re: #10 theheat

There is a subtle, yet, I believe, important distinction, which is critical in order to properly understand and combat the very real scourge of terrorism.

The distinction is the goal of the act. Terror for the sake of terror, or violence for the sake of violence, regardless of its motivation, is not terrorism because the act is itself the goal in such a case.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is a tool or tactic in the pursuit of a larger political or societal goal. In such a case, the act is not intended to inflict terror or violence merely for its own sake but because the person or group behind the act seeks to influence the outcome of some other matter.

In both cases, the individual perpetrator might be motivated at least in part by a sociopathic or psychological joy derived from causing the harm, but that is distinct from whether the act was intended to achieve a greater — in the sense of “other” not “better” — goal.

If we do not make this distinction between the act as the end in itself and the act as a means to an end, every act intended to cause fear — an armed robbery, a physical assault, bullying (all of which are serious issues in their own right) — could arguably be classified as terrorism, and we wind up without a useful construct for formulating and implementing counterterrorism strategy and policy.