Fair definitions of terrorist and terrorism

Why do you think I work so hard crawling the web ?? For you. Use me.

http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=define:terrorist&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

 

I think that the reason you're stuck is that you're thinking about this perceptively.

I would say that you're basically right. A terrorist is someone who uses violence upon non-military targets usually in pursuit of a political goal, IMHO.

The problem is two fold: 1) Almost no one would call themselves a terrorist - it's a name applied to other people and 2) The tactic described above is frequently used by established governments and in many cases was used by the antecedents of governments; the revolutionaries were “terrorists” until the revolution succeeded, then they crossed that out in the history books and proclaimed themselves revolutionaries.

So really, it's someone who employs the violence upon non-military targets tactic, plus they're a bad guy. If you can agree with someone on who the bad guys are you can probably agree with them on who the terrorists are. But if the two of you don't agree on who the bad guys are you'll probably end up arguing about who the terrorists are too.

⚛​

 

A person that intentionally sets out to induce terror on other people. Note, as different people find different things to be "terrifying", "terrorist" is a subjective term.

 

LOL! Who killed JFK? We have video of that. Are you saying that you can scientifically prove that someone's a terrorist? With a blood test or something?

You seriously don't think there's any disagreement about who is a terrorist? Here's a good question for you: in the various revolutions that freed parts of Ireland from British rule during the last couple of centuries, were the Irish freedom fighters or the British security forces the terrorists? They both killed quite a few civilians.

The same example applies to your question about paymasters, Wolram. Does the fact that the beginnings of the Irish Republic were funded by “Catholic subversives” make Ireland a terrorist state?

I would say yes, but mostly from the point of view of British people who have had loved ones die or been harmed by the actions of those Irish freedom fighters. And similarly, the British are a bunch of oppressive terrorists from the point of view of the Irish who have been harmed or had loved ones die in British policing and counter-revolutionary actions in Ireland. If anyone wants to tell either of those parties that they're wrong, go ahead, but I'm not getting involved.

⚛​

 

a person that does 65 mph in a roundabout.

 

Perhaps any definition of terrorists would be further enhanced by appending "and has not achieved their objective yet."

 

That covers just about any war or military action.

Circular logic. Terrorists commit acts of terror? That would certainly include Bush - shock and awe and the preceding threats.

Again, circular logic. Terroristic acts are committed by terrorists? That reminds me of the meaning of "is". .

 

I'm suggesting that the facts of the JFK assassination are very much under controversy despite the fact that we have it on video. Come on, it wasn't exactly a cryptic comment.

You talked about scientific determination of historical facts. Why did you bring that up unless you think that determining who is a terrorist is a matter of historical fact or scientific determination?

Yeah, there isn't an objective definition of who is a terrorist and who isn't. Okay, if it's such an objective matter then answer my question: which side was the terrorists in the Irish revolution? That's basically the point where the word “terrorist” was invented, during the Dynamite War.

You're a 3rd party to that. If it's such a simple matter I don't see why you avoided answering that question.

⚛​

 

How is shock and awe an act of terror Ivan?

I think that comment was in poor taste, no offense.

 

I have to agree Captain Q: For all practical purposes, "terrorist" is an Orwellian word. One man's freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.

 

I was using the definition given. The shock and awe were specifically intended to strike terror in the enemy. You only think it was in poor taste because you are using your own definition.