Terrorist

[Dr. Goodword]

• terrorist •

Pronunciation: ter-rê-rist • Hear it!

Part of Speech: Noun

Meaning: Someone who resorts to violence and the threat of violence to coerce people or governments to accept their set of beliefs, a violent scaremonger.

Notes: Today's word has a positive connotation to all terrorists, but a negative sense for everyone else. This is the only word in English that distinguishes a murderer by his or her motivation. There are no words for "murder for revenge", "murder out of anger", etc. Someone has suggested that we stop doing terrorists favors and call them what we think of them: monsters, or at least murderers. These are accurate appellations that are unambiguous. The terrorist is a supporter of terrorism, and their methods are terroristic.

In Play: A funny true story: Russian terrorists in the early stages of the Russian Revolution tried to assassinate the Tsar by blowing up his train. They laid explosives under the tracks he was using and waited. The tsar always used two trains, switching them along the way. The terrorists thought the tsar was in the fourth car on the second train. When that car was over the explosives, they pushed the detonator. They blew up a load of cabbages and produced the largest serving of coleslaw the world has ever known.

Word History: Today's Good Word should not be confused with terroirist. Terrorist came from the French Reign of Terror (La Terreur, 1793-1794) under Robespierre during the French Revolution (1789-1799). Estimates run from 16,000 to 40,000 people who suffered at the guillotine during this period. The meaning of the word changed to what it is today over the course of the 19th century. The word is based on terror, taken whole from Latin terror, which was based on the verb terrere "scare, frighten", from PIE tres- "tremble". The same root shows up in Sanskrit trasati "trembles", Greek treëin "to tremble", Lithuanian trišeti "to tremble", and Russian tryasti "tremble", as in zemletryasenie "earthquake".

[call_copse]

I do of course understand why this one has come up - but it is quite a loaded term and does take something of a political judgement. Recent events can really only be viewed one way.

But what of say the Norwegian resistance in WWII? Where do (for example) the Irgun stand? Clearly these groups may be described as terrorists but also have a pretty good claim on 'freedom fighters' from a different perspective. From where I'm standing if you go to another country and throw your weight around - then it's likely to go one way, with some justification.

Would it be helpful to have a different term here, or are the existing terms a sensible outcome of exercising of political judgement?

[LukeJavan8]

Very good point, perhaps "murderers" would suffice.

[Perry Lassiter]

At least most of the time "freedom fighters" wage a guerilla on enemy troops. The. Terrorist philosophy today seems to be kill, hurt, destroy anyone, man, woman, child, soldier or civilian. The recent attack on CH in France was more targeted than most. The more familiar ones are suicide bombers in marketplaces.

[call_copse]

I guess my only point is that it is rarely a cut-and-dried term. There is always a degree of subjectivity, even for something as seemingly well defined as CH.

I was just talking to several Sri Lankan colleagues about their recent elections. I believe that the LTTE are held responsible for originating suicide vests. My colleagues are Tamils and very peaceful and pleasant chaps but their experiences in their country have lead them to a strong desire for internal separation. I would find it hard to judge them as an outsider.

Would you say that US attacks on Afghan or Iraqi people warranted such a label? Indiscriminate bombing of wedding parties, sniping at children etc. Clinton's bombing of Al-Shifa, reportedly causing many subsequent deaths (at a minimum 10s of thousands)? There are clearly many who would describe these as terrorist actions, with some reasonable justification (and I don't exempt the UK).

I guess I don't see much black or white these days.

[Dr. Goodword]

I almost assigned it two opposing meanings (1) "Hero or martyr who resorts to murder in defense of his or her beliefs. (2) Monster who resorts to murdering women and children to advance his or her cause. I think terrorists themselves use the term in a sense closer to the first. But then I decided that terrorists probably don't call themselves "terrorists", but "freedom fighters". I came to a conclusion pretty much like the one Call_Copse espouses.

[Perry Lassiter]

To some degree it does depend on whose ox is being gored. But there is a new terrorist who deliberately seeks out the innocent, as in marketplace suicide bombs. American and other attacks may kill innocents, but the innocents were not their targets, and killing them was not the purpose of the attack. This ne terrorism is actually old, of course, but not so much in civilized society, whatever that is. Until after WWII it was assumed civilians would be killed during war. Consider the air raids over Britain and the carpet bombing of Germany. I think probably the A-Bomb started the discussion of who is a legitimate target. I find it particularly reprehensible when terrorists, as in Gaza, deliberately fire rockets and snipe from public buildings to play gotcha when the targets respond, killing students.

[call_copse]

I feel a bit sad that lack of intent can be seen as a valid reason for one's own side causing the death of between 10 and 50 thousand civilians - that's a minimum of around 3 9/11's. I think it only fair to examine one's own side's actions from the perspective of those on the receiving end, and a 'we didn't mean it' seems somewhat inadequate. I do think Clinton was a pretty decent President overall but you would not accept a different kind of terrorist saying that was valid collateral damage in whatever struggle, valid or confected, they were engaged in.

[LukeJavan8]

Or Boko Haram killing 2000 last week.

[call_copse]

Boko Haram are indeed one of the more unpleasant things I have read about recently, the worse for appearing to be tolerated by their government. Whether they or say Al-Shabaab count strictly as terrorists I don't know, but they certainly should.

[LukeJavan8]

Truly. They are horrific.

[Slava]

From TPM:

a wide range of targets indirectly and directly associated with elections as viable targets for violence with the intent of instilling fear among voters, candidates, and election workers, as well as disrupting election processes

will pose the most significant physical threat to government officials, voters, and elections-related personnel and infrastructure, including polling places, ballot drop box locations, voter registration sites, campaign events, political party offices, and vote counting sites,

motivated by “anti-government or anti‑authority” ideology, “many of whom likely will be inspired by partisan policy grievances or conspiracy theories, will pose the most significant threat

You'd think these quotes are practically the definition of 'terrorist' and 'terrorism', but no, these creatures have a new, watered-down, nomenclature: Domestic Violent Extremists, DVE for short. Works, as long as we remember deviant.

I expect it's a stab at making terrorists only those nasty foreign-types.