Originally Posted by horatio
So I think that the term terrorist is too broad to be useful.
I agree with this statement to a point.
Yes, I guess it depends on what side of the fence you're on as to whether someone is a terrorist or a hero. The victimized side (or the side that considers such actions unlawful and any other negative adjective you can throw on there) will see the actions of another as potentially "terrorist", while those who carry out the action claim to have some form of justification for said action....be it religious, monetary, or political.
After 9/11, the definition of terrorism was about to be broadened beyond just the typical "Infidellllllllll......Diiieeee for AlllaaaaaahhhhhhhhH!!!!!.......BOOM!" or "Kick the Brits outta Brittaaaaiiiiinnnnnnnnn!!!!!......BOOM!" to include home invasion, robbery, attempted murder, domestic abuse, etc.
On the one hand, it would've completely upended the urgency of definition when it comes to terrorism as we generally know it. To a smaller degree, it would be like saying: "The sky is falling!" Terrorism, as it's been known to be, has almost always had some end of conveying some kind of message: A warning to a government, a call for the release of a prisoner that is important to their cause, a cry for wide media coverage to show the world what seems to be going on with them.
On the other hand, just think if such criminal activity as I mentioned above ( home invasion, robbery, attempted murder, domestic abuse, gang violence against innocents, especially thug and gangsta activity) were handled as terrorist acts....(to me, thugs and gangstas ARE
domestic terrorists, but the only message those frackers wish to convey is that they think they're in control of some street or city)... Perhaps the punishments would be more severe...even resulting in the execution of such criminals, so as to serve as a warning to others who would dare engage in those crimes.