What is a terrorist?

[Skyrad 0]

I'm not talking about the old 'One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter' line here.

It used to be that terrorists belonged to a group of some kind, were organised and trained. In today's information age its easy to obtain information to make IEDs, to conduct recconosance via satellite imagery, obtain weapons.
Individuals can for any number of reasons take to detonating devices, hijacking aircraft etc.. But are they terrorists or simply criminals?
What is the difference between two kids living in America who for no apparent reason make a couple of bombs and blow away innocents and two kids living in the USA who go into a school and blow away a load of innocents with firearms? Is the type of weapon important in the distinction?
The cause? What if there is no cause? The two suspects in the Boston bomb may have been Muslim but no more so than your average Christian is a Christian by the sounds of it. They went to parties and danced, had girlfriends, were described as leading a secular lifestyle. This wasn't a ploy their entire families and friends have attested to thier way of life and beliefs. In fact the weird thing about this is that everyone seemed to have nothing but good to say of them. So if they didn't do this for Chechnya or for religion are they still terrorists or just murderers using a bomb? In todays world what differentiates a criminal mass murder and a terrorist? and are the school shooters and theatre shooter any less terrorists than these two Boston bomb suspects?

What is a Terrorist today?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

But are they terrorists or simply criminals?

I'd say the difference is in intent (and of course we don't yet know the intent of the marathon bombers). The dictionary definition of terrorism (to which the dictionary definition of terrorist refers) is actually pretty good (bolding is mine), and I think allows you to apply the label "terrorist" to a number of different types of individuals/organizations using a variety of tactics.

Quote

ter·ror·ism
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[billvon 2,400]

Terrorists use violence (or the threat of violence) to coerce people into doing what they want, generally to achieve political ends (i.e. power, concessions, fame.)

A man who goes to his wife's place of business and kills a bunch of people, then kills her, then kills himself, is a criminal with a goal in mind - killing his wife. A man who goes to a random bank and blows himself up, leaving a note telling people he's "fighting back against the evil bankers" is a terrorist. In many cases the actions and results are the same (violence and death) - it is their goal that distinguishes them.

But someone who doesn't have a political goal OR a specific target in mind? Harder to say. If they are trying to make a point they're terrorists. If they don't have a discernible point they may just be dumb terrorists, or plain old criminals committing random crimes.

Ultimately it doesn't matter too much, of course; the results are the same. The one place it might matter is in trying to prevent the next attack, since the methods of murderers trying to kill specific people are different than the methods of terrorists trying to use violence to terrorize people.

[Skyrad 0]

Well looking at the definition you posted they fail on point one because no one knows why they did it or what for so therefore no coercion can be effected.
Point three (I'll come back to point two) in this case does not apply as it was not a government target in any shap or form.
Point two however does apply, as Boston and across America to some extent a state of fear existed after the bomb went off, but the interesting thing is that the submission has occurred due to a lockdown of Boston itself, declared by the authorities, which begs the question that if life had gone on as normal would the impact of their actions as terrorists not be greatly reduced? A city in lockdown for a 17 year old on the run seems like a serious overkill especially as they still haven't caught him. Really is he anymore dangerous than a 17 year old gang banger common criminal?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Terrorists use violence (or the threat of violence) to coerce people into doing what they want, generally to achieve political ends (i.e. power, concessions, fame.)

In which case are these two Boston guys Terrorists? After all no one knows why they did it, were they Chechen separatists? Islamist terrorists or just had it in mind to create a bomb and devastation for the hell of it? No one knows and without knowing they can't coerce people into doing what they want because they haven't told us what they want. Therefore until we know are they not just criminals?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,400]

>In which case are these two Boston guys Terrorists?

That's the question. Bombing random people is a method of violence often used by terrorists so that's the assumption. They may be trying to strike back at something because they're pissed off, without a clear idea of what they want to accomplish - in which case they're some pretty stupid terrorists. Or they could just want to kill random people for fun, in which case they're "just" criminals.

[ManagingPrime 0]

I'd call the boston bombers terrorists, but I'd also say the us govt uses terrorism.

I'd say the term is losing its meaning.

[Skyrad 0]

First 'Hero' now 'terrorist'

I think it might be changing its meaning, maybe its time to redefine exactly what a terrorist is in this century post 9/11.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Kennedy 0]

I agree 100% on "hero". Less so, but still mostly with terrorist/m.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Terrorists use violence (or the threat of violence) to coerce people into doing what they want, generally to achieve political ends (i.e. power, concessions, fame.)

On this definition, American soldiers fighting German soldiers in World War II were terrorists. I don't think that's quite right. When we use that word, I think we we usually mean (1) individuals or groups not associated with recognized national armies, (2) attacks directed at civilians, (3) for some sort of political or ideological gain. I know no defintion is perfect. It is possible these guys who bombed the marathon were just crazy, and really had no political motive. We don't know yet. But if that's true, we'd probably still call them terrorists. But if they bombed a military base, I wouldn't call them terrorists. The bombing of the USS Cole bombing was not, in my view, terrorism, because it was directed at a military target. A cheap shot, sure, but not terrorism. I think the marathon bombing was terrorism, though, even if these guys were just nuts.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Terrorists use violence (or the threat of violence) to coerce people into doing what they want, generally to achieve political ends (i.e. power, concessions, fame.)

A man who goes to his wife's place of business and kills a bunch of people, then kills her, then kills himself, is a criminal with a goal in mind - killing his wife. A man who goes to a random bank and blows himself up, leaving a note telling people he's "fighting back against the evil bankers" is a terrorist. In many cases the actions and results are the same (violence and death) - it is their goal that distinguishes them.

But someone who doesn't have a political goal OR a specific target in mind? Harder to say. If they are trying to make a point they're terrorists. If they don't have a discernible point they may just be dumb terrorists, or plain old criminals committing random crimes.

Ultimately it doesn't matter too much, of course; the results are the same. The one place it might matter is in trying to prevent the next attack, since the methods of murderers trying to kill specific people are different than the methods of terrorists trying to use violence to terrorize people.

Lets make it easy. If someone terrifies you by violence, then that person is a terrorist.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

Terrorists use violence (or the threat of violence) to coerce people into doing what they want, generally to achieve political ends (i.e. power, concessions, fame.)

A man who goes to his wife's place of business and kills a bunch of people, then kills her, then kills himself, is a criminal with a goal in mind - killing his wife. A man who goes to a random bank and blows himself up, leaving a note telling people he's "fighting back against the evil bankers" is a terrorist. In many cases the actions and results are the same (violence and death) - it is their goal that distinguishes them.

But someone who doesn't have a political goal OR a specific target in mind? Harder to say. If they are trying to make a point they're terrorists. If they don't have a discernible point they may just be dumb terrorists, or plain old criminals committing random crimes.

Ultimately it doesn't matter too much, of course; the results are the same. The one place it might matter is in trying to prevent the next attack, since the methods of murderers trying to kill specific people are different than the methods of terrorists trying to use violence to terrorize people.

Lets make it easy. If someone terrifies you by violence, then that person is a terrorist.

Then the special forces guys who killed Bin Laden were terrorists. You sure that's the definition you want to go with?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Terrorists use violence (or the threat of violence) to coerce people into doing what they want, generally to achieve political ends (i.e. power, concessions, fame.)

A man who goes to his wife's place of business and kills a bunch of people, then kills her, then kills himself, is a criminal with a goal in mind - killing his wife. A man who goes to a random bank and blows himself up, leaving a note telling people he's "fighting back against the evil bankers" is a terrorist. In many cases the actions and results are the same (violence and death) - it is their goal that distinguishes them.

But someone who doesn't have a political goal OR a specific target in mind? Harder to say. If they are trying to make a point they're terrorists. If they don't have a discernible point they may just be dumb terrorists, or plain old criminals committing random crimes.

Ultimately it doesn't matter too much, of course; the results are the same. The one place it might matter is in trying to prevent the next attack, since the methods of murderers trying to kill specific people are different than the methods of terrorists trying to use violence to terrorize people.

Lets make it easy. If someone terrifies you by violence, then that person is a terrorist.

Then the special forces guys who killed Bin Laden were terrorists. You sure that's the definition you want to go with?

BL wasn't terrified. He was prepared for the day. He didn't even fight back. But you know what I mean. A terrorist inflicts terror.

[ryoder 1,386]

Quote

Lets make it easy. If someone terrifies you by violence, then that person is a terrorist.

If he is wearing the uniform of a nation's army, then he is a soldier.
If not, then he is a criminal.
I get goddamned tired of people trying to throw everything into this special third category of "terrorist".

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

Quote

...A city in lockdown for a 17 year old on the run seems like a serious overkill especially as they still haven't caught him. Really is he anymore dangerous than a 17 year old gang banger common criminal?

Well, generally a "17 year old gangbanger" doesn't throw homemade bombs at the police during a pursuit. And there are some reports that the dead one may have been wearing a suicide vest. He had blast injuries and burns that didn't seem to coincide with the stuff that was thrown during the pursuit/shootout (that's based on what CBS News is reporting). There's one cop dead and another in critical condition after last night's confrontation.

This guy is armed with both guns and explosives (at least he used them last night).
He and his now dead brother may well have placed two bombs that killed 3 random people (not proven, just suspected).

I'd say treating him as a little bit more dangerous than the "run of the mill" gangbanger is prudent.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SStewart 13]

If you kill innocent people with a home made bomb you are a terrorist.
If you kill innocent people with a hell fire missle shot from a drone you are defending freedom.

Makes sense? No it does not.

Onward and Upward!

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

If you kill innocent people with a home made bomb you are a terrorist.
If you kill innocent people with a hell fire missle shot from a drone you are defending freedom.

Makes sense? No it does not.

Makes total sense. People who engage in violence always try to justify their own and vilify the other. It's how people cope.

[billvon 2,400]

>On this definition, American soldiers fighting German soldiers in World War II were terrorists.

I think the soldiers there were trying to achieve military goals, not political ones - and they did it by killing lots and lots of people rather than trying to scare the other side into doing what they wanted. Terrorists use fear to get what they want; militaries use force.

(And yes, things like "shock and awe" are starting to blur that line.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Makes total sense. People who engage in violence always try to justify their own and vilify the other. It's how people cope.

so do people with strong political views -

so do 95% of the posters here

so do people that argue whether to install toilet paper forwards or backwards

(it's over the top, anyone that does otherwise is pure evil and hates children and pets)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

so do people that argue whether to install toilet paper forwards or backwards

(it's over the top, anyone that does otherwise is pure evil and hates children and pets)

Oh, so now I hate my cats because I switched to "under" so they couldn't pull the whole roll off?

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[ryoder 1,386]

Quote

so do people that argue whether to install toilet paper forwards or backwards

(it's over the top, anyone that does otherwise is pure evil and hates children and pets)

I thought we had reached an agreement that it is over the top, but cat-owners are allowed an exception.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

I'm not talking about the old 'One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter' line here.

It used to be that terrorists belonged to a group of some kind, were organised and trained. In today's information age its easy to obtain information to make IEDs, to conduct recconosance via satellite imagery, obtain weapons.
Individuals can for any number of reasons take to detonating devices, hijacking aircraft etc.. But are they terrorists or simply criminals?
What is the difference between two kids living in America who for no apparent reason make a couple of bombs and blow away innocents and two kids living in the USA who go into a school and blow away a load of innocents with firearms? Is the type of weapon important in the distinction?
The cause? What if there is no cause? The two suspects in the Boston bomb may have been Muslim but no more so than your average Christian is a Christian by the sounds of it. They went to parties and danced, had girlfriends, were described as leading a secular lifestyle. This wasn't a ploy their entire families and friends have attested to thier way of life and beliefs. In fact the weird thing about this is that everyone seemed to have nothing but good to say of them. So if they didn't do this for Chechnya or for religion are they still terrorists or just murderers using a bomb? In todays world what differentiates a criminal mass murder and a terrorist? and are the school shooters and theatre shooter any less terrorists than these two Boston bomb suspects?

What is a Terrorist today?

Where are you getting this information about the bombers? It appears to be a load of bunk. The older brother was actually questioned by the fbi in 2011 after being fingered by another gov't as possible terrorist links. Then last year he left the us for 6 months. About the time it takes to attend terrorism 101?

There are lots of reports about how long it takes to move a disaffected youngster from even another religion(and totally different lifestyle) over to islam, radicalize them, train them to fight, and have at some gov't authorities in the us or elsewhere. And that is considerably less than a year. These guys were already Muslim and grew up in that part of the world.

There's also reports in cdn media that although the older brother married a christian, she converted to islam.

On of the trademarks of this type of radicalization seems to be that as they get drawn in to it, they avoid friends and even family members as much as they can. Their fellow jihadists become their 'family'.

Most of these people claiming they knew the brothers from high school, or distant family members, haven't seen them in at least a couple of years. Easily long enuf for them to have become rock-hard believers in jihad.

Admittedly the younger brother seemed less likely to have been hard-core, but he obviously went along with it.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What is a Terrorist today?

Same as an anarchist 100 years ago.
Hope that helps.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The older brother was actually questioned by the fbi in 2011 after being fingered by another gov't as possible terrorist links.

After questioning, the FBI determined that such links weren't credible. Perhaps the FBI were wrong, or perhaps being questioned about non-existent links is what pushed the older brother over the edge.

From what I've seen and read, I can't easily reject the possibility that the older brother pressured the younger brother to support his cause. No one has had anything but good things to say about the younger brother, at least before the marathon bombing. While no one seems to have vilified the older brother, the descriptions of his character have not been so glowing. Nineteen is still a pretty impressionable age, especially when it comes to an older brother that one might look up to. (To be clear, that doesn't justify the younger brother's participation.)

To address the OP's question, I would argue that terrorists are all typically criminals, and should be treated as such. To treat them as anything else serves to legitimize their actions and motives.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Skyrad 0]

I agree

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca