What defines terrorism?

Terrorism is no longer a meaningful term; it now means a combatant against the U.S. or its allies, or anybody who might be a combatant against us, or anybody doing something that might harm us, or anyone we don’t like. It helps if they aren’t white and Christian.

I think the big difference is that terrorism is directed against civilian targets not military ones.

I think it’s something a person or group of people do to cause terror and they believe they’re doing it for a good reason.

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political gains is the dictionary definition and I think it is accurate except I think the pursuit of religious dominance and economic gains could be legitimately added.

I see 9/11 as a blatant act of terrorism against Americans of all colors and religions. How it was dealt with leaves room for discussion, but let’s not diminish the horror of it by insinuating that it is a tool used against only against helpless non-white non-christians.

Well, if today’s predominant and convenient definition is anything to go by, it’s when anyone attacks the western world, regardless of motivation. But hey, the word didn’t seem to be so popular whenever the western world may have committed unjustified acts of violence. And, if http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/vb/ny.html this is anything to go by, the state is the genius behind terrorism.

Anything the media wants to hype is terrorism: terrorists, eco-terrorism, cyber-terrorism, etc..

If we called them “a bunch of nuts” or “crazed cowards” there just wouldn’t be the same implied threat that “terrorism” conveys.

More people die in automobile accidents each year than terrorist attacks.

Our media is the main supporter of terrorism because they are constantly talking about it and exaggerating the real danger. They define terrorism.

This question was asked here

This was my brilliant reply:

Let me start off my answer by defining terrorism.
Osama Bin Ladin is probably the second best known terrorist in the world. The 9–11 attacks were probably the most vicious act he will accomplish. His targets were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Capitol. The WTC was an attack on our financial system. The Pentagon was an attack on our military. The Capitol was an attack on our government and laws.
The weapon of a terrorist is not an airliner, a car bomb, or an exploding vest. The true weapon of a terrorist is fear. These other things are tools he uses to create fear, and he uses that fear against a people to make them do things they don’t want to do.
Following me so far?
I said Bin Laden is the second best known terrorist. Who is the first?
George W. Bush.
He used fear to make us go into Iraq. He used fear to get us to allow torture, spy on Americans, hold American citizens prisoner without recourse to the law, and subvert Constitutional rights. He used fear to get reelected.
The results? The financial system is a wreck. The military is over-burdened. Our government and laws have been compromised.
Bush succeeded beyond Bin Ladens wildest dreams.
Worst President Ever.
Now, as far as random acts of violence, they are not trying to accomplish a goal using fear as leverage. It would be if their aim were anarchy, or getting minorities out of their neighborhood. If we are talking about a random mugging, then that isn’t terrorism. If it’s trying to do more than that one act, it heads in that direction. A gang shooting up a house over a drug war qualifies.

i think for people who against USA are Terrorism.

@xzlslazcarter Welcome to fluther. Lurve.
You mean terrorists? That’s a pretty wide definition.

lol…Geroge W. Bush is a terrorist. Terrorism is an enemy of the U.S. I repeat again: Where are the conservatives? ;)

Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate and coerce, to instill terror and fear into the people of the nation/organization that is being attacked. Someone mentioned that it is directed against civilians and while that’s not a requirement, that does seem to be something that most “terror attacks” have in common in that they’re not just aimed to instill fear in the political leaders, but also in the civilians. If counter-terrorism acts use terror and fear to accomplish what they accomplish, then they are no different.

The word terrorism has no meaning anymore. Welcome back to the Red Scare, remember that time when Joseph McCarthy pretty much ruled the U.S. by calling everyone communists? That is what is happening today!

Now, don’t get on my case because I am an animal rights activist, but F**K! Sorry, but with the recent passing of the AETA” , The government has the power to silence any animal activist. We have been stripped of our civil liberties. If our fore fathers could see what the government was doing, they would be disgusted!

This does not only pertain to Animal Rights Activists, but to all revolutionists.

Defining a terrorist group as one that uses fear and violence to accomplish its goals does nothing to differentiate it from, say, our noble armed forces. By definition, an army uses fear of annihilation to force its enemies to capitulate, and in almost all cases it is annihilation of civilians that is threatened or carried out. “Terrorist” groups just happen to be smaller and under-equipped and so their attacks must be more selective. Either our troops are terrorists or our enemies are soldiers; as satisfying as it is to just say “Oh, but they’re terrorists” and leave it at that, it is important to realize that while the ideological differences between our two sides may be vast, the methods we employ to realize them are quite similar, diverging only insofar as convenience dictates.

You forgot to add this again “It helps if they aren’t white and Christian.”

Brown people use terr’rism. White people use forced coops.

That’s the difference in my mind anyways.

For those of you saying terrorists are always non-Christian and brown, ever heard of the Provisional Irish Republican Army?

@DominicX; for my part, I was just saying that for a given case, a non-white non-Christian is more likely to be labeled a terrorist, not that someone that fits this profile is more likely to commit ‘terrorist’ acts.

@DominicX Ever heard of sarcasm?

@boots

That’s my point. You guys are acting like America only considers non-white people and direct threats to the U.S. to be terrorists. The PIRA is considered to be a terrorist group by the U.S. and it isn’t a threat to the U.S. and it isn’t Muslim.

@DominicX I’m playing off of stereotypes. I’m aware of the pIRA and actually used them as an example of white terrorist to that one dumb “conservative” cunt on wis.dm… What was her name…? The PM surprise attacker. You know.

Not to be confused with terrorisht GWB’s reference to Libya, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, N Korea, Palestine, Taliban, Tamil Tigers et al, also not to be confused with shock and awe that is something of the majesty of divine retribution.

I wasn’t expecting such one sided agreement, doesn’t fluther have any resident neocons?

Freedom fighters try to spare the innocent.

@mattbrowne Which excludes Xe (formally Blackwater), who just want to kill muslims.

@filmfann – Why would any sane person want to kill Muslims?

@mattbrowne According to the two people who used to work for Blackwater, the companies founder allegedly saw himself as a “a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/08/informants-accuse-blackwater-founder-murder-crimes/?test=latestnews

@mattbrowne key word there being Sane.

Well, “Christian crusaders” killing innocent men, women and children are not Christians. I have no problem with Blackwater folks fighting real terrorists, ideally capturing them so they can be tried.