"Terrorism" doesn't really have any independent meaning at all, does it?

Question

Isn't "terrorism" really just a matter of perception? After all, it doesn't independently define anything quantifiable, it only describes a fear-based emotive reaction, so how can it have any meaning at all apart from that?

All harmful acts perpetrated against others create "terror" in the minds of their victims, do they not?

And yet if someone is committing a wrongful act that is not within the context of an armed conflict, then that person is simply a criminal, is he not? So isn't "terrorist" a totally superfluous description when "crime" already describes the act in question?

Shouldn't "terrorism" only be used in instances where the sole intent of the wrongful act was to induce the emotion of terror and terror alone?

Otherwise, it's all really just a matter of subjective perception, isn't it? E.g., in the American Revolution the colonists would have considered themselves "freedom fighters", while the British would have considered them terrorists, wouldn't they?

Whether or not the colonists were blowing up their own people, the British perception of them as "terrorists" and "insurrectionists" would have still been the same, wouldn't it?

Hey, I'm in agreement with you Frank. If they kill people by their actions, let's call them either murderers or enemy combatants. If they burn down buildings, let's call them arsonists.

But not terrorists. That word has no real meaning when it can apply to everything.

Sorry How, but the colonists did use guerilla-type attacks against the British. The Minutemen engaged in loose, uncoordinated attacks against British regulars in addition to fighting them in organized fashion.

Francis Marion's Swamp Raiders also engaged in guerilla attacks exclusively, never confronting the British in direct attacks.

Nathaniel Greene also frequently employed irregular guerilla tactics in the Southern campaign, attacking British supply lines rather than confronting them directly.

Answer 1

It all depends which side you are on and defining it accordingly.

Answer 2

Did the colonial militia ever blow up a building in London full of British civilians? Were British civilians the primary target of their actions? Were the American colonists trying to acheive victory by killing as many British civilians as possible, so to create enough fear to motivate the British government to give in?

The answers to all those questions is NO. So, of course, your argument is flawed and very poorly thought out.

The American colonists fought a military force with a military force. The fought in clearly defined pitched battles, with a clear command structure. The objective was victory through military success, not fear.

Try harder.

Answer 3

The definition of Terrorism is: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Terrorism has a nasty habit of targeting innocent civilians who have done nothing to warrant such actions taken against them.

However, Arafat told us that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

In this day and age Terrorism is a tool used by those that feel they are disenfranchised and do not have a voice in world politics.

Answer 4

No. The colonists attacked military targets, a basic hallmark of terrorism is their attack on civilians in order to terrorize them to accept whatever they want supported.

Addition: insurgents are different from terrorist, you really need to take a look at a dictionary.

Answer 5

Goodness sake, moral relativism is bad enough, but literal relativism?

Words that don't mean anything because "Someone" can think of another way to define it?

We have a dictionary for a reason. Each of our words DO change meaning over time, but there are standard meanings for such words, and simply deciding you have your own meaning doesn't make it real.

What you describe is not terrorism. Terrorism has been defined quite clearly. Why is it so hard to use a dictionary?

Answer 6

LOL

You are asking WAY too intellectual a question for the average Y!A user to comprehend.

If it's not black-and-white in it's simplicity, any philosophical political concept will be shot down as evidence of "the other."

Answer 7

So then you consider the Serbians freedom fighters then. Just want to get that straight.

Answer 8

Durrrrrrrrrr,our colonists weren't blowing up their own people!! What's in that hookah you're smoking.

Answer 9

I agree, murderer is a better word. Terrorist makes it sound like less than murder.