2007-05-23 12:10:54 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I mean if there is no intent to harm people then doesnt that make them something other than a terrorist
2007-05-23 12:11:36 · update #1
My question to you is, are you willing to bet your life or that of your family?
2007-05-23 12:53:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The definition of a terrorist is anyone the government wants to call a terrorist to protect the rich and the elite. Which is why the government wants to oppress so called "eco-terrorists" with a cruel and unusual punishment which would be otherwise unconstitutional..
2007-05-23 19:19:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
their purpose is to incite fear and terror for the purpose of control. Really good terrorism results in immense fear not necessarily a high body count. the shooters in the Maryland area a while back didn't really kill many people for the level of fear they created. GWB frightened an entire nation into believing Iraq was a threat, the Patriot Act was good and that we had to surrender some freedoms to be safe, and all it took was standing by, making sure 9/11 could happen at the price of some 5,000 lives; pretty low body count to terrorize 100,000,000 Americans.
2007-05-23 19:24:51 · answer #3 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A terrorist's intent is to terrorize.
As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary.
1. to fill or overcome with terror.
2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation.
3. to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings.
So no, the definition of terrorist does not include intent to kill.
2007-05-23 19:31:04 · answer #4 · answered by Mother Amethyst 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The strict definition of a terrorist is to scare you into thinking he will injure or maim in order to get something. The term may not really apply to Al Qaeda due to the fact that they seem really intent on killing/ eliminating rather than trying to scare people into what? Becoming Muslims? I think they would rather kill than convert.
2007-05-23 19:16:30 · answer #5 · answered by dshultz1012 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The intent is to win concessions by inspiring terror through some illegal act. Randomly killing people is certainly a proven way to do that.
I suppose there are less lethal ways of inspiring terror. If you burn down the places of business of a people you don't want in your neighborhood, for instance, you might successfully terrorize them out of it without actually killing anyone.
2007-05-23 19:16:25 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no..the definition of terrorism is to obtain an objective through terror...scaring people is enough...killing is just the best way to do this.
2007-05-23 22:26:55 · answer #7 · answered by Dr. Luv 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Islamic Radical terrorist want us dead,No if,ands,buts about it!
A terrorist could be some1 who just wants to install fear into you and your everyday life.
2007-05-23 19:15:43 · answer #8 · answered by Classic96 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There can be cultural / societal terrorists, I think.
2007-05-23 19:13:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, there are other degree to terrosim, and it does not have to be intent to kill people.
2007-05-23 19:13:47 · answer #10 · answered by mttshah 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋