Does "Terrorist" or "Terrorism" have ANY coherent definition?

[Bonobo]

Try explaining what "terrorism" is to me.

Because if shooting missiles from unmanned invisible drones into residential areas is not it, I submit that there is no fair definition.

[Kennah]

1. Found it!

[Mnemosyne]

10. I found another!

[Mnemosyne]

11. Dupe photo removed, though many could replace it. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

2. Recommended.nt

[Bonobo]

3. I know this OP is not exactly a revelatory statement, BUT

the IMPORTANCE of the question cannot possibly be overstated.

Because, if it is true, you are all participants and accessories to terrorism.

Easy to blow off a statement like that, but hard as hell to stare it straight in the face.

Meanwhile your government won't pay for your health care or education.

[Mnemosyne]

13. I agree, Bonobo, very important to define it. I believe our government has become the epitome of

the definition.

:hi::hug:

[coalition_unwilling]

4. It's 'terrorism' when 'they' do it to us. When we do it to them, it's

'propagating freedom' or 'exporting democracy' or 'fighting communism' or some such nonsense (including, but not limited to, the tautological 'fighting terrorism').

[LLStarks]

5. Violence or intimidation with no regard for human life. nt

[DebJ]

6. Since the Repub motto is "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid", my definition

for terrorist = Republican.

[sabo_tabby]

8. Which raises the question, "What do we do about it?"

With the stroke of a pen, President Obama could declare the RNC a terrorist organization based on facts too numerous to list here - but which we ALL agree on.

And our actions - crimes really - of the last 9 years have established a precedent for "what we do to terrorists."

And yet, in the name of some phantom "civility," he won't clean house.

So what's it gonna take? They've earned what's coming to 'em, but they're never gonna get it.

[DebJ]

12. I have a personal fantasy.

I call this: give them their own rope and let 'em hang.

We select several states to which certain people (ahem) could all migrate(and unfortunately those of a different mind would have to move out). These people, who want no taxes, want a "government in a bathtub", and consistently think and act like three year olds, "mine, mine, mine", grabbing toys from everyone they can...well, these people should all go live together and form the society they desire, where everyone thinks only of themselves, takes care of only themselves.

Then they can all sit around and whine and try to find somebody to do something with them, for them, and see what happens, as they try to survive in a world full of filthy water, air, and contaminated and dangerous foods and medicines, with no help from 911, etc.
My version of improving the human genome: self-extermination by the selfish.

Isn't that awful? Or is it just giving them what they clamor for?

[sabo_tabby]

15. Charitable but unsatisfying.

Remember, these are the same people who gave smallpox in blankets to women and children.

These are the same people who invented slavery.

These are the same people who engineered the only truly successful genocide in history.

These are the same people who've started EVERY SINGLE WAR the United States has ever entered into.

These are the same people who TO THIS DAY enslave half the developing world.

You're right in acknowledging the fantasy that these people will live in their little reservation peacefully and not seek to take what is not theirs.

I mean, if your idea of "letting them migrate" was similar to the Russians' idea of letting their criminals "migrate," then yeah that might work, but I don't see them going without a fight.

And if that's how it's got to be, that's how it's got to be.

[DebJ]

21. In my fantasy, they ALL go there. Guess the word 'could'

was too soft.

[Mnemosyne]

16. Kind of like this one? Link:

http://www.christianexodus.org/

[DebJ]

22. Wow. Interesting. Except their thinking that they are Christian's

is delusional.

[DebJ]

23. Wow. Interesting. Except their thinking that they are Christian's

is delusional.

[Mnemosyne]

25. Exactly. What a world, eh? n/t

[The Magistrate]

7. Generally, Sir, It Means This

Violence for a political end the person using the term does not approve of.

[Leonardo Da Biker]

9. War Sucks. War Sucks When They Want To Kill You And

War sucks when you want to kill them. The "Us And Them" thing has got to stop, people.

When maybe we get to where we are all cognizent of the fact that when we split into groups and lob nasty stuff at each other people die then maybe we can begin to just live right, like we are supposed to do.

Let's go real simple here, what's better-

Guy meets another on the street, says "Hi" and shakes hands, made a friend.

Guy meets another on the street, pulls knife, says "gimme yer money".

Which is better?

Which one of those scenarios better expresses what humanity can be?

I for one am glad we got rid of the warmongering and this drone stuff stopped.

[Mnemosyne]

14. Welcome to DU, Leonardo Da Biker.

You are being sarcastic, right? Some days it gets tough to tell around here. :)

:hi:

[Leonardo Da Biker]

17. Oh, Gee

"Thanks for the "WELCOME". You can take your fucking fruit basket home, Tuitz.

[Mnemosyne]

18. What is your problem? I was sincere, just wasn't sure of comment.

Your reply has answered my question, jackass.

[Javaman]

19. In simple terms...

3 year old #1 has blocks.

3 year old #2 wants those blocks.

3 year old #1 would share the blocks but won't give them away.

3 year old #2 is going to take those blocks and starts hitting 3 year old #1

3 year old #2 doesn't like the beating he's getting, so rather than give the blocks to 3 year old #1, he uses the blocks and a weapon and throws the blocks at 3 year old #1.

The blocks are make of confetti and disintegrate upon impact.

Nothing is solved the 3 year olds hate each other and when all the blocks are gone, they still hate each other but no longer understand why.

Terrorism.

[Odin2005]

20. Non-military violence for means of political intimidation, IMO

Emphasis on non-military. When the military does horrible shit it is definitely a war crime, but it's not terrorism.

[Bonobo]

26. Why does your definition and all the one's here have NOTHING to do with "terror"?

Presumably, violence with the intention of causing "terror" to the larger citizenry is the key definition, no?

[gkhouston]

24. "Standard & Poor"? n/t