It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.
Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination." These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.
A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls".
As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism." For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized
intense, sharp, overmastering fear:
to be frantic with terror.
an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror:
to be a terror to evildoers.
any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.
Informal. a person or thing that is especially annoying or unpleasant.
originally posted by: VoidHawk
By having no clear definition means THEY can call anyone they dont like a terrorist.
So, the definition of terrorist is : Anyone TPTB dont like.
originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
I would agree that a terrorist is a person or persons that use acts of terror to intimidate opponents for their own political gain.
Then an act of terror would be an act that is meant to cause extreme fear and panic in the general public.