There are three kinds actually:
1) Old-style political terrorists like the IRA or ETA. There don't
seem to be a lot of these about nowadays. Typically they used
terrorist methods to support programs that a lot of moderate,
peaceable people supported too. And, as the Irish peace process
proved, you could at a pinch negotiate with them.

2) Islamic terrorists. These are fanatics and you can't negotiate with
them. Their aim is a worldwide Caliphate in which people like us
simply won't exist any more. Their only program, if you can call it
that, is to go on killing us until we submit.

3) Right-wing terrorists and white supremacists. In America, these
are the perpetrators of most (though not all) mass shootings. They
often talk about preserving their nation's "Christan heritage" and
therefore tend to be wheeled out in arguments whenever someone asks
questions about Islamic terrorism. "It's not just a Muslim problem.
Look at...."

I always suspected that these "lone crazies" were somehow different
from the Islamic "lone crazies". And recent research reported in New
Scientist seems to bear this out. It shows that most right-wing
terrorists were badly damaged people even before they acquired their
ideology. Many of them are the product of broken marriages. About
half have been physically abused in childhood. About a quarter were
sexually abused. Almost all had a record of violent behaviour in
school and many suffer from mental health issues like substance abuse
or depression. For people like this, a white nationalist ideology
allows them to feel better about their behaviour.

By contrast, most Islamic terrorists come from stable homes and had no
problems at school. The first sign of a change was what looked like a
simple religious conversion. Someone who had not been particularly
devout switched to wearing Islamic dress, grew his beard and spent a
lot of time praying in the local mosque. Then suddenly one day he
drove a car into a crowd and killed a lot of people, leaving behind a
video filled with ravings about martyrdom. It really seems to be the
religion wot done it. So I ask again, why just this religion?
Especially as it doesn't seem to have this effect on most of its
followers.

Personally I'd call what I've had to put up with over the last 8 years as "domestic terrorism".

But anyhow, and first the definition of terrorism is something to the effect of "using violence to further a political goal". At least some governments are also responsible for terrorism. The "lone crazies" are also called "lone wolfs" by intelligence agencies.

Groups like IS have "domesticated" terrorism; in that: once upon a time it was groups like "Al-Qaeda", now it's DIY with anything that can be used as a weapon.

There are many more types than you know. My favorite is a Welsh terrorist group who are suspected of causing huge amounts of property damage, but have never taken a single life.

Many groups have a political, social, religious, ethnic, or economic target when they are created. Often, not always, these are targets anyone could understand and with which many could sympathize. If they are heavily suppressed or extreme and go on for more than a generation, they begin to all look the same: no longer standing for anything except terror and death. At the final stage, even if offered their original goal they cannot stop: their new goal becomes terror itself.

Even that is to simple a statement to describe the complete dynamic, but then when have humans ever made things easy.

I think that definition is too general and vague since it could include "Johnny if you don't turn off that TV/Computer/GameBoy/whatever you're going to get a severe spanking". That of course would make most parents terrorists and that's "a bridge too far". That sort of coercion still has rules. It's the typical "offer he couldn't refuse". Comply and it's all good. Real terrorism commonly has an element of chaos. It doesn't matter who you are, how old you are, what your beliefs are, where you go or what you do, it can strike you at anytime, anywhere.

While I can understand your point; Someone getting a "severe spanking" over not turning their TV/etc off, is most certainly *not* what I'd call terrorism either. So I would agree that, that would not be something one could consider terrorism.

Also, usually someone who is committing what is undoubtedly a "terrorist act" does normally have some kind of political end they are trying to achieve. It's rare that there would be no political motive of some description involved.

I agree that someone who is for example what you could describe as a "freedom fighter" would *not* be someone I'd label a "terrorist". For instance, if the government is being repressive against their citizens and those citizens "rose up" as it were, then yes, I don't agree that's "terrorism".

I also agree with you that, there is a fine line and it does depend to some extent on your views on what is actually a "terrorist act". For another example, personally I'd call what Israel is doing to the Palestinians state sponsored terrorism. I'm sure at least some would disagree and that's fine - each to their own.

Maybe a distinction here is "with the aim and intent of terrorizing a population".

I had the impression, when it happened, that the IRA stopped using terrorism when they realized it put them in the same class as the Islamic fanatics.
I think the distinction between 1) and 2) that you make, Helen, reflects exactly that. Something along the lines of "We're freedom fighters looking for change, but we're not wackos!!"

You left out other groups... left wing terrorists whether they call themselves anarchists, fascists, anti-fascists, communists, socialists, radical environmentalists, radical LGBTQ etc...

If you look at history the so called radical left has been responsible for far more crimes then the so called radical right. I say so called for these groups, because they are actually one and the same, two wings of the same bird. Since you mentioned radical Islam, can we also include radical religion regardless of beliefs...there are after all radical buddhists, radical catholics, radicals from almost any faith, even radical wiccans/new age people, radical atheists....

Perhaps, the problem is the tendency for people who suffer mental/emotional traumas to radicalize regardless of the individual outlet of said radicalization. Jordan B. Peterson has articles, lectures and youtube videos on this topic:https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanP...nVideos/videos

The tendency as people and technology grow is to move away from outward violence, war and fighting become less acceptable solutions.

It's more of a mental/emotional illness, not that different from the Salem Witch trials, Spanish Inquisition etc...both were examples of religious radicalization manifesting in an extreme manner.

I am not sure that "left wing vs right wing" is actually a difference. The person getting shot, knifed, or blown up really does not care about the political views of the killer. Once they have embraced terrorism, that is their politics, religion, creed, and goal. The rest is nothing but rhetoric and window dressing.

One of the reasons I choose to include indiscriminate and chaotic acts of violence is that it is far too easy to fall into the short-sighted trap of "What I do is sex. What you do is perverted" in other words if I agree with your goals that's not terrorism but if I disagree, you're a damned dirty ape and a terrorist.

It all centers around conflict and how conflicts are resolved. We are all aware of violence or the threat of violence, forceful and believable coercion as a method to exact compliance. Examples of this are in a cultures system of laws - you rob someone of their property or livelihood and you are fined or incarcerated. If you steal their life itself you may get lifelong imprisonment or often, yourself killed in return. This is rarely considered a form of terrorism even though it isn't uncommon that officials or even the law itself will utilize such punishments for personal agenda by disproportionately targeting people or groups of people they hate and very often including falsified, trumped up charges.

The only alternative to force is negotiation and cooperation. It has been said that the difference between rape and seduction is simply salesmanship and though we tend to deride the stereotypical "used car salesman", lawyers and politicians I think we must all admit that even in those cases where insincerity and false witness often abound we aren't terrorized by being lied to since we can search for the truth if we want to and life goes on pretty much unaltered but fines, incarceration and capital punishment cause fear but not terror, especially if your culture outlaws the "cruel and unusual". In such cases we have defenses.

It's only when those have an added component of chaos or the unwarranted and unjust that terrorism begins. In these cases there can be no defense and this is objectively not unevenly distributed between what we refer to as Left and Right. Those distinctions are illusory. Power is power and the very word "power" refers to force and both Left and Right are subject to the corruption of power and resort to force, and sometimes blatant, unreasoned, chaotic displays of force to create widespread fear and distrust even within neighborhoods, ethnic groups and family as was practiced in the Third Reich and in some Arab countries where victims can be stoned to death as just a few examples.

"Artificial love for people is the root of all evil."

---Hsu Wu-Kuei

That's why I said two wings of the same bird....

Sometimes, political groups/power groups will use terrorist incidents to move society in a certain way, often in "their" way, ie: the power groups way. This is why terrorism is politically defined, should it not also include criminal gangs, mafias etc... In urban areas of the USA and other countries, you are more likely to be terrorized by a criminal gang then by an "international group". Many people in Compton/Los Angeles encounter the bloods and crips, Latin Kings etc... in their reality those are the terrorists. Yet, they are not defined as such, because its a political definition. MS-13 is ravaging neighborhoods across, North, Central and South America, yet they are not pursued with the same vigor as terrorist groups.

there's 3 ways to divide the world into 2 halves - or was it the other way round...
i think we can all agree that it's nonsensical to create a finite number of classifications of terrorism.

but it makes sense to discuss the roots & reasons.

in the end i think it's all the same thing: US vs THEM.
the idea that one belongs to a group of people that are somehow right, and have to show it to another group of people that are somehow wrong...

there might be an extreme case of ME vs THEM.

I think the point I was trying to make is that there are two distinctions here. One is between people who use terror to bring about a political end (either of the left or the right) which in itself might be quite respectable, and those who apparently see mass murder as a good thing in itself. You can negotiate with the former but not with the latter.

The other is between nihilistic terrorists who are primarily driven by bad religion (they do it to please God and their aim is to get to heaven) and those who are acting out a lifetime of psychological damage (they just want to go out in a blaze of glory, taking as many others with them as possible). Most people see that lumping practical terrorists together with nihilistic ones isn't very fruitful when deciding how to deal with them. But they are quite happy to lump all nihilistic terrorists together so that, whenever someone criticises radical Islamism (as distinct from Islam), someone else will invariably say, "What about Anders Brevik then?"

Research seems to show that the Breviks of this world are not the same thing at all.