A much Mis-understood, Mis-used and Maligned word.
It is Terrorism ONLY WHEN People (even things), totally Unconnected with the Military, are Harmed/Killed/Destroyed.
One of the Best examples I can think of is the Jallianwala bagh massacre.
“The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, took place on 13 April 1919. A large PEACEFUL CROWD had gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab to protest against the arrest of pro-Indian independence leaders Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satya Pal. In response to the public gathering, the temporary Brigadier generalR. E. H. Dyer surrounded the protesters with his Gurkha British Indian Army unit and Sindh regiment. The Jallianwala Bagh could only be exited on one side, as its other three sides were enclosed by buildings. After blocking the exit with his troops, he ordered them to shoot at the crowd, continuing to fire even as the protestors tried to flee. The troops kept on firing until their ammunition was exhausted.“
Above: Peaceful crowd emphasised by me.
That having taken place in Punjab, India, my next example is also cited from there. Between 1960 and 1970, I think. Northwest India had seen terrible wranglings over WATER. I think this later turned into a call for separate statehood by some Sikhs. but this rambling, and quite possibly inaccurate lines are not the point.
The point is that I distinctly remember my hearing reports of some people even gunning down people (mere bus passengers) during those days. There it is. Killing Civilians (people having Nothing to do with the military; politicians being different, as they control the military).
To repeat, Killing Civilians Intentionally is Terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to make the authorities give in, change their mind.
Here We see how things can be used for the same intention.
There have been tyrants who have killied, maimed, tortured, millions. Leaving out long histories, We have hitler and mao.
They induced Terror. But TerrorISM is a bit modern concept, and has ‘limited’ applications.
putin, bombing the eastern parts of Ukraine, (even without killing civilians), is carrying out Terrorism.
(Totally destroyed buildings, towns, villages, factories… of what physical use can this be for him?)
Here’s a further, and important point.
The condition in all above three graphics is the result of long-range shelling and missiles, which, coming from afar, would not have pin point accuracy.
For the querelous, putin seems to have either lacking, or run out of ‘cruise’ missiles.
(The above was also possible by bombing, though I do not know whether putin used this method much).
This lack of accuracy on the part of putin’s method of attack is what has unnecessarily destroyed so many buildings, and worse, cost the death of so many civilians, including the mother of these sweet children. These effects would be well known by all military minds; and putin would have known this too.
If these do not make putin a terrorist, what would?
I beg to state,
modi is the friend of a terrorist.
(particularly because modi has not condemned putin’s actions).