Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Propose a rigorous definition of a terrorist.
Topic Started: Aug 7 2005, 10:37 AM (142 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Much discussion about terrorists and terrorism, but there is no good (universially accepted) definition of what a terrorist is.

Anyone care to have shot at defining a terrorist ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
The definition used by the CIA seems like a good one.

Source:http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html


The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice international terrorism.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
psyfi
Aug 8 2005, 01:56 AM
The definition used by the CIA seems like a good one.

Source:http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html


The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice international terrorism.

In some contexts that could be a freedom fighter.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
The term freedom fighter is one coined by a certain ex-preident to justify his support of terrorist organizations.

Even in DS9, Kira who was a politically motivated operative targeted mostly military targets, but admits throughout the series that she unfortunately ended up killing civilians as well Cardassian and Bajoran alike. Regardless of the circumstances, even she admits that she was a terrorist.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Mainiac
Lieutenant Commander
I doubt there will ever be a universally accepted definition. Psyfi has already posted the CIA's definition, but it is interesting to note the differences between their definition and the Department of Defence's:

Source

Quote:
 
(DOD) The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.


As you can see, the CIA excludes state actors from inclusion, while DoD has a more liberal definition, by which its own actions could fall under the definition, depending on one's interpretation!

(There are many other definitions at this source - go see for yourselves.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
somerled
Aug 7 2005, 12:14 PM
In some contexts that could be a freedom fighter.

No one was decapitated during the Boston Tea Party
No children where killed during Gandhi’s Salt March
That’s the difference between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Mainiac
Aug 8 2005, 03:38 AM
I doubt there will ever be a universally accepted definition. Psyfi has already posted the CIA's definition, but it is interesting to note the differences between their definition and the Department of Defence's:

Source

Quote:
 
(DOD) The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.


As you can see, the CIA excludes state actors from inclusion, while DoD has a more liberal definition, by which its own actions could fall under the definition, depending on one's interpretation!

(There are many other definitions at this source - go see for yourselves.)

I believe it is important to come up with a universially acceptable definition , and the UN is also struggling to do so.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus