What makes an attack a Terrorist attack?

[The Imp]

I'm not good at making OP's so I will keep it succinct. What makes an attack a Terrorist attack?



Personally, I subscribe to the definition put forth by the DoD with some alterations. (Bolded signifies my alteration).

"...Politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets,including people, economic assets, and monuments, by subnational groups or clandestine agents*, primarily intended to influence an audience and/or to sow terror in a broad populace."

Title 22 of the United States Code section 2656f(d)

EDIT: An additional alteration would be to specify that anyone can commit a terrorist act, ranging from one person to an entire government. Basically, replace "Subnational groups or clandestine agents" with "any person or groups of persons".

 

[scherbchen]

I'd guess the non-combatant bit is the one that counts.

 

[cardgame]

Any use of violence against non-military tagets in order to inflict terror in a population.

Terror. Hence, Terrorism.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Any use of violence against non-military tagets in order to inflict terror in a population.

Terror. Hence, Terrorism.

This.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Good thing the DoD has the "by subnational groups or clandestine agents" escape clause...

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd guess the non-combatant bit is the one that counts.

I disagree; plenty of terrorist attacks are committed against military and police targets, with the intent of undermining morale and public trust in security forces, rather than benefit from the destruction caused. For example, there was an attack on a military barracks in Northern Ireland just last week, for which the Real IRA claimed responsibility; the target and all victims were military personnel, but it was undoubtedly an act of terrorism. The key is that the damage is primarily psychological, rather than material. Nor does attacking civilian targets necessarily constitute "terrorism"; if the goals are immediate, then it may simply be "sabotage" or "assassination". The term is a functional descriptor, after all, not a moral judgement.

 

[cardgame]

no, if it's against military forces it's freedom fighting.

 

[Traitorfish]

So they say, so they say.

 

[warpus]

Surely economic assets are valid military targets during war-time.

 

[The Imp]

Surely economic assets are valid military targets during war-time.

Of course, but when it is done to influence public opinion or to sow terror, it is terrorism.

 

[warpus]

Of course, but when it is done to influence public opinion or to sow terror, it is terrorism.

But the targetting of military installations has multiple purposes as well: one of which is to influence public opinion (both at home and abroad), as well as hopefully instill a bit of terror in your enemy.

 

[The Imp]

But the targetting of military installations has multiple purposes as well: one of which is to influence public opinion (both at home and abroad), as well as hopefully instill a bit of terror in your enemy.

But it isn't the primary goal, is it?

 

[scherbchen]

I disagree; plenty of terrorist attacks are committed against military and police targets, with the intent of undermining morale and public trust in security forces, rather than benefit from the destruction caused. For example, there was an attack on a military barracks in Northern Ireland just last week, for which the Real IRA claimed responsibility; the target and all victims were military personnel, but it was undoubtedly an act of terrorism. The key is that the damage is primarily psychological, rather than material. Nor does attacking civilian targets necessarily constitute "terrorism"; if the goals are immediate, then it may simply be "sabotage" or "assassination". The term is a functional descriptor, after all, not a moral judgement.

all valid points. I'll expand then.

conducted against military targets, conducted by a group that needs not necessarily be a nation, without a declaration of war but with the intent of waging war.

conducted against non-military combatants (!) first and foremost, conducted by any group or individual but carried out in order to promote or protest against an idea, lifestyle, ideology, nation, religion or for genetic reasons. yes, this would classify hate-crimes against gays or blacks (or whites or whatever) an act of terrorism. I have no problem with that.

 

[Traitorfish]

conducted against military targets, conducted by a group that needs not necessarily be a nation, without a declaration of war but with the intent of waging war.

Ah, but that isn't necessarily "terrorism", it may just be "insurgency", "rebellion" or "paramilitary action". "Terror" is key, whether the targets are civilian, paramilitary or military.

 

[scherbchen]

Ah, but that isn't necessarily "terrorism", it may just be "insurgency", "rebellion" or "paramilitary action". "Terror" is key, whether the targets are civilian, paramilitary or military.

well I believe that is just haggling for words and/or coming from a different background. you might be closer to the definition as it stands, granted, and you have word stems on your side ( ) but in the end we are talking about the same thing I believe.

would you agree that hate-crimes fit the bill just as fine, though?

 

[Perfection]

If bad guys do it and it's unconventional.

 

[Traitorfish]

well I believe that is just haggling for words and/or coming from a different background. you might be closer to the definition as it stands, granted, and you have word stems on your side ( ) but in the end we are talking about the same thing I believe.

True; I'm sure that we would most likely agree on whether any given act was or was not an example of "terrorism", even if we choose to justify our choice in slightly different ways.

would you agree that hate-crimes fit the bill just as fine, though?

If they are pre-meditated, then certainly. I would not rule out unpremeditated hate-crimes, and I suspect that it be difficult to judge them universally one or the other, but I can not offer a conclusive opinion on that. That may demand a case-by-case evaluation.

 

[Annex]

In some cases it can be against a military target. See the Khobar Towers bombimg for an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers

 

[warpus]

But it isn't the primary goal, is it?

The primary goal of suicide bombers striking in Israel is probably to kill Jews - terrorising the remaining populace is probably a secondary goal.

I also have an issue with the "by subnational groups or clandestine agents" label. Surely military personally are able to engage in terrorism as well. Then again, I might be misunderstanding what they mean by "subnationak groups or clandestine agents"

 

[mariogreymist]

It's when they attack us. Any other definition makes every state a terrorist organization.