Talk:Definition of terrorism/Archive 1

Civilians Not Common Requirement

I would argue that the specific selection of civilians as targets is not a "commonly held" criteria of the definition of terrorism. The US Department of Defense defines terrorism as:

the unlawful use of - or threatened use of - force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

Meanwhile, Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as:

premediated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The FBI defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use of or threatned use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

In fact, one survey of definitions found that only 17.5% of 109 governmental and academic definitions of terrorism require "civilians, noncombatants, neutrals, outsiders as victims". (Alex P. Schmid, ALbert J. Jongman et. al., Political Terrorism: A New guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Databases, Theories, and Literature, New Brunswick, Transaction Books, 1988, pp. 5-6) --Xinoph 03:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Anything published since 1988? --JimWae 19:49, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

"only 17.5% of 109 governmental..." Which government? and I think it falls under the Mandy Rice-Davies dictum "Well, he would, wouldn't he?". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

War on Iraq terrorism?

With the above definition of Terrorism, what makes the US war on Iraq _not_ terrorism?

The goal was "regime change", a very political goal. "Shock and Awe" seems to be geared to instill fear. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civillians have been killed. I don't quite understand how using an F-15 instead of a car bomb voids the definition of terrorism. Please help!

Some would argue that because the United States is a "legitimate" authority, it cannot then by definition be a source of terrorist activity. This criterium is, of course, strongly debatable, as it all but eliminates the idea of state terrorism and is a convenient way for powerful governments to dismiss the idea that their actions could be described as terrorism. Sarge Baldy 19:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Weasel words

Some hold that a legitimate government cannot, by definition, commit terrorism on its own territory.

Who are some? What is a legitimate government? What is own territory?

I can give half a dozen or more examples of an English government committing terrorism withing the confines of its borders on its own people over the last 1000 years. Starting with William the Conqueror's harrowing of the North which was so severe that when the Domesday Book was recorded over 10 years later, areas were still bereft of all life. It did however stop any further uprisings by the Saxons and English Danes. The last of a UK government was probably some of the actions of the Black and Tans in Ireland during the earlier "troubles" of the 20th Centuary. I am sure that many others could do the same for most nations which have been around for 1000 years or more. Eg From Russia with love, Ivan the Terrible and Stalin are a couple of terrorists who spring to mind. The Reign of Terror (1793–1794) of the French Revolution is another example. Philip Baird Shearer 22:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Preserving history of the original article

The original text of Definitions of terrorism was merged with Definition of terrorism (note the missing "s") on 5 July 2005. The file Talk:Definitions of terrorism, Article history from 26 October 2004 to 5 July 2005 contains the text and hist of that original article. -- PBS (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)