Terrorists Defined

So what exactly are terrorists. Let's go to the definitions:

Wiktionary:

1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; originally applied to an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
2. Anyone who uses terror as a weapon in a political struggle, frequently in an attempt to coerce a more powerful opponent, such as a government.

To Wiktionary's credit (rather to their desire to please everyone, which is foolish) they do say also:

The use of the label "terrorist" is often controversial or subjective, since one person's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter, and vice versa.

Sadly, the folks at Wiktionary (all 6 billion of them) fail to realize that "freedom fighter" is not a mutually exclusive term; viz:

[A] person involved in armed conflict against an oppressive government etc; an insurgent, rebel or insurrectionist.

So the definition of "freedom-fighting terrorist," according to Wiktionary anyway, would then be:

Anyone who uses terror as a weapon in a political struggle against an oppressive government.

There, is everyone happy? No, actually, I'm not. Aside from the fact that I had to fix the spelling of "oppressive," the use of "terror," a part of the word "terrorist," in that word's definition is forcing us to define "terror" as well. Here goes:

1. Extreme or intense fear.
2. Something that causes such fear.

By this definition, by the way, a terrorist could be said to be a terror, circular logic if I've ever heard it.

So now we have a person who uses fear as a weapon. Let's face it, Fenderson: that's not much of a definition. Perfectly international-law-abiding armies use fear as a weapon. I think we can rule out Wiktionary as a primary source in this discussion.

Google:

One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.

www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm

Intimidation is the only real addition we get here. Terrorists are not said to absolutely have to wear civilian garb, and therefore that statement becomes extraneous to the question. So we have someone who uses intimidation and violence to achieve political objectives. No dice; we're still talking about armies. Next

Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.

www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html

Not much of a definition at all. See my upcoming article on Google not being a dictionary. But here we are supposed to restrict our use of the word "terrorist" to non-governmental people and/or organizations. That's an interesting point that I may come back to later. But the kicker is "against civilian or noncombatant targets." Now we're getting somewhere. Our revised definition:

A person (we'll stick to the singular) who uses the fear created by violence toward noncombatant targets to accomplish a military or political goal.

The next definition I think we can dismiss out of hand:

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Why, you ask? Well, radical is a subjective term, and we're trying to avoid those for the sake of people's sensibilities (and also because I'd like to prove a point). "Usually" is a warning flag, as is "often" simply because they aren't hard and fast, and we're looking for the hardest, fastest definition we can get. Otherwise, why play the game?

The last definition is from Wikipedia, and we've already seen what the masses have to say on the subject, not to mention the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. So that's out as well.

Dictionary.com:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

Helpful, yes? Let's see what they have to say on the subject of "terrorism."

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

This is slightly more helpful, albeit from a slightly different source at the bottom of the page. But it essentially confirms the (highly restricted) definition we've developed. To whit:

A person who uses the fear created by violence or the threat of violence toward noncombatant targets in a calculated manner to accomplish an ideological (this folds military, religious, political, etc. into one word) goal.

Think that's good enough? If not, tell me about it. We'll break here, as I think this article has already demonstrated just how many oddball definitions of this one word there are out there.