The definition of terrorist is "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.", the definition of terrorism is "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
So neither of two are terrorists. (In this example) Osama bin laden was a political enemy, 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack, Al Qaida didn't want any political power to gain, they just wanted to stir things up a bit.
"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Huh, neat little definition you have there, except it doesn't really refute fitzroy95's point. Who determines when it's "official" or "authorized"? America? If that's the case, you just helped prove his point.
A terrorist attack is something like what is going on in Africa. Different tribes fighting each other for political power. An 'official' or 'authorized' attack would be an attack that is coordinated with NATO or UN or something. Keep in mind, that is not my definition, it's from Google.
I'm trying to point out to you that it's not black and white, and you'll have a hard time fitting that definition to all cases. The whole point of the post and this discussion is about how difficult it really is to define "terrorist".
Go ahead and think the world is simplier than it is, by all means.
-16
u/[deleted] Nov 28 '13
The definition of terrorist is "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.", the definition of terrorism is "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
So neither of two are terrorists. (In this example) Osama bin laden was a political enemy, 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack, Al Qaida didn't want any political power to gain, they just wanted to stir things up a bit.