# Has there been a sufficiently clear definition of terrorism since WTC? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2001, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365 "2001-09-28T18:48:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/1 "2001-09-28T18:48:40Z")
It might help since, you know, we are mobilizing the military machine. It might help, you know, to let allies and prospective allies know just who we want to crush and what we want to dismantle. It might help some dopers (like -----) see that there is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, or it might help some dopers (like me) realize there isn’t, and its a revisionist definition. Can we make a rather generalized but sufficiently clear definition of what terrorism is so that it doesn’t mean everyone should be at war with everyone else? I have proposed that terrorists are persons or groups of persons that have a political agenda they wish to impose by using force and threatening further force. The force in question is arbitrarily applied (everyone not with the agenda is an enemy). Whether or not the terrorists are governmentally funded is irrelevant: they are not _representing_ any governments politically. But, even this seems a little convoluted. Any other ideas out there on how we should define terrorism now? ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/2 "2001-09-28T20:01:11Z")
I ran across this the other day at [http://www.dictionary.com](http://www.dictionary.com) The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson. I thought that was an interesting definition, but I don’t think it accurately defines the word as it is now known. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/3 "2001-09-28T20:03:07Z")
Revisionist definitions of terrorism? Maybe. I suppose it depends which side of the fence you are standing on. The winners usually decide how history sees them. I sure the British didn’t view American rebels very fondly and I doubt we’d see Hitler in the same light had he won. In general I would say guerilla fighters mostly stay focused on the military (or police) of the government they are trying to defeat and at least attempt to style themselves as a proper army. Guerilla fighters seem to want to take territory and overthrow a government they disagree with. They may even style themselves as some sort of alternative government. Terrorists on the other hand seek some political change but don’t want to outright conquer anyone and setup their own shop. Instead they seek change through random infliction of pain upon their enemy in the hope that that enemy will alter its policies to avoid future trouble. Anyway you slice it is ‘us’ against ‘them’. Maybe you believe in the cause of Al’Queda and reject the term terrorist. Fine…that’s your lookout. Call them whatever you want. Most Americans view them as thugs and consider them as the enemy. They consider us the enemy. Can we make definitive value judgements on who’s got the more just cause? Probably not definitively. The US has some skeletons in its closet. Nevertheless from where I stand I think the US is more in the ‘right’ than the terrorists are. The terrorists invoke their holy scriptures as a basis for their fight. However, any reasonable reading of the Koran shows the terrorists interpretations to be major perversions of the writings therein. The foundation of their cause is a lie rendering anything they may gain suspect and weak. Simply put they are building on a foundation that is already majorly flawed. While not perfect I think the US is closer to its central tenets as a country (or group of people) and as such is more capable of surviving in the long run. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/4 "2001-09-28T20:27:25Z")
This is by no means an iron-clad definition, but here goes … Terrorist actions are actions designed specifically to cause fear for psychological or political reasons. Terrorism is _not_ aimed at traditional military goals. Traditional military goals would include: –Gaining territory. –Destroying military installations, bases, or troops. –Cutting lines of communications. –Destroying the enemy’s ability to wage war. Thus Luke Skywalker destroying the Death Star would not be terrorism, as the Death Star was an explicitly military target, and the Rebel Alliance’s goal was not to create terror. Luke offing the Emperor at the end wasn’t terrorism either, as the Emperor was the CIC of the enemy army. You could make a respectable argument that many conventional wars have included elements of terrorism, from burning villages in the Middle Ages to intentionally bombing civilians in WWII. However, it’s hard to argue the converse–that OBL’s terrorism is aimed at conventional military goals. The WTC attack didn’t gain territory, destroy military targets, cut lines of communications (and no, jamming civilian phone lines for a few hours doesn’t count) or have any appreciable affect on the enemy’s ability to fight. The only purpose of the attack was to dismay the victims and hearten the perpetrators. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/5 "2001-09-28T20:55:02Z")
erislover: [wuote] I have proposed that terrorists are persons or groups of persons that have a political agenda they wish to impose by using force and threatening further force. [/quote] So would the police fit in this category? They ave a political agenda (law and order) that they impose by using force. > [@](#): > > The force in question is arbitrarily applied (everyone not with the agenda is an enemy). So does Bush’s statement that everyone that is not with us is against us put him in that category? > [@](#): > > Whether or not the terrorists are governmentally funded is irrelevant: they are not representing any governments politically. Are you saying that terrorists cannot represent a state? Is that simply part of the definition? If it turns out that the WTC attack was actually voted on and approved by a government, does that make it not terrorism? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wumpus \* > Terrorist actions are actions designed specifically to cause fear for psychological or political reasons. That’s an incredibly broad description. Would random drug tests be considered terrorism? > [@](#): > > Terrorism is _not_ aimed at traditional military goals. What if a military goal is an incidental target (e.g. a nuclear attack on a city that has a military installation; the military installation is destroyed, but so is the city)? What about drug interdiction efforts? That’s not a traditional military goal. Is that terrorism? > [@](#): > > The WTC attack didn’t gain territory, destroy military targets, cut lines of communications (and no, jamming civilian phone lines for a few hours doesn’t count) or have any appreciable affect on the enemy’s ability to fight. The only purpose of the attack was to dismay the victims and hearten the perpetrators. What about the Pentagon attack? Was that terrorism? ---
**Author:** ![Legolas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Legolas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Legolas)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/6 "2001-09-28T21:06:18Z")
ok, first of all, guerrila warfare can be taken to the point of extemeity,in which it could be called ‘Terrorisim.’ A guerrila is defined as > [@](#): > > A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids. Therefore it can be inferred that what the terrorists are doing is not only trying to harass us, but to put fear in all of us because they ovbiously hate the US. That is, as I said before, Guerrila Warfare at a high extreme. The Reveloutionaries used this kind of warfare against the Brits during the War For Independence. (Not that it’s ok for terrorists to do what they did just becase the reveloutionaries did) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/7 "2001-09-28T21:26:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > erislover: > > > [@](#): > > > > I have proposed that terrorists are persons or groups of persons that have a political agenda they wish to impose by using force and threatening further force. > > So would the police fit in this category? They ave a political agenda (law and order) that they impose by using force. Nope. The police are part of your contract with the society you live in. You know the laws (or should) and know you will get a visit from the police if you break those laws. You don’t know when or where the terrorists are coming from next and they may get you although you have done nothing wrong (at least not directly…as a part of the society they hate they consider that culpability enough). > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The force in question is arbitrarily applied (everyone not with the agenda is an enemy). > > So does Bush’s statement that everyone that is not with us is against us put him in that category? I think that piece was poorly phrased. Just considering someone an enemy doesn’t make anyone a terrorist. It is your actions that define whether or not you are a terrorist. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Whether or not the terrorists are governmentally funded is irrelevant: they are not representing any governments politically. > > Are you saying that terrorists cannot represent a state? Is that simply part of the definition? If it turns out that the WTC attack was actually voted on and approved by a government, does that make it not terrorism? Technically I would say no. If it turned out a state pulled off the attack then it would be an outright act of war. Killing innocent civilians that way would certainly give it the flavor of a terrorist attack but it would be war nonetheless. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Wumpus \* > > Terrorist actions are actions designed specifically to cause fear for psychological or political reasons. > > That’s an incredibly broad description. Would random drug tests be considered terrorism? Nope. Again random drug tests are something you can expect and are, again, part of your agreement to live in this society. If you don’t like it you can peacefully petition the government to change it. For random drug tests to be terrorism you’d have to A) Never expect it and get pulled off the street at some completely random time; B) Have drugs be legal (i.e. you’re doing nothing wrong by taking them) and C) Have some bad outcome as result of testing positive. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Terrorism is _not_ aimed at traditional military goals. > > What if a military goal is an incidental target (e.g. a nuclear attack on a city that has a military installation; the military installation is destroyed, but so is the city)? > > What about drug interdiction efforts? That’s not a traditional military goal. Is that terrorism? That’s not terrorism. It might be an overzealous attack but not terrorism. Anyone living near the nuclear missile silos out west can expect nuclear missiles to fly there way if we ever go down that road. It sucks for them but isn’t terrorism. Drug interdiction is merely policing. Even if they use the military it is still just policing. As a drug runner you know the risks you face. While you may experience terror being chased down by a destroyer the destroyer chasing you is not committing an act of terrorism. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The WTC attack didn’t gain territory, destroy military targets, cut lines of communications (and no, jamming civilian phone lines for a few hours doesn’t count) or have any appreciable affect on the enemy’s ability to fight. The only purpose of the attack was to dismay the victims and hearten the perpetrators. > > What about the Pentagon attack? Was that terrorism? The attack on the Pentagon was terrorism but it was closer to a conventional attack than the WTC was. The Pentagon could expect to be a target as a military installation…fair game in war. That said I don’t believe the attackers impaired our ability to fight in any noticeable way. Had they dropped all four planes on the Pentagon and followed-up with an assault somewhere else in the world then maybe I could see the attack as a piece of a larger puzzle meant to better their odds in the other attack. Still, it’d take a lot more than blasting the Pentagon to disable or cripple our forces. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/8 "2001-09-28T21:31:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Legolas \* > **That is, as I said before, Guerrila Warfare at a high extreme. The Reveloutionaries used this kind of warfare against the Brits during the War For Independence.** Americans practised a form of guerilla warfare against the British but I don’t think anyone on either side of the pond would have called the Americans terrorists. We focused on killing enemy soldiers, not killing innocent civilians. The closest I can think of the Americans coming to a terrorist attack back then was the Boston Tea Party. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/9 "2001-09-28T21:43:11Z")
The Ryan: Drug testing and drug interdiction are not terrorism. Their goal isn’t fear, it’s reduced drug consumption. Regardless of whether you think they’re good policies, it’s easy to draw a direct link between the policy and the goal of lower drug consumption. In the case of the WTC attack, though, you simply cannot make a link between the attack and the (presumed) goal without going through fear first. By the way, when I use the word fear, I mean just that, and not “aversion” or “avoidance.” The purpose of random drug tests is to cause aversion, not the far more primal and irrational feeling of fear. As you say, a terrorist attack may incidentally encompass a military target. The key is whether the attacker meant the attack to cause fear or actually cripple the enemy’s military. Which brings us to the Pentagon. If the Pentagon had been the sole attack, and had been followed by other attacks on military targets, then you might classify it as a (lame-brained) conventional military attack. However, it happened as the same time as the purely terrorist attack on the WTC, so it’s clear to me that the purpose of the Pentagon attack was terror as well. If they were really interested in affecting America’s ability to wage war, they wouldn’t have wasted 2 jets on the WTC. ---
**Author:** ![Legolas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Legolas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Legolas)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/10 "2001-09-28T22:06:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Legolas \* > > **That is, as I said before, Guerrila Warfare at a high extreme. The Reveloutionaries used this kind of warfare against the Brits during the War For Independence.** > > Americans practised a form of guerilla warfare against the British but I don’t think anyone on either side of the pond would have called the Americans terrorists. We focused on killing enemy soldiers, not killing innocent civilians. The closest I can think of the Americans coming to a terrorist attack back then was the Boston Tea Party. \*\* The Boston Tea Party was an act of pacific protest (Although America did not gain independence through playing pacifist). It was in protest of the King’s ridiculous taxing, which taxed the sale of tea. And I did mention that I do not consider the Reveloutionaries terrorists. Oh, most of the Americans’ Guerrila warfare was performed by pacifists (such as the Quakers) who did not attack and vanish, but rather use psycological warfare by doing things such as placing nonfunctional cannons outside their homes. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/11 "2001-09-28T23:13:10Z")
Allow me to state that as it stands, I do not consider guerilla warfare to be terrorism, but this is based on a somewhat intuitive definition of terrorism as outlined above. This leads me to say to **The Ryan** that when you break my definition up into its disparate parts then you will find problems with it. All conditions are meant to be met simultaneously for the definition to hold. So no, police wouldn’t fit into that category as they specifically represent a government. The real fuzziness comes into play when we consider the phenomenon of revolution. That phrasing reminds me that I have a book by the same title. Allow me to quote a relevant passage (forgot I had this book until I just typed that :)) > [@](#): > > **The Radicals and the Terror** > The seizure of power by radicals or extremists is generally associated in the minds of historians and theorists with the launching of a revolutionary dictatorship whose most salient feature is a Reign of Terror – or as Brinton correctly puts it, a Reign of Terror _and Virtue_[original emphasis]. For the conservative critics of revolution, radicalism, dictatorship, and the Terror are three ways of saying the same thing. For others, like George Pettee, the revolutionary dictatorship must be distinguished from the Terror, for though the former “does resort to terrorism,” which is “simply a special means of dealing with opposition to the state,” such terrorism outlives the Reign of Terror, whose purposes are rather different. Simply terrorism is thus an exaggerated form of the self-defense practiced by all government, whereas the “dictatorship contributes to the terror without making it.” [sup]the Phenomenon of Revolution, Mark N. Hagopian, 1974[/sup] Though this is more referring to the distinction between localized terrorism before, during, and after localized revolution, it does lend some credence to the idea that terrorism is, in fact, an exaggerated form of typical warfare. _sigh_ this makes a Manichaeanistic struggle against terrorism a pretty bad idea since the definition seems to be sufficiently flexible. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2001, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/12 "2001-09-29T04:26:56Z")
Well, our Fearless Leaders have given us a clue. Last week, when Vlad the Impaler Putin wasn’t on our side, the Chechens were Freedom Fighters. Today, they are terrorists. Same Chechens. Same Putin. Different day. Glad to clear that up for you. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2001, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/13 "2001-09-29T15:49:12Z")
**elucidator** , say it ain’t so… do you have a link? I assume it was a Bush speech… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2001, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/14 "2001-09-29T16:54:15Z")
Not all that good at cite-mining. Heard it on PBS news radio, which has absorbed alot of my time lately. I am unlikely to spend much time on this, being lazy and easily distracted, so I must withdraw that assertion until I can prove otherwise. Still believe it, mind you, just will not assert it as fact. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2001, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/15 "2001-09-29T19:00:07Z")
Oh, don’t get me wrong, it isn’t that I don’t believe you, it is that I seriously want to read about it. Don’t hurt yourself over my account 🙂 I don’t often ask for cites to back up an argument, because I try to avoid those kinda’ arguments. So usually when I ask for a cite, it isn’t because I disbelieve you. I’ll toss ya a rolleyes if I don’t believe you 😃 ---
**Author:** ![headshok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@headshok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/headshok)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2001, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/16 "2001-09-29T19:14:34Z")
Here’s a [cite](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32163-2001Sep26.html) from the Washington Post, Sept. 26. > [@](#): > > The Bush administration called on separatist rebels in Chechnya yesterday to cut their ties to “international terrorist groups” that have provided weapons for their fight for independence and urged the rebels to accept peace talks with the Kremlin. To be fair, the administration wasn’t referring to the Chechens as terrorists, but rather the people who might be supplying them with weapons. I doubt that we’ll raise much of a fuss about human rights over there in the near future, though. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/17 "2001-09-29T20:12:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > Nope. The police are part of your contract with the society you live in. I don’t know about you, but **I** never signed a contract giving power to the police. > [@](#): > > You know the laws (or should) and know you will get a visit from the police if you break those laws. No, if I break the laws, I **might** get a visit from the police. > [@](#): > > You don’t know when or where the terrorists are coming from next and they may get you although you have done nothing wrong (at least not directly…as a part of the society they hate they consider that culpability enough). I don’t know when or where the police are coming, and they get me for an indirect crime (like buying stolen goods: I didn’t steal the goods, but by buying them I participated in the crime). > [@](#): > > Technically I would say no. If it turned out a state pulled off the attack then it would be an outright act of war. Killing innocent civilians that way would certainly give it the flavor of a terrorist attack but it would be war nonetheless. So whether some group’s actions are terrorsim depends on whether we’ve recognized them as a government? > [@](#): > > Nope. Again random drug tests are something you can expect and are, again, part of your agreement to live in this society. If I expected them, they would, by definition, not be random. > [@](#): > > For random drug tests to be terrorism you’d have to A) Never expect it and get pulled off the street at some completely random time; B) Have drugs be legal (i.e. you’re doing nothing wrong by taking them) and C) Have some bad outcome as result of testing positive. A)That happens. B)Why is whether something is illegal the criterion for whether is wrong? C) Something bad does happen. > [@](#): > > Drug interdiction is merely policing. Even if they use the military it is still just policing. How does assigning a name to it change its nature? > [@](#): > > As a drug runner you know the risks you face. So if terrorists made their attacks more predictable, would they cease to be terrorists? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2001, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/18 "2001-09-29T20:16:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wumpus \* > By the way, when I use the word fear, I mean just that, and not “aversion” or “avoidance.” The purpose of random drug tests is to cause aversion, not the far more primal and irrational feeling of fear. I see this as splitting hairs. The purpose of drug testing is to create concern, worry, apprehension. This is exactly what the purpose of the WTC attacks were. The exact degree to which they intend to create these emotions is a poor criterion for deciding whether they are terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2001, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/19 "2001-09-29T20:28:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > Allow me to state that as it stands, I do not consider guerilla warfare to be terrorism, but this is based on a somewhat intuitive definition of terrorism as outlined above. I’m glad that you realize that it is intuitive. This is one of my main points: the distinction is based mainly on subjective factors rather than explicit criteria. > [@](#): > > This leads me to say to **The Ryan** that when you break my definition up into its disparate parts then you will find problems with it. Yes, that is true. I hope that you do not think that I was trying to refute your definition by picking it apart; rather I was trying to clarify it. Please note that I asked such questions as “does this fit in that category that you’ve described?” That is, I was trying to find out whether methods usually though of not terrorist would fulfill a particular part of your description; I was not trying to say that simply because it fits one part it fits all parts. But before we know whether something fulfills all the criteria, we must know what each criterion is. > [@](#): > > So no, police wouldn’t fit into that category as they specifically represent a government. While that certainly would be consistent with your description, I don’t like the idea of the nature of an act depending on who does it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2001, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-a-sufficiently-clear-definition-of-terrorism-since-wtc/84365/20 "2001-09-29T20:57:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > > Allow me to state that as it stands, I do not consider guerilla warfare to be terrorism, but this is based on a somewhat intuitive definition of terrorism as outlined above. > > \*\*I’m glad that you realize that it is intuitive. This is one of my main points: the distinction is based mainly on subjective factors rather than explicit criteria. Hence my suggestion that I may be a definitional “revisionist.” No small concern, really. I know what I mean when I say “terrorist” but I’ll be damned if I can find a way to explain it. This usually tells me that I’m failing to grasp the situation entirely, and has provided no small source of argumentation over whether or not a government can perform terrorist actions, whether guerilla warfare is a brand of terrorism, and so on. I’m with you: I would hope to avoid a definition which requires an arbitrary (and unstated!) matter of degree. My concern here is that one cannot be found. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > So no, police wouldn’t fit into that category as they specifically represent a government. > > \*\*While that certainly would be consistent with your description, I don’t like the idea of the nature of an act depending on who does it. I am not sure I agree with this. Do you feel there is a context-free definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist?”