Unfortunately there isn't going to be a consensus on this. Our corrupt government and the terrorist state of Israel likes to label people terrorists on the basis of politics. For instance, Israel has a US-funded military, full of tanks, planes, and rockets. The Palestinians have no military, and are forced to rely upon rocks and crude homemade weapons (and suicide bombers) to fight. When Israel invades their terrority, they call it a "military operation", but when Palestinians fight back with what little they have, they call it "terrorism". Do you see the hipocrisy? By that definition, all one needs do to elevate themselves from the label of terrorist is to be better armed and better equipped. That doesn't make any sense, and it's illogical, but it's the load that our government and media are desperately trying to shove down our throats. The encyclopedia, however, does have something to say about the word terrorist. And here it is:
"An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result."
So, what is terror?
"Terror is a pronounced state of fear, an overwhelming sense of imminent danger."
So, a terrorist would be one who causes another to be in a pronounced state of fear.
I guess more people and governments are terrorists afterall...
2006-08-24 23:17:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by surfinthedesert 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Webster Dictionary:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Peace Dictionary:
The essence of the activity-the use of, or threat to use, violence. According to this definition, an activity that does not involve violence or a threat of violence will not be defined as terrorism (including non-violent protest-strikes, peaceful demonstrations, tax revolts, etc.). The aim of the activity is always political-namely, the goal is to attain political objectives; changing the regime, changing the people in power, changing social or economic policies, etc. In the absence of a political aim, the activity in questwill not be defined as terrorism. A violent activity against civilians that has no political aim is, at most, an act of criminal delinquency, a felony, or simply an act of insanity unrelated to terrorism. Some scholars tend to add ideological or religious aims to the list of political aims. The advantage of this definition, however, is that it is as short and exhaustive as possible.
The UN has not agreed upon a single defintion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
2006-08-24 23:14:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by dm_dragons 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
ter·ror·ism (tÄr'É-rÄz'Ém) pronunciation
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
2006-08-24 23:12:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Elizabeth 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
For cripe's sake, look it up. Other people have asked this question on here before too.
http://dictionary.com
2006-08-24 23:11:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Catmmo 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
terrorism is when a person or group of people intentionally hurt/kill/kidnap citizens...
like hamas; Hezbollah;Alkaida
2006-08-24 23:37:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
its in the dictionary, look it up
2006-08-24 23:14:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by sikn_shadow_420 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
All muslims are not terrorist but all terrorist are muslims ?
2006-08-24 23:20:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Eby 3
·
1⤊
0⤋