from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
- n. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
- n. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.
- n. The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
They can seemingly either reconcile the uttered contradictions of "their" candidates' positions we don't need constitutional protections for those accused of terrorism cause they're accused of *terrorism* and are therefor actaul *terrorists*! whle at the same time touting their National Guard service, which requires an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution or just refuse to see that there *is* a contradiction.
\ "\" I kind of had this naive hope we were done with the \'soft on terrorism/hard on terrorism\ 'idea, \ "said Grim.
But as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, a treasure trove of documentaries, books representing both sensationalistic and investigative journalism, Hollywood action blockbusters, PBS and Christiane Amanpour specials later, there still seems to be a lack of clarity around and an obsession with the term "terrorism" -- and a certain kind of racially and religiously understood "terrorism."
When we hear the word terrorism or we think of violent extremists, we can all too easily conjure up images of destruction and death that have resulted in acts of terrorism all over the world.
And he has suggested that President Obama "use the word terrorism more often" so people understand the seriousness of his purpose.
I think that invading Iraq caused an increase in terrorism, but of course terrorism is far from a noble act.
The two events, reinforced by the recent Norway bombing, have taught me this: I'm looking forward to a day when the term "terrorism" is not explicitly linked to "Islam" or "Arabs."
So, as we approach the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I call for a more nuanced understanding and application of the term "terrorism."
Anonsters says: neurodoc: but their leadership has been very much involved in terrorism from the gitgo and a great many Palestinians venerate the likes of Dalal Mughrabi.
But by failing to identify "violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion" as terrorism without regard for the religious or cultural identity of the perpetrator (s), the Department of Homeland Security and media outlets have colluded in the fundamentally xenophobic enterprise of redefining the term terrorism in cultural and religious terms.