Something which has always managed to fascinate and annoy me is how flexible the term "Terrorist" is. What exactly classifies as a terrorist? How come if one man goes out with a gun to shoot other people with guns, only one person will be designated the terrorist? How come the French Resistance don't count as terrorists when the PLO do? How come the American war of independence is not terrorism whilst the Irish struggle is? Is it just because the we refuse to accept that we may be just as bad as the other, or that the other is not bad at all? Is it because the word is now synonymous with "evil"? Obviously there are groups that you can just flat out call terrorists because they deliberately try to terrorize people, such as Al Qaeda. But what let's the British army get away with attacks which result only in civilian deaths without being branded terrorists? I have my opinions and I'd like to hear yours. I feel it's a subject that isn't touched upon enough.
My personal definition is one who wishes to incite a panic through use of fear. Going out and shooting up a bunch of people to settle a vendetta isn't an act of terrorism to me, it's an act of insanity. Going out and shooting up a bunch of people to send a wave of fear through the others is.
Whatever the definition of terrorism is, it is not synonymous or automatically defined as Islamic extremism, as some crazy people want it to be. Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
The difference between a terrorist group and a group like the IRA comes down to target selection. Al Qaeda attacks innocent people to spread fear among the populace. That is terrorism. The IRA attacked military targets to spread fear among military personnel. That, by definition, is guerrilla warfare.
I view terrorism as an attack on civilians to incite fear in the population, a military attacking another military group is not terrorism. although the word terrorism (or terrorist ext) is over used, the government and/or reporters use these words even if it doesn't fit the situation. I personally don't know about all of the topics brought up in the OP (I don't watch the news and history was my least favorite class) but as I have been told many times "history is written by the winners." The people who define(d) the topics listed don't see themselves as terrorists so they don't get described as such, even if a specific group acts as a terrorist would if they are victorious they become the heroes written about in history and the opposing side is labeled "evil". So I guess it boils down to 'terrorist becoming synonymous with the term 'evil' and evil by nature being completely based on each person's individual views.
The definition of 'terrorism' for me, is the use of violence to make a political, religious, or governmental statement, usually in the form of bombs and/or planes crashing into large buildings to create fear or widespread panic. Pretty simple.
Seeing all these statements about "Using violence for political purposes" and "Spreading fear throughout the populace" brings me to another point. Why is it that if a rebel group does this, it's terrorism. But if a legitimate military, such as the British army, does the same, it's not terrorism? How come the French Resistance are not terrorists and yet the IRA are? That's the issue. The definition is abused.
I have my own little form of terrorism. It doesn't cause any terror but it sure annoys people! I get songs stuck in peoples heads! I sing things like mambo #5, theme song to mr rogers, and hey micky!:Trollestia:
^ this is my oppinion on the use of the term. Mainly for de-humanizing opponents of something. This is a serious problem in western countries that really bothers me. Every group and most religions have their extremists, even Buddhists. what people call terrorism is just a human problem that arises from many people of many backgrounds for many reasons. I think this is an excellent point - and is why as patriotic as I am about supporting government efforts to do certain things, I will never support what some of the armed forces are doing... There is rarely a situation that can ONLY be solved by slaughtering people and destroying others' homes. It's never the rich or the elite that suffer from war, usually just people who have nothing or are caught in the middle of two opposing nations' interests
