| The definition of terrorism is very tenous. A criminal act? An act for freedom? Is it war? Every case is different.
The difference between a criminal and a terrorist is that their motivations are different. A criminal's main goal is money, while ideology or religion is the purpose behind a terrorist. While both may use fear to get what they want, a criminal most likely won't die for money while terrorists might sacrifice themselves if the cause is big enough in their eyes. A terrorist is also more motivated and organized and will be loyal to their particular cause. A terrorist wants change in society, while a criminal wants the status quo but also wants to be elevated within it.
Does that mean that the Revolutionary War pitted a terrorist group against England? Revolutionary violence shouldn't be labeled as "terrorist violence" if the revolutionaries use military means and don't aim at innocents. If they cross the line and use "illegitimate force" (another tenuous and dynamic term) and use it upon innocents, then it should be considered terrorism.
In the case of countries inflicting brutality upon citizens during war, mostly to demoralize the opposition and to cause terror, it shouldn't be defined as terrorism, but as a war crime against humanity. The reason is that states and political bodies can be held accountable for their actions on the world court or another international body (which gives credibility to Israel reeking of terrorism).
Terrorist organizations are apolitical and non governmental shadows that relish in that status to evade accountability. Almost all terror organizations have no rules of conduct and use that towards their advantage. Terrorism, in the dictionary form, is inflicted by people or groups of people, not by governmental organizations and armies.
Just my two cents....
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups |