Definition of Terrorism

The_Zergling

Junior Member
Inspired by the UK Military News Thread.

I had always considered terrorism to be "ideologically or politically motivated violence directed against civilian targets". An alternative definition that you will find if you rely on dictionaries would be "the use of force against targets that do not decide policy, in an attempt to influence the actions of a government." With this definition it might be said that attacking soldiers would be an act of terrorism, except that this is so broad as to be utterly worthless - short of assassinating state officials, everything would be considered terrorism.

In my book terrorists have always been those that deliberately target non-combatants. The UN (panel, not official policy) describes it as such as well:

The UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

So what's your definition, and why do you believe it to be so?
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: How would you differentiate between an Act of War, an Act of Rebellion/Insurrecti

Anyway, this isn't the place to talk about it. Maybe if you want a real discussion open a new thread?

Good idea Fu. Let's keep the discussion civil. Thank you:)

bd popeye super moderator
 

kickars

Junior Member
Well, nowadays if they are your enemies, for YOU they are terrorists. That's the reality. End of story. And I really don't think anybody can find a definition for the word 'terrorists' or 'terrorism'. Coz put it this way, your enemies may be my allies. And my allies may be your enemies. So never mind how much we argue, agree or disagree. The fact is that most of the time we are not even talking about the same thing (or stand on the same sides). So that's why now as soon as I see people talking about terrorism on TV, I'll changed the channel straight away (what's the point?)!
 

The_Zergling

Junior Member
Well, nowadays if they are your enemies, for YOU they are terrorists. That's the reality. End of story. And I really don't think anybody can find a definition for the word 'terrorists' or 'terrorism'. Coz put it this way, your enemies may be my allies. And my allies may be your enemies. So never mind how much we argue, agree or disagree. The fact is that most of the time we are not even talking about the same thing (or stand on the same sides). So that's why now as soon as I see people talking about terrorism on TV, I'll changed the channel straight away (what's the point?)!

Well this may be true but it doesn't necessarily mean you have to frame your thinking as dictated by the media's definition of terrorism. I think words do have their meaning, and to a certain extent the words you have available can influence the level of discourse and analysis of an issue. (Orwell would approve)

From what you typed it seems that terrorists = enemies. If so, then I would prefer directly using the words enemies because there is no necessary moral condemnation that would come with the word 'terrorist'.

I guess that's why I'm curious as to what definition people use for terrorism. It's important because it can strongly influence what can and cannot be done according to policy because the wording of a law is important. Ex: The US Military Commissions Act which denies Habeus Corpus to 'Enemy Combatants'. In this case, who is an enemy combatant and what actions taken would result in one being designated as one are important.

The same goes for the word 'terrorism'. Unilateralism aside, the US still does rely on international sentiment and support to a degree and as such it is easier to gains support and avoid condemnation if the enemies are 'terrorists'. However, when the definition is too broad the ramifications are messy.
 

crazyinsane105

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Here is a well comended article that people who want to know what terrorism 'means' should read.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So, may I ask again: what is the definition of terrorism?
 

pingouin

New Member
Here is a well comended article that people who want to know what terrorism 'means' should read.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So, may I ask again: what is the definition of terrorism?

"Deliberate violence, directed against non-combatants, intended to create a psychological impact and a general sense of fear, and perpetrated to further a political purpose or goal."

Terror is a state of fear, an overwhelming sense of imminent danger. It is often characterized by a lack of knowing what to do next.

Terror is usually described as the feeling of dread and anticipation that precedes the horrifying experience. Horror, by contrast, is the feeling of revulsion that usually occurs after something frightening is seen, heard, or otherwise experienced. It is the feeling one gets after coming to an awful realization or experiencing a hideous revelation. Horror has also been defined as a combination of terror and revulsion. The difference between Terror and Horror is the difference between awful apprehension and sickening realization: between the smell of death and stumbling against a corpse.

The English suffix -ism was first used to form a noun of action from a verb. It derives from the Greek suffix -ismos, Latin -ismus, and Old French -isme, that likewise forms abstract nouns from verbal stems. Its usage was later extended to signify larger organized systems and concepts —in belief, ideology, doctrine, and ritual practice.

The first recorded usage of the suffix 'ism' as a separate word in its own right was in 1680. By the nineteenth century it was being used by Thomas Carlyle to signify a pre-packaged ideology. Later, it was used in this sense by such writers as Julian Huxley and George Bernard Shaw. In the United States of the mid-nineteenth century, the phrase "the isms" was used as a collective derogatory term to lump together the radical social reform movements of the day and various spiritual or religious movements considered non-mainstream by the standards of the time.

The -ism suffix can be used to express the following concepts:
- doctrine or philosophy (e.g. pacifism, olympism)
- theory developed by an individual (e.g. Marxism)
- political movement (e.g. feminism)
- artistic movement (e.g. cubism)
- action, process or practice (e.g. voyeurism)
- characteristic, quality or origin (e.g. heroism)
- state or condition (e.g. pauperism)
- excess or disease (e.g. botulism)
- prejudice or bias (e.g. racism)
- characteristic speech patterns (e.g. Yogiism, Bushism)
- religion or belief system (e.g. Mormonism)

Many 'isms' are defined as an act or practice by some, while also being defined as the doctrine or philosophy behind the act or practice by others. Examples include terrorism.

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals (fear in latin). Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants". 'The notion of terrorism is fairly straightforward — it is ideologically or politically motivated violence directed against civilian targets.'"

Key criteria:
*Violence - the only general characteristic [of terrorism] generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".
*Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences.
*Perpetrated for a Political Goal – Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, not unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by activists when they believe no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.
*Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their political end.
 

Ryz05

Junior Member
Terrorism is specifically defined as groups or individuals that operate through fear toward a political or social cause. The amount of damage terrorists do is not exactly how many people they kill, but how many they intimidate through their acts of assassination, bombings, etc. Terrorists especially take note of the media, who reports their crimes and the fear spreads. They seek to promote political change through psychological warfare.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
I suppose a good example of terrorism is the use of "secreted" bombs, whether in objects or carried by people, to strike at the heart of population centres with no warning (thus creating even more fear).

Of course terrorism isn't just limited to detonating explosives, but it is perhaps the most common weapon used by terrorists.
 

swimmerXC

Unregistered
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Terrorism is specifically defined as groups or individuals that operate through fear toward a political or social cause. The amount of damage terrorists do is not exactly how many people they kill, but how many they intimidate through their acts of assassination, bombings, etc. Terrorists especially take note of the media, who reports their crimes and the fear spreads. They seek to promote political change through psychological warfare.

If it's political/governmental then it's a freedom fighter :confused:
 

The_Zergling

Junior Member
If it's political/governmental then it's a freedom fighter :confused:

Well there is much truth in the saying that, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." It's really a winners write history books scenario.

I guess a similar situation would be considering what incidents should be viewed as war crimes - I remember Kissinger said about Vietnam that if it wasn't for the fact that the US hadn't lost, he would be tried as a war criminal. That's basically the reason why the firebombings of Tokyo, indiscriminate pounding of Dresden and North Korea aren't considered war crimes among most (Americans)...
 
Top