What makes a terrorist: Method or Ideology?

Question

Does the term terrorism apply to ideology or method, or a combination? Some people say the U.S. is terrorist and the Jihadists are not, because of ideology, and vice-versa. Some say both are. Some say the Jihadists are terrorists because of kidnappings, suicide bombings... but is it different from telling one nation to do what you want or you will bomb them, killing civilians in the process? Is it a matter of who's fighting for what reason, or even whose god is better?

Also, terrorism's relative nonexistence is an acceptable answer... or whatever madness you can come up with, I'd like to hear it

Answer 1

Ideology.

Almost all of the methods used by terrorists are completely valid when used by soldiers during a time of war. The difference is the intent and the target, and that's based on ideology.

Answer 2

It can be both, the deffination of terror is:

"violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands "

If I grab a sniper rifle and start shoting random people I provoke terror in the population and fear that anyone could be next.

If someone records a tape saying they will kill many innocent people because their religion demands it, then randomly blow on a people, it also provokes terror in the population.

Now war is never a good thing, no matter what or who does it innocent people die. However, in war there are stated objectives and rules of engagement, you never INTENTIONALLY target civilians.

If a country one days says I will randomly fires weapons into my neighbours country and I don't care where they land, that's terrorism. They don't care for military objectives, they don't care for the rule of law, they don't care to resolve their problems in a diplomatic way, they just one day without provokation lob weapons over the boarder.

Now what ever you think of America, they don't do that. They should have done more in the diplomatic side during the build up to the Iraq war and so even claim that no matter what the answer they got they would have gone to war. However they don't intentionally target civilians. Now terrorist hide in civilian cloths and populations and then attack. Who's at fault then for unnessasary civilian deaths? The Americans or people who use civilians as their personal shields? Wanting large numbers of civilian deaths.

No, I don't believe in war but I also will never bow to cowards.

Countries have been bombing and killing each other long before the US ever came into being, at least in modern warfare (from Western countries anyway) there are some rules that are followed (sometimes it's hard to follow them, war is a crazy and chaotic place and thing happen).

As for my God is better then your God? Well in the case of Christians and Muslums, it's the same God, only different books. If anyone cares to know, they both come from the same root religion, so it's the same God.

All it is is some people want more power, that's all. Many of the terrorist groups want to create a Islamic Empire with extreme Islamic law replacing the rule of law and order. Do you want to live in a place like that? I don't, I like my freedom to choice and believe what I wish to believe. Not what someone tells me too on fear of death or torture or rape of family members

Answer 3

It's method because terrorism can be used to forward any ideology.

Violence or aggression in and of itself is NOT terrorism.

Say you steal something from me, I run you down, and recover the stolen property. That's not terrorism.

Now, say, you steal something from me and I kill your dog. That may be terrorism.

These are poor examples, but the point is that terrorism is a tool not used against your enemy, but over others who may have some influence over your enemy.

Under the broader guidelines of calling the U.S. a "terrorist," then the allies would have been terrorists for overthrowing Hitler in WWII and the colonists would have been terrorists for engaging in war with England during the Revolutionary War.

Answer 4

A terrorist is born partially because of ideologies that are misued and while doing so the methods used are conflicting with groups of people and nations etc. Hence we can assume they both play a role in the cretaion of a terrorist.

Answer 5

"they did not kill or allow their people to die in the name of their beliefs (or lack thereof), and rather, in the name of their political ideology." Their political ideology is still a belief. The Norway killer would still have killed. He didn't like immigrants, not just because they were Muslim. The KKK mainly didn't like Black people. Most Blacks are Christian, so is the Klan, it didn't have much to do with religion. Some school shooters were Atheists. Eric and Dylan, Eric Pekka Auvinen, were self proclaimed Athiests. I'm sure there are more. I love how atheists only believe facts. Thumbs down? It's just very funny that they don't agree with the facts I presented that go against what they believe in. Haha. Yet they do nothing to disprove them.

Answer 6

To me, it's "Method". The definition of a terrorist is to terrorize. People are used to routine, thus when something disrupts a routine, there is hesitation, there is discomfort, and in the case of violence as disruption of a routine, there is fear.

When I think back to school, I remember one teacher that said... do your homework tonight or there will be a huge quiz tomorrow. That is, in a sense terrorism. In our modern world, we have been lead to believe that people of a certain religion, or geography are terrorists. Rather, with actions there are consequences and we have been told that what we should do is to be afraid. That plays directly into the hands of people that are terrorists.

Religion has nothing to do with terrorism, in my view. It is what you do, not for whom you do it that makes terror

Answer 7

Now, I'm not an expert in this field, but the answer may be both.
It is the ideology that drives persons to commit acts of terrorism. And the acts of terrorism are generally clandestine and the aim is to maim or kill indiscriminately.

Answer 8

It is a combination of both, I think. I would say that how the acts are carried out (method) is as important as the thought or driving force behind them (ideology).

Answer 9

I believe it is method. A terrorist attacks civilian targets without any level of discrimination (or distinction) between civilian and military. That characteristic can be readily seen on the nightly news.

Answer 10

Doesn't matter how many times and how it is asked, this question will always come down to, on which side of the fence you are looking at the problem.

Some of us who take a humanistic view of our existence say that man has to live on this earth as equals or we all die. Period.