telling the people of Chile, Argentina and Colombia that terrorism can only be "violence committed by non-state entities"--what a bunch of hogwash!). Anyway, just a few comments in response:
1) The first of the "common threads" seems conceptually confusing:
"Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change." That description could apply to any act of political violence, including interstate war (see Clausewitz's famous observation that war is the conduct of politics by other means).
2) The second "common thread" is, in my opinion, too broadly worded; it seems to me by that definition there is no difference whatsoever between terrorism and assassination--EVER! Surely you don't mean to argue that every assassination is automatically an act of terrorism?
3) This brings me to Hewitt's argument about "unaffilitated terrorists." Again, to me this definition, when applied to cases such as the RFK assassination, conflates two separate categories of 