Defining terrorism

[SpitfireV]

I've done a search and we've had some discussion on this but it's always been an offshoot of the main topic rather than the topic itself. This has been rehashed a lot over the last few years in academic, military and LE circles and I think a lot depends on what your particular organisation's focus is.

So on that note I'd like to make it a slightly different discussion and ask the question: What is YOUR definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist"? If the legal definition fits, cool, I'd like to hear why you agree with it and anything you don't agree with.

I generally quite like Hoffman's definition:

(Lifted from Wiki because I've loaned out my copy of his book)

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

• ineluctably political in aims and motives
• violent—or, equally important, threatens violence
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

We may therefore now attempt to define terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack. It is meant to instil fear within, and thereby intimidate, a wider `target audience' that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party, or public opinion in general. Terrorism is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale.[71]

I'm sure I read something in his definition about being transnational but maybe that was in the chapter rather than the definition.

One of the important things to consider, IMO, is the delineation between a common criminal and terrorism. I think it needs to be quite narrowly defined in order to remove overuse of the term/charge.

 

[pardus]

I generally quite like Hoffman's definition:

How do you justify this with this then?

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threa...ations-oh-and-the-haqqanis.17977/#post-282120

I don't really agree that they're a terrorist outfit, per say, but I do realise this is a legal move to stop fundraising and whatnot so it's good.

You contradicted yourself, you can't have it both ways.​

 

[SpitfireV]

Because I thought there was an transnational element to this one, which I'm wrong about. So yes, terrorist group, other thread statement retracted :)

 

[pardus]

Cool bananas.

 

[Robal2pl]

The one of used in US Code (22 USC § 2656f - Annual country reports on terrorism ) is short but quite well IMHO describes the problem

" 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

And the last elements of that as well as those points in Hoffman's definition , wich are related to modus operandi (clandestine cells/networks), I think are most important, because there are many acts of politically motivated violence (war for example, or rural guerilla, or riots etc. ) and where also psychological and propaganda factors may be important (WW II city bombings for example - including nuclear ones)