Agreed 100%.

Sounds familiar, in fact its a good description of those idiots who inhabit our governmental institutions. No wonder a working definition of terrorism cannot be found when the lunatics who have taken over the asylum.

Uncle noam and Gilbert Achcar brainstorm 'DefiningTerrorism' in the book "Perilous Powers". The guy is a genius as far as I am concerned. He has a brilliant mind and really critiques the issue.....something that is lacking with most 10 cent academics.

Historicaly speaking, there have always disputes in the Balkans, whether this can be called genocide is open to debate. But you are spot on in regards to Tito MT. He did bring cohesion and a sense of nationhood to a very ethnically diverse society.

The indiscriminate targetting of soft targets* for idealogical gain, contrary to the laws of that country at that time. The use of intimidation to enforce that idealogy, contrary to internationally-accepted Rules of Engagement by martial forces either of that government or by accepted international agreement.



* not able to readily defend themselves

The key term in most definitions of Terrorism is the use of the term "Unlawful" violence. As mentioned while the State has the monopoly on violence in international law, where does that leave the terror state? If it is using unlawful violence against it's own citizens (Recent killings in Iran for example and Irans open state sponsorship of Terrorism) would an armed resistance against that regime be considered terrorism?

I'd suggest if it were targeting only military or police then I suppose it would not be considered terrorism in the real sense of the word as no civilians are being targeted.

In this country the police are civilians and there is no legit reason as to why they should be a target of any violent group.

If not directly via the CIA, I wouldn't be at all surprised if any such group that sprung up in Iran would be partly-funded by some organisation within the US, be it paramilitary, humanist, spiritual or even female emancipationist there will be some group putting money in the tin.
They will generally be viewed as freedom fighters fighting to throw off the yoke of oppression. If they kept their fight within Iranian borders and didn't seek to blow up planes in International Airspace or carry out hits on foreign soil then I should imagine they will receive a fair amount of support both in the Middle East and the West.

Valid point. For what it's worth, here's an extract from one of my essays for MSc:

Wilkinson states that terrorism is just one tactic available in the insurgent’s repertoire. Depending on the scale of the insurgency, it can be used on its own, or in conjunction with other more conventional tactics such as guerrilla warfare and full scale military battles. However, terrorist tactics are not the sole preserve of terrorist organisations, and so Wilkinson develops his theory further by differentiating between violence carried out by Governments, individuals and small groups. When committed by such groups, the violence is generally referred to as terrorism; but when the exact same tactics are adopted by a state to repress sections of its own population, the violence is simply referred to as terror.

[Wilkinson P, (2002): Terrorism Versus Democracy, the Liberal State Response (2nd Ed): Frank Cass, London.]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with pretty much all of that, and can think of many examples which don't fit your criteria.

Are you suggesting that the US or any other western army willfully engaged in terrorizing the Iraqi populace and directly targeted civilians for political gain?

By Iraqi definition, having had a rifle, then hiding said rifle, then getting snubbed, does not equate to a civilian being targeted.

Careful, they may take away your tinfoil hat and soap box.


Terrorism, as I define it is like porn: You will know it when you see it.

Directly and willfully targeting non-military objectives to extract maximum psychological effect from a populace in an effort to achieve a political outcome.

Case in point: Taking a child from a parent of 4 and then baking him in an oven and serving to the parents while telling them that the rest will share the same fate if they do not comply is along those lines.

Going into an open market with not a one military target in sight and blowing yourself up with ball bearings laced with rat poison to stop blood from clotting is another example.

One example alone kills most of your definition. Adolf Hitler.

Buzz bombs, Carpet Fire bombs over London, et al. I would consider that a terrorist act.

First Gulf War, Saddam firing missiles at Israeli civilian cities... again, terrorism.

Both, entire countries devoted to the tactic.

Bugger, just wrote a mahoosive post on the problems of trying to define terrorism and lost it.

Meanwhile the problems are:

1. There are as many definitions of terrorism as there are national governments and international organisations trying to define its meaning.

2. In the US there is no one definition throughout the organs of the US Government. For example the definitions used by the FBI and DoD are very differnent.

3. In the 1980s Scmid & Jongman identified 109 definitions and it is likely that today there are twice as many.

4. Since the 1972 Munich Olympic Games the international community in the form of the UN has been trying to produce a definition acceptable to all. Despite the existance of 12 international conventions relayting to terrorism an explicit definition has yet to be identified.

5. The UN Terrorism Prevention Branch uses:

An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby - incontrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main target. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat-and-violence based communication processes between terrorist (organisation), (imperilled) victims and main targets are used to manipulate the main targets (audiences), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.

6. The short version used by the UN Anti-Terrorism Branch is "an act of terrorism = a peace-time equivalent of a war crime".

7. Although the short definition might be appealing it does lead one into the legal moinefields of what constitutes a war crime.

8. Meanwhile the quest to define terrorism has been drawn into the wider Arab-Israeli conflict with the 57 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference rejecting "any attempt to link terrorism to the Palestinian people..... [w]e reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism.

9. The two foremost acts of mass terrorism, the Nazi regime and the Siviet Great Terror are hardly thought of examples of terrorism in a world where the image of the masked gunman and fanatiocal Islamist has imbedded itself in people's conciousness.

A large chunk of my dissertation was spent on this subject. Do not forget that terrorism has many guises and forms, as well as the obvious, including:

repression, deception, racism, sexual exploitation, regulation, control of information, surveillance, the invasion of privacy, suspension of personal liberties, and the corruption of ideals.

However, typical terroist crimes are those involving, systematic genocide and massacres, random murder and wounding, mutilation, selective murder and wounding, torture, forced suicide of victims forced to take part in terrorist acts, depopulation and ethnic cleansing, political purges, the destruction or damage of structures, resources and property, hi-jacking, kidnapping, hostage taking, racketeering, extortion and drug trafficking, disruption of information networks, the poisoning of consumer goods, brainwashing and psychological warfare.

And both were held accountable for their actions, as it was perfectly clear that the respective government entities funded, ordered, and provided the agents to conduct the attacks in their names.

The same can not be said for terrorist attacks as they are accountable to none but themselves.

Agreed, but in a dictatorship such as Iran/N. Korea, then the police are seen by the 'terrorist' as a tool of the state, therefore are a legitimate target.

"The use of violence or intimidation to further a political aim."