Ask HN: What Is Terrorism?

[KLexpat]

After a lot of discussion on whether or not certain things constitute terrorism in the last few weeks - do we know and agree on what terrorism is?

Where does a protest become terrorism?

Looking for a constructive discussion, not bad-faith arguments. This is important because we have a lot of legislation and political action around Terrorism, but nobody seems to be able to agree on exactly what Terrorism is, which makes for very ambiguous legislation.

[ttyprintk]

Within USA, legislation differs significantly between terrorism originating inside versus outside the country. This is because some terrorist groups’ right of assembly is protected by a Supreme Court decision. So, it’s not that terrorism has controversial definitions, but that terrorists are legally permitted to gather peacefully in public. This condition is not important enough to grant to non-USA-citizens outside the country.

If part of the media coverage of mass violence is that the perpetrators intended to “send a message”, I usually conclude its terrorism. Your news source might/might not distinguish this from violence that seems inspired to simply spread chaos.

So, your news source might describe an act of terrorism as the work of a “lone wolf” but my news source might connect his rhetoric to a particular movement. And vice versa.

But in USA, the criminal sentencing is unambiguous: if swept up in a terrorism sting, sentencing minimums are not mutable by the judge.

[m-p-3]

It's the use of violence and fear by a group of individuals to coerce the current leadership to change their policies and to undermine their authority.

[aminozuur]

Terrorism is politically motivated violence.

https://wor.do/terrorism

[nobody9999]

>nobody seems to be able to agree on exactly what Terrorism is,

I don't think that's true. Without looking anything up, I'd define terrorism as a tool to advance political goals through the use of violence and intimidation to create fear/terrorize target groups.

That's a very general description, of course. However, I think it sums up "terrorism" pretty well.

I'll now go and look up some definitions and see if I'm right. Please stand by...

"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"[0]

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."[1]

"Terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."[2]

As you can see above, from the English language definition of the word standpoint, my definition seems accurate.

That said, legal definitions of 'terrorism' by various governments (as well as sub-classes of terrorism) are not as clearly defined. For example (not including quotes, as they're all fairly long):

US Law[3] Defines "international" and "domestic" terrorism separately.

The UK[4] has it's own definition as well.

As does the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.[5]

However, all of these include the more general definition I and the various dictionaries/encyclopedia quoted put forward.

So, no. I think we all, in general, agree what "terrorism" is. The difference is in how legal codes treat such activities.

It's possible that I'm missing the point here. If so, please elucidate that statement.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism

[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

[4] https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism

[5] https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-4/key-issues/d...

Edit: Fixed typos, clarified language.