How do you define terrorism?

Question

Does the term "shock and awe" not fit in out definition?

Answer 1

haters who hate on beautiful america!

Answer 2

decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

Answer 3

Terrorism is the intentional use of violence or threat of violence against a civilian population or government for political or ideological reasons. Terrorists do not wear standardized uniforms like "freedom fighters" do, even if it is nothing more than a red band on the arm or something to that extent. Attacking military targets and targets key to military and defense infastructure are legitimate targets and are not typically considered acts of terrorism.

Yes, a uniformed military force can commit acts of terrorism, Saddam against the Kurds, for example. Shock and awe is not terrorism, because the attacks were not directed at civilian targets, but key targets to Iraq's defense infastructure. It was shock and awe designed to demoralize Iraq's military forces and encourge surrender.

Answer 4

This is a good question! Because do you know that if you so much as threaten to kick somebody's a*s, they consider that as a terrorist threat? Since 911, people have really gotten paranoid or if they were paranoid from the beginning, they are really popping prescription drugs and running to a therapist now! It's truly sad! I consider an actual terrorist threat when there is a rocket full of nuclear mass, and it is pointed directly in our zone only! You can't use certain sentences on your job anymore, forget about sexual harassment, they've just practically have ignored this law. People are just waiting for you to open your month during a hostile moment so that they can have you lock the hell up. It's sad! Where I'm from, we just hold our own. We don't look at one threat any worst then the other, unless it's like I wrote previously---(a rocket pointed directly in our zone) in-which something of nature would be horrific! You know --- like if we had to go defcon 1!

PS: And it also what coragryph wrote. He is soooo gorgeous!

Answer 5

Terrorism is the acts - or even the threat of such acts - by a bunch of Godless hoodlums, who are mindless robots, to destroy a group of people who they hate and envy. Imagine! if no one had done anything after 9-11, just as in the past. There would be bigger and bigger attacks until our nation was destroyed, then where would mouths, like you and me, live?

Answer 6

The first recorded use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" was in 1795, relating to the Reign of Terror instituted by the French government. Of course, the Jacobins, who led the government at the time, were also revolutionaries and gradually "terrorism" came to be applied to violent revolutionary activity in general. But the use of "terrorist" in an anti-government sense is not recorded until 1866 (referring to Ireland) and 1883 (referring to Russia).

This UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid is widely used by social scientists and seems to be the most exhaustive of all the ones I read:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). [2]

Answer 7

That or those that,/who bring about feelings of terror: for instance exploding buildings, sniper fire, scud missiles, shrapnel flying around, living in a world where there are people (muslim terrorist) who feel that if you do not believe as they that you deserve to die, and whose members feel that dying is an honor for them.

A new one is the the aggravation of having to present 2 certified forms of ID in order to be interviewed for a job when there are illegals working all over the place........guess that falls into the category of what pisses me off, though it terrorizes me as well.

Answer 8

Um if you are a conservative terrorism is defined as anyone who does not agree with the current administrations views on things.
If you are a normal person, Bush is the true terrorist, he is using peoples fears to control them.

Answer 9

Terrorism is the systematic use, or threatened use, of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change. Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured or taken hostage but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong.

Answer 10

An act directed at civilian (an sometimes military), targets that ultimately tries to destroy the will of the people. Usually terrorists do not have the ability to confront militaries, especially ones like the U.S. or Russia, and therefore have to resort to these tactics.

Answer 11

George Bush