The definition of Terrorism

What does it matter who performs the terrorism?

Do we look at who the person is committing the murder before we call it murder? What about theft, copyright infringement, or any other crime?

The perpetrator doesn't matter..

Again, this is true only if you are only looking at terrorism as a crime that needs to be prosecuted or making a moral judgement on it. From a moral standpoint, I agree it is no different if Al Qaeda takes an innocent hostage or if the government of Iran does the same thing. But when handling the situation, they are completely different. You can't prosecute an independent state the same way you can an individual or non-government entity. The State Department, CIA, FBI, UN and basically everyone else is going to have to handle the situation different so they are going to have different definitions of the word "terrorism" that are designed to suit their respective jobs. This all ties back to my original point, which if you remember isn't necessarily that states don't commit terrorism, but rather that the best you are going to end up with when attempting to define terrorism is a working definition that is built on your own ad hoc needs. Any attempt at a comprehensive definition is going to be either be A. full of holes, or B. too vague to be of any value.
 
Again, this is true only if you are only looking at terrorism as a crime that needs to be prosecuted or making a moral judgement on it. From a moral standpoint, I agree it is no different if Al Qaeda takes an innocent hostage or if the government of Iran does the same thing. But when handling the situation, they are completely different. You can't prosecute an independent state the same way you can an individual or non-government entity. The State Department, CIA, FBI, UN and basically everyone else is going to have to handle the situation different so they are going to have different definitions of the word "terrorism" that are designed to suit their respective jobs. This all ties back to my original point, which if you remember isn't necessarily that states don't commit terrorism, but rather that the best you are going to end up with when attempting to define terrorism is a working definition that is built on your own ad hoc needs. Any attempt at a comprehensive definition is going to be either be A. full of holes, or B. too vague to be of any value.

You are talking about how to deal with terrorism, I'm talking about what terrorism is; two different things.

If a country wants to redefine terrorism for its own needs - so that it's easier for them to fight against it or whatever, that's fine. But that doesn't change what terrorism actually is.
 
If a country wants to redefine terrorism for its own needs - so that it's easier for them to fight against it or whatever, that's fine. But that doesn't change what terrorism actually is.

But we still do not really have a good definition for what it actually is, so all we really have is definitions that exists for specific needs.
 
Terrorism: Inflicting fear for hateful, political or religious reasons.
 
Terrorism: Inflicting fear for hateful, political or religious reasons.
Way too broad a brush. Obama did exactly this during the 2008 elections--is he a terrorist? No.

The definition should stick to people who shoot, blow up with pipe bombs, or otherwise inflict (intentionally) physical harm on innocent people.
 
Way too broad a brush. Obama did exactly this during the 2008 elections--is he a terrorist? No.

The definition should stick to people who shoot, blow up with pipe bombs, or otherwise inflict (intentionally) physical harm on innocent people.

Or threaten to use violent, lethal methods
 
Back
Top Bottom