How do you personally define terrorist? Would you ever be one?

Question

Yes I know what the dictionary says :- The use of violence and intimidation for political purpose! Is that how you see it?

Yes pretty good so far, but most of you are telling me you would never be a 'terrorist' can this really be true???

Answer 1

It depends upon who is calling whom a terrorist. Yes, I agree that terrorism might be defined as the use of violence and other unconventional methods to effect political change but often this violence is directed towards repressive regimes. Several cases in point: Nelson Mandela was branded a terrorist by the apartheid South African government; the people in Algeria fighting for their freedom against the colonialist French were considered terrorists; those fighting against military juntas in Central and South America were often branded terrorists by those regimes and subjected to horrible tortures. So yes, if I were living under such repressive circumstances, I might consider giving moral or logistical support to so called terrorist groups, even if not fully engaging in terrorist activities. Bottom line: It depends upon how bad things are and whether the "terrorist" goal is the betterment of the people.

Answer 2

On a political level this definition is about right but you have to look at the bigger picture to see the impact of terrorism.There are those who carry out the act as a way of sending a clear message and there are those who are affected by it.The terrorists aim is to instill terror.If they have a terrified nation they have control.There are no rules in war.Would i ever be a terrorist..no.why would i?I abhor violence.

Answer 3

According to the dictionary definition, the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be called terrorists. But the Maoists and Shining Path movements can. So there. But I will never be a terrorist as described., but I sure will do a bit of insurgency if it is called for.

Answer 4

Anybody who intentionally inflicts harm upon others.

Even the legal definition of terrorism has been broadened. A woman in MN was charged with "making terroristic threats" because she followed a rival with some cooking grease and threatened to throw the grease on her.

No...you could never convince me to cause another person harm.

Answer 5

Terrorism is a military tactic. A lot like a flanking maneouvre or a airstrike..

It is also a label that controls both sides, it is a very powerful tool that puts terror into both sides.

The people who use this sort of language are the ones you must ask a hell of a lot of questions about.

It is both very vague and very dangerous.


Ps)Yep it is logically impossible to defeat a military tactic. If one enemy stops using it another will.

How can you have a war against "Airstrike"?

Answer 6

Yes, but only under extreme circumstances. Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army.

Answer 7

A terrorist is someone who spreads fear and hate through propaganda and violence as a means to further their agenda.

Like Al Qaeda.

Or the Bush administration.

Answer 8

To me a terrorist is someone who deliberately targets and tries to murder unarmed civillians including women and children to push forward their political views or aims. And does it in an underhand way - ie bombs secreted in backpacks etc - instead of standing up and being counted with a gun.

And no I could never be one as I could never kill.

Answer 9

Ah but one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and yes i could easily become a terrrorist if the circumstances were such

Answer 10

he is the person who terrors the others and uses violence . as for me , i can ' t be a terrorist according to my personality (i like peace) except against enemies when there is no other way , if i can ' t convince them to leave me living peacefully .