What defines a "terrorist?"

[Shjade]

What actions? Can you be more specific?

Purposely evoking terror, the act thereof, spec. utilizing violence and destruction.

[elone]

If we can't define a terrorist, then how can we have a "war on terror". Many politicians and world leaders, especially Benjamin Netanyahu, like to throw that phrase around.

I think it all depends on whose side you are on currently, and who the victors are historically. Anyone who commits an act against the US and it's allies are terrorists, but when the US and others bomb and kill civilians it is collateral damage.

Do you think we will ever see a headline in the US such as. "US Soldiers Murder 20 Taliban Freedom Fighters in Firefight"

Personally, I think the "terror" word has been used and abused much too often. Maybe we could just report what happened and leave that word out of the story.

[Deamonbane]

Terrorist and freedom fighter are two names for the same thing, both depending on your current point of view.

For example, the Boston Tea Party could be seen as an act of terror, destroying property over tax issues, which then, distantly sparked a war.

For example, I am sure that if the rebels in Syria had been in Saudi Arabia instead, the media would have been painting Islamic Extremists all over them.

The Taliban are painted as terrorists too, but look at it from their viewpoint. They are fighting against an enemy that is better equipped, better trained and better everything-ed. What do they have? Terrain advantage, and weapons that were relics during WW2. And they are fighting an invading force the only way that they can, by hiding in their land, and hitting wherever they can. Desperate times.

I don't say I agree with them. Just presenting what might be their point of view.

The point of the matter: Is Invading a country wrong? Yeah. Is attacking civilians wrong? Hell yeah. Is profiting from dragging out a war like that wrong? Yes. Is supporting it wrong? Yeah. Is using media and double-speak to cover up for atrocities committed for and against the so-called 'war on terror'? Of course. Two wrongs don't make a right, but until people get that, they will keep on trying, and using retaliation as an excuse to make billions. They really don't care about the lives lost on both sides.

[kylie]

          Since this sort of 'terrorist or freedom fighter' dichotomy keeps coming up...  I'm not sure it's such a neat either-or exclusion if you toss in some evidence.  Many wars have some parties involved that are not native to the specific area (state, regional territory in question) and may not be interested in protecting the place or its people per se).  Or if they do have some concern for protection, they may still be more interested in other ends they can achieve in that environment. 

If some branches of Al Qaeda say they just want to fight Western forces wherever they show up in the Islamic world, or even that they want to pursue some fundamentalist-inspired, pan-Islamic "Caliphate"...  Those are directions that may have some element of "resistance" in them that coincides with more local parties (assuming there are mentionable local parties fighting the US/West too), but then again they may not fit so neatly under the traditional concept of freedom fighters.  Some of these obviously seem to have quite something else they hope to gain, anything from personal operational experience for some individual fighters up to a grand political dream for one movement among so many groups.  Even in the American Revolution -- I'm not an expert but -- I gather, some French may have been quite interested in distracting or draining Britain, whatever else various factions in France made of the idea of a new country or idealism coming together.

          So to really describe where particular ideas start to gel (or mix and blur, as the case may be), we need more than a couple poles to talk about.  This starts to get at a broader problem: terrorism is properly a principle or a strategy adopted by actors themselves or not, whereas terror attacks or terroristic activities could simply be way that people (often now Western journalism, but whoever really is fine) report on certain specific events.  Even if both sides agree an attack was brutal, harmful to civilians, and sent a political message in the event, they may not agree on whether the idea behind doing the attack was actually something that properly matches a definition of terrorism.     

[Kekec]

There are two different kinds of terrorism: local terrorism and global terrorism. What Viet Cong did was local terrorism. What Kurds are doing in Iraq is local terrorism. But when the U.S.A. inject themselves into these conflicts under the pretense of bringing piece, that is global terrorism.

And in the words of Bill Maher: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in an airplane when it hits the building; you can say what you want about it, not cowardly."