Is there a difference between some radical groups (like those that vandalise animal test labs or Mcdonalds) and terrorist organizasions? They are both driven by their beliefs and act illegaly, but we don’t call them terrorists. Why?
Well, I suppose there’s the distinction that they’re trying to influence private industry, rather than governments or voters. Other than that, I don’t see a reason not to call them terrorists - they’re using violence to make a political statement and influence others’ future decisions.
Are these radical groups aiming to achieve their political goals by inspiring terror in the general populace? No, they’re trying to achieve short-term goals (eg free the chickens) and publicize their cause.
There’s also a large difference in the criminal nature of their activities (vandalism, theft, break-ins etc as opposed to mass murder and major destruction of infrastructure) and the social acceptability of their goals (eg the end of battery farming vs the toppling of governments).
Here’s an article about two bombs that exploded at a biotech firm last year.
I’d call those acts of terrorism. They’re not just trying to destroy buildings and vehicles, IMO, they’re trying to scare people out of biotech work, new construction projects, and selling SUVs.
I don’t think trashing a farm where chickens are raised in close quarters, for example, is just part of a short term goal. The activists aren’t only concerned about those particular chickens, but rather all chickens, and by destroying one farm, they’re sending a message to everyone who raises chickens or has considered getting into, er, chickenry.
Errmmm . . . “terrorists” are Muslims, “radical pressure groups” aren’t?
No, wait, there was Timothy McVeigh . . .
It’s sure a stumper!
Eh, one atheist terrorist. Not a bad track record, I’d say!
Well, there have also been plenty of Communist and left-anarchist terrorists in the past two centuries, and they’re atheists . . . in theory, anyway. (I suspect some of them might have occasionally backslid . . .)
And we’ve had Christian terrorists in this country gunning for abortion-providing doctors and clinic workers . . .
And right-wing death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Argentina, Namibia . . .
I guess nobody really has a corner on the market. Long live free enterprise! 
It really depends upon how severe the actions they commit are. It also depends upon whether the victims are actually “terrorized” by what the groups are doing. I think to raise to the level of terrorism, the victims should be in fear for their life. Not just their property, but their life or physical safety.
I think it’s kind of a stretch to call people “terrorists” if all they do is break into a lab and let the animals loose.
But if you bomb an abortion clinic, even if its after business hours, the people who frequent the place are going to be in genuine fear for their lives. That counts as terrorism to me.
I think to call people who vandalize animal test labs the same thing you’d call Al Qaeda waters down the term and demeans the suffering of those who are victims of real terrorism.
And we mustn’t forget to mention that venerable American institution, the Klan. A “radical pressure group” nowadays, for the most part, but I’m given to understand that on some occasions in the past they might have stepped over that fine line . . .
I disagree. Terrorism describes the intent, not the crime. Someone who’s killed in an explosion set by a terrorist for political reasons doesn’t suffer any more than someone killed in a meth lab explosion because of his own stupidity.
Wikipedia defines terrorism thus: Terrorism is the application of violence or threats of violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political, religious, or social goals. Terrorism can be carried out by individuals, groups, and governments.
That’s like saying the crack head who shoots someone for $5 waters down the term “murder” because he didn’t hid 400 bodies in his basement. There are large acts of terrorism and there are small acts of terrorism.
As Mr2001, there are two components -
-
Violence or the threat of violence - Destroying animal labs or buring SUVs are acts of violence
-
Achieve political, religious, or social goals - This is what distinguishes them as terrorists instead of mere arsonists or nutjobs.
and there is possibly a third component in the definition:
3) civilian - Does this include non-military government installations and offices?
I’d say so. The idea is that they aren’t prepared for an attack and can’t effectively protect themselves or fight back. The post office and DMV fit those criteria; the White House probably doesn’t.
I think this distinction might depend on the terrorist. If one government were commiting the act, then against a military target it would be considered an act of war. But against a civilian target it would be an act of terrorism. Meanwhile if the klan committed either act, it would be terrorism.
Was that at all clear?