Moscow Metro suicide bombings

[kahljorn]

By me, it's terrorism. Causing terror. But if they aren't doing it to affect change with the government or individuals, is it terrorism to you?

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

What if your non-state actor causing a violent act on a non-combatant isn't trying to affect change? What if they are simply doing this act for the sake of it? Say, blowing up a hospital simply for the act of causing terror and panic in the population?

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

[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.