Regarding usage of term 'terrorist'?

Question

This is not meant to be a flame, please limit question to only well reasoned responses that will help me to gain an insight into your thinking :)

I have heard many people refer to Kacyznski and McVeigh as terrorists. This is generally explained by the fact that they killed many non-military people. But going by this simple definition, doesn't the US government commit acts of terrorism all the time? Think about all the casualties in every war fought by the US, and the Waco Massacre. The explanation for these is usually that these wars were fought in the name of freedom and that casualties were inevitable. But Kacyznski and McVeigh fought a war in the name of freedom too, and casualties were inevitable. When people don't agree with THEIR wars, they call them insane and terrorists, but when they don't agree with a US war, they just protest or accept it as normal that they won't agree with every government act.

And the US blames other governments soldiers for casualties if they hide behind civilians, but then McVeigh is blamed for the deaths of children when he blew up a GOVERNMENT building.

Oh right, the question is basically, if you are one of these people that believe what I tried to argue against, can you explain your beliefs?

Answer 1

Terrorism is the use of violence to create fear in an effort to alter a government's political position. That is the definition (roughly) that the Department of Defense uses.

The State Department uses a different definition, which says that individuals (but not nations) may engage in terrorism.

Ted Kaczynski was not really a terrorist -- he had a political agenda, but I'm not sure he was using the bombings to carry them out. Timothy McVeigh, on the other hand, did kill 168 people for political reasons -- he was trained to do so by the US government in the military.

While there have been many civilian casulaties in Iraq (probably between 60 and 80 thousand), most were collaterol damage.
Their deaths were not intentionally political.

I think the United States government has committed many acts which could be classified as terrorism, but I am not sure the Iraq War makes the list. A war crime, certainly, but not terrorism.

Answer 2

i would say the main difference i see, is that a terrorist purposely kills the innocents, meaning those not actively engaged in war, though you are correct, many , while not planning the killing of non military, know its going to happen, and do nothing to prevent it, so yes they are just as guilty,,,,,, Americans are/have been terrorist,,,,, it began with the building of this country, the killing of Natives,,,,,,,, the bombing of Japan,,,,,,, etc etc,,,,,, the current uproar about terrorism is because someone did it to us,,,,,, how dare they! yet it goes on, has gone on, all over the world,, every day,, since recorded history,,,,,, i dont think any nation is quilt free,,,,

Answer 3

Jeez. There are over a hundred definitions of the term 'terrorist.' You can pretty much pick your poison here.

I think it's a person who uses force against noncombatants for some political purpose. But lots of people think it's something else, and will argue about it. As I said, pick your poison.

Answer 4

two things

1. Can a terrorist be a freedom fighter or Is it not a matter of perspective and of language use!
2. I am thinking seriously. refer to 1. above

Answer 5

This is the pot calling the kettle black.
People think that by using terminology they can distance themselves from sin and responsibility.
They choose graphic terms to illistrate their points, while feeding the themes with gross examples of horror and tragedy.
It is premeditated and a highly effective method of mass control.
But for people like yourself who think laterally....They would succeed

Answer 6

Ow. My brain hurts now.

Answer 7

my answer is simple, people are crazy,and they think everone else is...