What is the difference between a terrorist and an extremist?

Acting violently on the extreme views.

A terrorist is an extremist who uses violence and/or the threat of violence to progress his cause. So the Norwegian right-winger of yesterday is just as much of a terrorist regardless of his religion.

@marinelife nailed it, I believe. Extremists hold views that may be considered to be exceptional and outside of the norm. Terrorists act on those views, usually in a violent manner.

I guess the words are used differently than how they literally would be defined. I agree with @marinelife‘s definition. But, I think in the US terrorist is commonly used to mean someone who is not a US citizen, or who is a citizen and not Christian. The Oklahoma city bomber, was called a bomber, not a terrorist. Extremists are anyone who is extreme, they might be violent might not. Might be just extreme in their thoughts and not in their actions.

They are not mutually exclusive, but there is a difference.

I was surprised at how much a single madman was construed in the news this morning as a terrorist. That seems like lazy journalism to me – he was not trying to turn Norway into a country in fear; he was trying to kill as many people as he could.

Terrorists try to make a violent statement so that society has to react as if another attack is imminent at all times, such as what we’ve done in the U.S. in the last ten years.

Violent extremists want a radical change in society and accept any means possible, even those contrary to their own values, as justified to achieve the ends they desire. There are left wing extremists and right wing extremists. The guy in Norway was a right wing extremist nut job with a lot of weapons.

@zenvelo Interesting disinction. That sounds right to me too.

I think they’re both invented labels, and both are used to politically label others as unacceptable and unworthy of consideration.

“Extremist” implies someone has extreme views, but doesn’t say they necessarily do anything about them. That label is generally used to get other people to consider those people’s opinions invalid or unreasonable.

To be labelled a “Terrorist”, one would generally take some terrorizing action, or at least plan or threaten to do it, where “terror” refers to the idea of doing (or threatening) something violent with the goal of causing terror which will have the effect of getting other people to change their minds or behavior in some way. People also use the label “terrorist” to get people to consider those people to be dangerous criminals rather than revolutionaries or warriors, and/or to justify use of violence or suspension of legal rights or increase of law enforcement powers or whatever.

The best example of successful terrorism is probably the 9/11 attacks getting the US news media to chant “the world changed forever on 9/11” for a decade or more, and all the other bullshit being done as if “the terrorists will get us if we don’t”.

Great Answer from @marinelife.

Violence or threat of violence is an action, not just a thought. In your head you can blow up the world – you have a right to extremist views, however irrational and uninformed. The terrorist, however, leaps to the next level and carries out acts of violence for real, wich may include indiscriminate murder – criminal, antisocial behavior. Nobody likes terrorists.

I think any extremist, of any group, can be a terrorist. It’s the action that defines it, not the particular group.

An extremist [of which a terrorist may be a sub-category, but not necessarily] has many more avenues of approach.
Religious or political proselytization, fundraising, public service in the name of, etc.

I think Anders Behring Breivik can be best compared with Timothy James McVeigh.

Was Timothy James McVeigh seen as a terrorist? Or just an extremist?

I would see both as terrorists because their violent acts were intended to create fear. Not all extremists have this motive. Some extremists just seek revenge. To me that’s the main difference between the two terms.

Some extremists just want you to give up your fur coats and leather shoes and eat no animal matter, or live without using any forms of energy that weren’t available in the middle ages, or give up wearing clothing altogether but they are not out for revenge and the worst they can do is annoy the hell out of you [or maybe cost you some money if they throw red paint on your full length mink coat].