Definition of Terms

[Oseleon]

Prehaps I would be satisfied with My deffinition used in legal cases.... When the crime of Terroism carries a higher penalty.  
Your broader deffinition would be seen by the general populace as Terroism in the circumstances you describe,  So the dictionary deffinition would fit the broader standard.  
So I guess you are right.  

[Skar]

Actually, redefining terrorism was only one of at least 2 alternatives offered.  The other being , come up with a new word that refers to terrorists who kill innocents on purpose.

You have in fact pointed out that, according to Gus' definition, "unrestricted terrorism" fits the need.  The problem is that the word "unrestricted" actually has no connection with innocents at all.  Someone hearing the term, a layman, does not get the impression that it refers to the killing of innocents.  After nine years of being intensely interested in terrorism and reading many reports and articles and books on it as a function of my job in the intelligence community with the national guard I had never heard of Gus or his definition.  I don't consider myself an expert but I'm at least a fairly well-informed layman.

So we are back to the academic's code.

Blue collar guy: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Academic: "Sure it does.  You obviously haven't read Gus Martin's paper on terrorism where he clearly gives it its new and improved meaning.  That paper is freely available in the Waukeegan University Library, you filthy blue -collar sort." (spits)

(Forgive the exaggeration, I couldn't resist. )

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

at which point the bluecollar worker asks the academic if he has six fingers on his right hand.

[House of Mustard]

Well, just for fun, what would you like to call it?  Because ANY words requires that the user knows the definition.

In this case, I can't think of any word that is self-explanatory, unless you called them "civilian-killing terrorists".

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

y'know, not to be flippant like I have been with some of my previous posts, but I don't see why that's an unacceptable term. I mean, the immediate alternatives that come to mind are things like "civilianicide" or something.

[Skar]

Well, just for fun, what would you like to call it?  Because ANY words requires that the user knows the definition.

Yes, of course it requires that the user know the definition.  The problem with "unrestricted" is that most users already know the definition of that word, the definition that has nothing to do with innocent civilians.  Since they think they already know the definition of the word, reasonably so, they don't go look it up.

As for coming up with a new one, I'll get back to you or maybe Gemm will come up with a new one.  If news pundits suddenly started using a totally new word to describe civilian-killing terrorists people would go look up the definition.

Not that I think new pundits will just because we start using it but it will still go a long way towards clearer communication in OUR community.

[Skar]

How about "snuff terrorism"?  Silly as it sounds I think snuff might have enough of an association with intentional murder, snuff films and so on, that it would work.  But, of course, people might think it referred to either small cans of powdery tobacco terrorising people or people terrorising small cans of powdery tobacco.  Then again, those last two might be silly enough to make folks look up the word.

Not my final offer, just my first one.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I'm with SE..."civilian-killing terrorists" is a good enough term already.

[Skar]

I still like snuff terrorism because it's pithy but how about civilian-targeted terrorism?

[House of Mustard]

My question is: if we're accepting a three-word term, such as "civilian-killing terrorists" or "civilian-targeted terrorism" (so we don't care about economy of words), and our target audience for the term is the academic-hating layman, then why define a term at all?  Can't the layman just say "civilian killing terrorists", or "terrorists who kill civilians" without it being a defined term?

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

How about murderers? If the emphasis is only on killing that seems like a reasonable definition.

[Oseleon]

I'll believe it when CBS refers to a Bomb in a public place in a politicaly charged area as a "Murder" and not an "Insurgent attack"

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

the term murderer doesn't include the other conditions we've talked about already.

[Skar]

As I said, I like snuff terrorism because it focuses on the deliberate killing of innocents and it's pithy.

Our target is not the academic hating layman it's laymen who want to be able to understand what the academics are talking about without having to discover the new definitions the academics have made up for words with other, more common, definitions.  

For that matter, although it has been defined by our friend Gus, indiscriminate is simply a bad adjective to slap onto terrorism to create a duoword that fits his definition.  The common definition, as we have seen, in no way resembles what he was trying to say under common usage.

I don't think "murderers" will work because it either leaves out the political/ideological purpose of the killing or lumps terrorists in with ted bundy and high-strung bank robbers.

I thought of "murderous terrorism" but it seemed to include the terrorists who simply don't care if they kill anyone.
"The train happened to be on the tracks when we wanted to blow them up, big deal."  
How does it feel to y'all?

Still murderous but it was secondary to their purpose.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

maybe the political idealism is the sticking point, its a question of the ends justifying the means. Even if the terrorist has an alleged political goal or motive, if he kills to carry out that goal isnt it still murder? Maybe the problem is that the public cant understand why the motives of the terrorist matter more than the horrible things they do. Take a serial killer as a example way off in left field (I say this because scarilly for the most part terrorists would be considered sane by psychatrists while serial killers arent). No matter what the serial killer uses to justify his actions he is still a murderer. If we care one way or another about the terrorists politics, maybe they win.

I dont really know where Im going with that, but maybe thats a line of discussion we should look into.