What is the legitimate definition of "terrorist", or "terrorism"?

[shance]

Just read a thread how the CIA will now be monitoring forums and the internet chat rooms for potential **terrorists**.

Which begs the question that has never legitimately been answered, What is the true definition of terrorist?

Is there even a legitimate definition?

Or is it some subjective term that anyone can twist and manipulate for their own usage?

I heard on the radio today someone say the definition of terrorism by this Administration is anyone that disagrees with this Administration.

Thought that was pretty funny, and yet there is validity to that point, especially when looking at the people, including many of us involved in political activism that they intimidate and harass because of our opposition to their policies.

So, what is the definition of terrorist and terrorism?

In remembering the history of communism and all the people looped into that category, I think its important to remember and re-expose how the use of *labels* are utilized to abuse, intimidate, scapegoat, unfairly accuse and even harm those in disagreement with individuals in this Administration.

[magellan]

1. Someone who uses terror as a means of coercion

That's the dictionary definition. Don't know if they've got a dictionary at the WH though. :eyes:

[BlueEyedSon]

3. They probably have one. Reading it (or anything else) is another matter!

[shance]

5. One man's *coercion* is another man's frat party prank.

Just ask Rush Limbaugh.

:)

[BlueEyedSon]

2. There isn't one.

How conveeeeeeenient.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

4. I would say

anybody that purposely murders civilians for a political or religious cause.

[shance]

19. Does it have to just be relegated to political/social causes.

To be terrorized can come in any realm for any reason.

[WithStamina]

6. It's simple

One who attacks civillians in order to achieve political goals. Anything else is hogwash.

Yes, the insurgents in Iraq are terrorists.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

7. Only the ones who target markets

and other public places. The ones who are fighting are soldiers directly are not terrorists.

[question everything]

8. You don't even have to have political goals

Any one who terrorizes - frightens - civilians.

And, welcome to DU :toast:

[WMliberal]

11. well...

are they, if they attack soldiers then? Terrorists stick strictly to soft targets.

[Saffy]

9. Using FEAR as a tactic; "Who's Your Daddy?"

"There is an almost symbiotic pattern that emerges through the use of patriarchal language in both the socio-politic and domestic spheres. This pattern emerges through the use of vague, fear producing language which in turn creates a sense of dependency on the speaker, or dominator to manifest comfort and security for the listener."
"In order to illustrate dependency creating language, empty language and personalization, I will attempt a deconstruction of President G.W. Bush’s post 9/11, State of the Union speech:
“There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror. There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. “ These two statements offer us a glimmer of just how protected we are from hearing about the atrocities of war, but we are to feel secure because we are in the hands of a great father who knows all (“receives reports of operations”), and gives daily orders to protect us even further. However, the “threat” and “operations” remain a mystery in his vague terminology, and his response to these threats is equally unclear. He goes on to say, “Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time”. He does not give a name to the danger, nor does he propose a solution. He uses negative and emotionally threatening language to create vague and universal fear. An example of personalization is found later in the same speech when President Bush asks the citizens of America “to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight”. This tactic addresses the fear he just provoked, and also instills a sense of personal understanding and compassion. At this point his listener’s may not realize that they’ve been caught in a web of fear through the use of manipulative, patriarchal language, but they will most likely notice the apparent concern and compassion for their fears. He then goes on to say, “I’ve made up my mind, I’ve said in speech after speech, I’ve made myself clear”. This last statement is not only empty, but also incredibly patronizing, which is, after all, the pinnacle of patriarchal language. He has insinuated that his listeners, the citizens of America, have not paid close enough attention to his previous speeches to acknowledge his level of clarity. He is essentially accusing his listeners of being no more cognizant than children (or infants) in need of his fatherly protection."

Since I'm quoting my own self, I hope it's acceptable to cut and paste without citing the source.

Saffy

[Saffy]

13. Can we at least agree that...

...terrorism is knowingly and purposefully invoking fear?
Perhaps it comes in the form of a bomb. Or a few, well-written (though mis-spoken) words. Or, even in the form of a talking head with no real concept of the effect(s) of his fear invoking language.

[freesqueeze]

10. I remember a definition from a Philosophy course

it was:

"an act of violence committed against a civilian target for a political purpose."

The Prof let that set in for a half a minute and then asked "Was Hiroshima a terrorist act?"

Isn't that just like a Philosophy Prof?

By this definition 9/11 (terrorism), road side bombings of US HumVees in Iraq (not terrorism-military target), the DC snipers (not terrorism-economic purpose), the bombing of a wedding party in western Iraq (ugh ... no comment.)

[RedTail Wolf]

12. One man's terrorist is

another;s "freedom fighter". Yasir was labeled a terrorist and got the Nobel Peace Prize...you tell me which he was? I would suggest that your answer would be colored by your opinion on Israel. So the question , while an interesting one really has no answer in my humble opinion.
Were settlers and the US Govt that slaughtered many of my ancestors terrorists? Were my ancestors terrorists for fighting for the land they were born on? Is the current govt. terrorists for torturing prisoners at Gitmo or invading a country who never attacked us; or are the people fighting US soldiers over there terrorists for defending their religion and their homeland?
Seems to me it all depends on your perspective.

RedTail Wolf

[shance]

14. Great points Red Tail*

n/t

[Make7]

15. From the FBI

Quote: Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85) - FBI

So if you make the laws, you're not a terrorist.

-Make7

[Lexingtonian]

16. A Republican on a bender

:D

[shance]

20. Or a Republican with less than a million in the bank***

:)

[sweetheart]

17. War is terrorism of the rich, and terrorism is war of the poor

The terrorists are in washington AND iraq... these patriarchal fools.

[Swamp Rat]

18. Noam Chomsky, the noted activist, points to the claims that distinguish

between the targeting of civilians and the targeting of military personnel. If the logic underlying "counterterrorism" is used consistently, the use of military force against civilians must also qualify as terrorism.

Violence, Chomsky says, is objective, wheras "terrorism" is relative to the speaker or their point of view. He states in his book 9-11, page 76: "The wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism."