• Current definition: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    The question should not be "should we change the definition of terrorism" but it should be "should we change our perspective on terrorism." The media portrays terrorism as the first Muslim youth you see with a beard and a knife in his hand but the media never unveils that the governments are also terrorists in their own right. Britain and America send their troops to misfortunate third world countries to kill their civilians and steal their oils but this isn't terrorism though, is it? No, this is called foreign policy. Basically the western governments are also corrupt and the terrorists are themselves.

  • The current definition of "terrorism" is "people the U.S. Don't like"

    For example, China has run into problems marginalizing and subjecting the non-chinese ethnic groups in its borders. In order to make its blatant subjugation of other peoples more internationally acceptable, it demanded that the U.S. Put armed groups that resisted Chinese domination (like Uighur militias) on it list of "terrorists". The U.S., spineless as ever, agreed. We need to evaluate each armed movement and acknowledge it as what it is, not arbitrarily label certain groups as "terrorists".

  • The definition of terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    With this definition of terrorism almost every president of our country is guilty of being terrorist. In more recent news, Obama and the drone strikes definitely fit the description of terrorist attacks. Not only are these by definition, acts of terrorism, but they also result in the death of innocent lives. Something people say has to be done in order for something to be a terrorist act. Also, since this is a "democracy" we can also be described as terrorist. Our leaders are elected officials that are supposed to carry out the needs of it's citizens. That is why I think we should change the definition of terrorism. By this definition even JFK is a terrorist.

  • It Means What It Is Meant To

    First, lets establish this. Terrorism according to Wikipedia is:
    "...The systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion."
    According to Webster's Dictionary:
    "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

    Terrorism's definition is fine as it is. Yes, it is a broad term, yes, many people we see as 'American Heroes" can be classified as terrorists. This is because terrorism is very relative. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It doesnt change the fact that that person used violence to prove a point in order to invoke change.

    Basically, it is a term used to classify anyone who used violence to try to cause a change of opinion.
    When you bully someone into believing that oranges taste good, that is terrorism.
    When you detonate yourself in order to get the idea out that Allah is the true god, that is terrorism.
    When you hold a public execution to show that you are in power, that is terrorism.

    People like Gandhi who used nonviolence to invoke change are not classified as terrorists because they did not use terror or violence. This is exactly as it is meant to be. People who use violence to invoke change are terrorists. People who dont use violence to invoke change are not. Unfortunately, I dont think the public grasps the broadness of terrorism. This or they are looking at it from an ethnocentric view: they see acts of terror only against themselves, but they dont realize when they do it themselves.

    In short, the definition of 'terrorism' should not change; it classifies people as it should. The thing that should change is the mainstream view of what the definition of terrorism is.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.