I'm just wondering if any good arrsers have an opinion on a working definition of what terrorism actually is, purely an academic question regarding some research I'm currently working on, it seems that the definition of what is terrorism is dependant on what side of the fence you are on. Currently I'm past 100 and counting.

I'm trying to formulate my own definition as part of an exercise, would appreciate any of your personal ones rather than the governmental ones.

The wilful act of instilling fear and panic into law abiding citizens by use of violence for political ends.


Well that what I define it as.

Originally Posted by devilish

The wilful act of instilling fear and panic into law abiding citizens by use of violence for political ends.


Well that what I define it as.

Succinctly put and in the same ball park as the academic, Walter Laquers definition.

The problem is the politicians are loathe to use such a definition because it puts most of them in the frame. Hence the many differing definitions.

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

Originally Posted by devilish

The wilful act of instilling fear and panic into law abiding citizens by use of violence for political ends.


Well that what I define it as.

Succinctly put and in the same ball park as the academic, Walter Laquers definition.

The problem is the politicians are loathe to use such a definition because it puts most of them in the frame. Hence the many differing definitions.

But if you look at it realistically, they are in the frame, regardless of what they wish to call it. There's no denying that armies cross the line now and again, Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of that.

MsG

Cant remember where I read/heard it.... but it sounds like something from Noam Chomsky...

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."

For analysis of that and related views/comments:- click here

Applying terror in the pursuit of your aims is not a particularly useful definition of the word, as this would include any tactic that depends on inducing fear. That would include all weaponry with fear-inducing or suppressive effects, which is so broad as to be definitionally useless (except to sad twats trying to prove that there is no difference between terrorists and real soldiers, who should be treated with the freezing contempt they deserve).

What defines terrorism, to me, is the intentional use of terror to provoke an excessive response from the opponent. This response is then used to gather popular support and approval for the terrorists or remove it from their opponents. Terrorism is a technique of provocation that relies on the target's response in order to be effective (or, to be more precise, on the reaction of the target audience to the target's response). The other techniques of terrorism -- the hostage-taking mentality, the preference for soft targets, the disregard for civil or international law -- might be shared with mere bandits, dacoits, pirates, rifs and goondawallahs. It is the use of violence to achieve results by provoking an excessive response that is, for me, the distinctive factor. It also makes it rather easy to distinguish terrorists from guerillas, irregulars or freedom-fighters who do not use terrorist techniques.

All the best,

John.

Thanks for the link PJ, always find Chomsy very partisan, and too deep in the waters of critical terrorism studies to find his views much use, especially given that many terrorists are from wealthy backgrounds, Bin La\din being one of the larger cases in point.

Originally Posted by John_D

Applying terror in the pursuit of your aims is not a particularly useful definition of the word, as this would include any tactic that depends on inducing fear. That would include all weaponry with fear-inducing or suppressive effects, which is so broad as to be definitionally useless (except to sad twats trying to prove that there is no difference between terrorists and real soldiers, who should be treated with the freezing contempt they deserve).

What defines terrorism, to me, is the intentional use of terror to provoke an excessive response from the opponent. This response is then used to gather popular support and approval for the terrorists or remove it from their opponents. Terrorism is a technique of provocation that relies on the target's response in order to be effective (or, to be more precise, on the reaction of the target audience to the target's response). The other techniques of terrorism -- the hostage-taking mentality, the preference for soft targets, the disregard for civil or international law -- might be shared with mere bandits, dacoits, pirates, rifs and goondawallahs. It is the use of violence to achieve results by provoking an excessive response that is, for me, the distinctive factor. It also makes it rather easy to distinguish terrorists from guerillas, irregulars or freedom-fighters who do not use terrorist techniques.

All the best,

John.

Which ties in with the definition "A peacetime equivalent of a war crime". Thanks for the input John.

I can't go for a full definition, but the following bullet points should be worth a mention:
1. Usually a minority group without clear political mandate
2. Usually male - all that testosterone
3. Quasi-religious mantra - dodgy justification for the unpalatable
4. Appeals to impressionable teenage recruits.
5. Usually traceable to a male self-appointed leader with "issues".

sorry, my head hurts now.

I was thinking of using the following simplified definition.

Non state terrorism: When a minority uses unlawful violence or intimidation against the majority to obtain political power or influence.

State terror: When a government uses unlawful violence and intimidation against its people to keep political power.