voices on international law, policy, practice
Why "presumed"? If we can call those who commit acts of terrorism "terrorists," then I think it is safe to conclude that these coordinated attacks in Mumbai were indeed committed by terrorists, plain and simple. We need not wait upon learning what group or groups are responsible before we make that determination. If the presumption is rebuttable, on the other hand, how would you go about rebutting it? How else would you characterize such actions and those who committed them?
Just to clarify: terrorism often involves the intentional killing of innocent civilians, and such killing is part of a larger political tactic "involving the frightening of people for political advantage." See Robert Goodin's excellent analysis in What's Wrong with Terrorism? (2006).
One may read too much into a word written very late at night.
Post a Comment