What is the actual definition of Terrorism and a terrorist?

Question

It seems that one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. When a country invades another isn't this state terror? The Afghans were hailed as heroes and supported by the USA against the Russians and now there terrorists! Are we just playing with words? Are there double standards and we choose to use that which suits our needs the best.

Answer 1

That always depends on which side of the fence you stand. The terrorists from the Irgun that bombed King david Hotel in 1946 are now treated as heroes. Mandela was imprisoned as a terrorist for some 26 years. The French resistance was also seen and hounded down as terrorists.

Answer 2

Terrorism and terrorist are terms that have very fluid meanings....
Someone using violence against you (or your country) but nt during an official war could be called a terrorist and said to be using terrorism. You can however guarantee that they are calling themselves freedom fighters.

History will judge as terrorists any that attempt (through violence) to overthrow or defeat a standing government and fail, if they succeed then they will have been freedom fighters (for example George Washington et al. If the British had won the American war of independance then they would all have been remembered by history as terrorists)

Answer 3

A terrorist is one who uses violence or the threat of violence, not meaning open warfare but guerrilla style tactics, such as car-bombs, kidnapping and assassination. This is often to intimidate, and achieves a political gain or spreads a political message.
The term "terrorist" is overused, especially by the press, as a shock tactic, to sell more papers. Almost every terrorist organisation spreads a political message, such as FARQ and PIRA. The term "terrorism" cannot be used to describe a regime or country, as it so often is by the media, but the organisations within a regime or country. We could call the SAS terrorists because they are fulfilling a political agenda by using violence but not in open warfare. The term "terrorism" has too many negative connotations. It has no affiliation to 'good' or 'bad' but is wholly the use of non-open warfare to achieve a political end. The Taliban were terrorists whilst fighting the Russians and are terrorists whilst fighting the Allies. The term has been misinterpreted so often that it is now a common misconception to believe that the term describes an evil person who is out to do unjust activities for their own selfish gain. This is simply not true.

Answer 4

There is double standards! I am suprised you didn't know that.
When it is your country, the mother land, you are fighting to protect yourself.
However, it is a rule of law that if someone hits you first you have a right to hit him back. That is called self-defense.
So when they did the 9/11 that was an act of agression. So therefore they should have done some investageting and got the guy responsible. What seems to be bothering everyone is the fact they are not quit sure what Iran had to do with it.
Now we are told that it is ok because Sadam is a bad person.
Actually, how other countries are governed shouldn't be anyone elses business but that country. I fail to see how Iran is better off by the USA being there. Seems to me they are the agressor.

Answer 5

The definition of terrorist = someone seeking change (political) by creating fear among the masses

terrorism on the other hand, while it seems to imply something done by a terrorist, that is not the case
terrorism is whatever a government claims it to be- it has no solid definition
EXAMPLE the fear mongering done by the BUSH administration would be a terrorist act, yet because they are in power, it is not terrorism???!!!
Confused yet? Terorism like the word F*CK can be used so many ways that it means everything and nothing!

Answer 6

interior the broadest sense terrorism might comprise any act executed by potential of any individual against the different individual for the objective of producing terror and each schoolyard bully, consequently, might qualify as a terrorist. which would be a not common element of get rid of from the international, doncha think of? i might like to work out an end to all bullying everywhere myself, yet i don't think of we are going to ever get there by military tension. i've got generally asked myself which brought about extra terror international 9/11 or the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan by potential of the U.S. military. Imho, G.W. Bush has been the international's maximum powerful and strong terrorist in historic previous considering the fact that 9/11.

Answer 7

terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

A terrorist is someone that employs fear as a weapon to achieve their aims. So say if you made a chart that told people how afraid they needed to be and you increased their terror threat level whenever you were experiencing bad publicity and needed to draw attention away from it by distracting the populous then you would technically be a terrorist.

Answer 8

Someone who uses violence and intimidation to try and force others to adopt their ways of life or policies. As a general rule, terrorists don't enjoy the popularity of the majority of people, whereas governments do. If a government utilises warfare to protect the interests of the people, it will do so within the precepts of the geneva convention, observe enemy combatants rights and try to avoid civilian and infrastructure casualties.
Terrorists deliberately target the general populace whilst avoiding confronting combatants. In this way they think they will scare the people into forcing their own government to submit to the will of the terrorists, whilst avoiding or minimising any risk to themselves.

Answer 9

Interesting question friend, its amazing how many closed minded twits we have on here.

Heres an anecdote for them. During the War, British bombers attacked and raided German cities, including the fitrebombing of Dresden, all of which were designed to frighten the German popuklation into submission.

Was that terror? By the definitions of people here, it certainly is. To us Brits however, they were 'fighting for our freedom'.

Do you understand that, you neo-conservative twats?

Answer 10

The definition of terrorism is that,terrorism is the process of doing activity of facilitating such action of terrorising.While terrorist is a physical person who engaged in doing such activity of terrorising.