[thaumaturgy]

When Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood in 2009, 60% of Americans wanted the crime prosecuted as a terrorist act [1], the Bipartisan Policy Center referred to it as a terrorist act in a report [2], and Wikipedia currently refers to it as a "non-state terrorist attack" [3].

While there is not an internationally-agreed-upon definition of "terrorism", according to U.S. law, terrorism is defined as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" [4]. Premeditated, politically-motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by clandestine agents ... the Iranian car bombings would legally qualify as terrorism under U.S. law.

This is a very silly argument to be having here. I'd really rather be reading about some interesting technical aspect of the technological warfare against Iran, and I really don't want to keep on cluttering up the comments here with silliness.

[1]: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene...

[2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95190520/Assessing-the-Terrorist-T..., search for "Fort Hood"

[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

[4]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f, subsection (d), paragraph (2).

[ars]

Nidal Malik Hasan killed people randomly. That makes a huge difference. Another difference is motivation: He killed from hate, not for a military purpose.

The whole point of picking a specific target is that you consider them a combatant. (You don't have to shoot a gun to be a combatant, helping the military is enough.) A civilian contractor for the military can be a combatant. So no, the Iranian car bombings would not legally qualify as terrorism under U.S. law - the bombings targeted a combatant.

Intent matters too: Are you are killing a person because of that specific person? (To prevent that person from contributing to the military.) Or are you killing so that other people see the killing and get scared?

You are right that it's a silly argument because your eyes appear to be closed on the matter (although to your credit you argue constructively). So lets turn this around, in your eyes in what scenario would it be assassination and not terrorism?

I don't think there are too many other technological details to be found, so this thread is likely to end up as a huge discussion of the morals of this action.

[rdtsc]

> Intent matters too:

I can assure you all killings are done with noble intent. It just matters who you ask and or listen to.

[chii]

nobody said anything about nobility of the intent. Just that intent exists for the killing of a particular individual.

[einhverfr]

If the Tamil Tigers do it (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project), then it is soliciting assistance for terrorist acts, but if the KKK does the same thing (Brandenburg v. Ohio) it is protected speech. I really don't know that there is more to say about it then that.

As Justice Potter Stewart said in his concurrence in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." (that's his complete concurrence)

The same could be true for terrorism. We know it when we see it. No objective definition necessary, so we will make do with it as a political label.