Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Xipe Totec

(44,576 posts)
8. Definition of Terrorism
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:58 PM
Dec 2015

There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.

Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination." These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

So much for your planetary consensus.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

No, they aren't a terrorist NobodyHere Dec 2015 #1
How so? LynneSin Dec 2015 #2
Are you serious? linuxman Dec 2015 #4
It's a matter of intent, not effect Xipe Totec Dec 2015 #6
And yet, that's still not terrorism linuxman Dec 2015 #7
Definition of Terrorism Xipe Totec Dec 2015 #8
I never said there was a binding consensus. linuxman Dec 2015 #9
... Xipe Totec Dec 2015 #10
Cute cartoon. linuxman Dec 2015 #11
Out of curiosity... deathrind Dec 2015 #14
Depends. linuxman Dec 2015 #15
Fair enough. deathrind Dec 2015 #16
I should have clarified. linuxman Dec 2015 #17
Could not agree more... deathrind Dec 2015 #3
And that's the rub. linuxman Dec 2015 #5
Which is why I disagree with the OP. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #19
I go the other way. If the intent is to kill as many as possible, they are mass murderers. morningfog Dec 2015 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Dec 2015 #13
I'd like to think most combat soldiers intent is not to kill everyone in sight LynneSin Dec 2015 #21
Strongly disagree. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #18
Way TOO MUCH killing lately... A1an Dec 2015 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the intent of a person...»Reply #8