The Definition of Terrorism

[stealyourface]

[ QUOTE ]
Because these tactics - ranging from espionage, assassination, disruption of public works and resources, poison, to attacks on civilians - are, to varying degrees, EXPECTED of any thinking opponent.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is precisely why acts such as this are not terrorism, if committed by a state in war. Terrorist attacks are not anticipated and create anxiety and fear among populations because of their inherent clandestine nature. In conventional warfare, where conflict is announced, noncombatants are usually expecting danger and know that military and industrial targets are more likely to be attacked than civilians.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I have my own definition of terrorism.

Political violence is the province of state actors. No other actors may use violence as a political tool legitimately.

Terrorism is, then, the usurpation of the use of political violence by non-state actors. By this definition, no government can commit terrorism, although a government may commit crimes as bad or worse. Also, this definition has nothing to say about the aims of terrorists.

I am unsure whether I should limit the definition of terrorism to violence against non-military targets. I tend to think I should. A revolutionary movement fighting against the government's forces should not be considered terrorists, unless we want to consider George Washington one of the great terrorist leaders. Thus, I would not classify a native Iraqi insurgency as committing terrorism when it strikes legitimate military targets.

The phrase "state-sponsored terrorism" is sometimes used. I do not think this term contradicts my definition. Terrorists may receive aid from states. If terrorists are funded by Iran, they are still terrorists. However, if Iranian secret police committed violent acts against foreign civilian targets, that would be an act of war since the actors are representatives of a government.