Moscow Metro suicide bombings

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

equivocation. the word terrorism doesn't necessarily mean any act which creates chaos/terror.

Not any act, no, because most violent acts do cause terror. But an act with the explicit aim of causing terror? Why not?

Then he's just a jerk? and not a terrorist.

Right, so he plants a bomb/blows himself up, destroys a hospital, kills innocent children and sick people, all in the name of causing terror.... and you don't think that counts as terrorism?


Again, I think you guys are being too tight with your definition. It has to be a non-state actor, acting against non-combatants with the express aim of coercing change... but if you do it for sheer terror sake, rather than change, well I guess you suddenly fall out of the category.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

It has to be a non-state actor, acting against non-combatants with the express aim of coercing change... but if you do it for sheer terror sake, rather than change, well I guess you suddenly fall out of the category.

Correct, I'd just view him as a mass(?) murderer. This isn't really that important though, because there is no set definition of terrorism. The definition that I use is the one that I think fits best with the groups and individuals historically referred as terrorists.

Different departments of the US government actually have different definitions of terrorism.