Terrorism is conceptually meaningless

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: DarkPalSFO

When you use violence to forward a goal that is terrorism this isn't a difficult concept for most people

That would make every murder, every war, every drunken barfight, every playground scuffle, and every boxing match, an act of terrorism.

The term is used to specifically identify violence associated with political aims. The widespread application of the term, whether it fits or not, is a problem.

It does actually raise some interesting questions, though. With the IRA, or Basque separatists, it clearly falls into the definition of terrorism. Is the current Muslim conflict actually terrorism? Their goal is for you to submit or die. Is that a truly political goal, or a religious goal? Is this political violence or just an asymmetrical war?

I think "jihadist" is a far better term than "terrorist" for those people.

What I find really interesting, however, is the aftermath of the baseball ground shooting. Some people are saying that we need to stop calling it "terrorism" and just refer to it as an "assault". Except... the incident is actually closer to the real meaning of terrorism than the crazy jihadists blowing themselves up in public. That was a real terrorist act, with violence being committed against a group defined by political affiliation, because of their political affiliation.