Terrorism requires a multi-part definition with six distinct parts that should be read together as a sentence:
(1) an act by a person or group or organization who
(2) uses violence
(3) against civilian populations
(4) in order to provoke fear among that civilian population
(5) in order to instigate for political change in the country where the civilians were attacked
(6) in line with the preferences of the person or group or organization who used the violence.
If any part of this definition is not satisfied, then it is not terrorism. Often people confuse the term "insurrectionist" or "rebel" with a "terrorist". An "insurrectionist" or "rebel" does not have (3) or (4) in the definition. "Insurrectionists" and "Rebels" jump from (2) straight to (5). This is why we never hear American Revolution stories of Colonial soldiers bombing innocent people's homes with the intent of spreading fear of Colonial acts as pressure to abandon the United Kingdom. While there were acts of property damage, like the Boston Tea Party, these had no intentional deaths. Terrorism requires the deaths of civilians and for the person who committed the terrorism to be of a reasonable belief that his attack would kill civilians and support it anyway.
The definition of terrorism matches none of the definitions of prudence. rdg
because all countries have terrorism
By definition, no. By comprehension, yes.
because.
The definition of terrorism can be " Attacking, damaging and killing of civillians and their properties and their interests. Unfortunatly, the UN has not described the exeact meanings of Terrorism and the still the War against Terrorism is still continued and the world is on the high risk now.
They Got US
Because one county's "terrorist" is another county's "freedom fighter". However, this only affects what actual acts are considered terrorism; the definition of it is any act of violence with a political motivation.
No. Bio-terrorism requires the use of chemical or biological weapons to kill humans through chemical or disease-based means. As tragic as school shootings are, they are comitted using conventional weaponry and therefore do noe meet the paramenters of the definition for bio-terrorism.
It is an American jurisdiction related law,discusses about fighting against terrorism and it also speaks about U.S.citizens rights.
State Terrorism, Cyber Terrorism, Eco Terrorism, Bio Terrorism
It is defined as: "The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political."
basically, the definition of terrorism was "broadened," so now many other crimes that used to be just that--crimes--are now deemed terrorism. Thus, they carry along stronger punishment. The main problem with this, specially after the PATRIOT Act, is that many "regular" activities such as freedom of association could be deemed "terrorist" by these new broad definitions. Although tehre are more 4th amendment *privacy) issues with this new law, even 5th amendment (due process) issues. But I guess it is all mostly due to the PATRIOT Act.