Talk:terrorist

Not sure I understand the difference between the two definitions. I think the "underground warriers" make use of terror as a political weapon, and do so because of their weak strategic position relative to the occupier. -Richard 07:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Perhaps I should have been more agressive is cutting cruft while I was at it.  The etymology comes from the second meaning, where the terrorism is top-down.  The other meaning (1) attempts to convey a bottom-up approach, perhaps as somehow not being political in nature.  They are both trying to accomplish a political goal of paralyzing an opponent by fear.  How can we reword this w/ a more NPOV?  --Connel MacKenzie 08:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've altered it in line with my thoughts on the matter - feel free to amend, criticize, or suggest alternatives. On a very trivial matter, I decided I prefer "someone who" rather "one who".  I know many established dictionaries define agent-nouns with "one who", but to me it's very stilted English.  --Richard 22:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll choose door #2: criticize. This is a bit of a nit-pick, but I really don't think "Formerly" is at all apropriate.  As POV as the earlier definition was, now we're swinging to the opposite extreme.  That is, most of the world considers GWB to be a terrorist.  Certainly the meaning of a dictator weilding terrorism as a political weapon is alive and well.  I guess my point is that perhaps the second meaning really is a separate meaning, and try as we might, we may not get this into a single entry.  I'll think about this some more, perhaps try again later this evening.  --Connel MacKenzie 23:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Etymology
Everything else aside, I'm not really sure why the anonymous users feel convinced that Reagan was the first to use this term. It was used to describe Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigades, the PLO et al. nigh before Ronnie came into office. Perhaps they do it for political reasons which have driven the individuals to ignore and forget history. Huh. E. abu Filumena 23:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

__________________________________

Interesting point E. abu Filumena. Words reveal history. Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigades may have been described as schrrecken, entsetzen, or terrorists. Perhaps Reagan's speech writer was aware of the isolated incident that occurred in Berlin slightly before Reagan took office and picked up some local jargon. But "terrorist" before Reagan was not in standard use to describe a weaker opponent in America, or the world, before Reagan made it popular in the press. Changing the definition to apply to an undefined weak group, rather than a dominant despotic ruler, is a significant alteration worth recording. Reagan introduced it in America to describe the PLO after they had been terrorized for 30 years and suddenly it became as popular as beatnik and hippy. No one described Ameirca as terrorists in Vietnam. No one described the Nazis as terrorists. Every word was created by someone. We cannot say who it was for primitive words, but if we can trace the origin of a word, or its metamorphose, to something specific and record it, we contribute to the wisdom of the world. --The Professor

Mainstream American media tossed around the term "terrorist" in reference to airplane hijackings long before Mr. Reagan held office in California. It can be inferred that the word had changed in meaning long before then, as evidenced by the fact that the term was not applied to the Third Reich, etc. Even if you were correct, it would be inappropriate to replace the original etymology with your revisionist version. If you had suplemented the etymology, your "contribution" would have garnered much less negative response. It possibly would have then avoided reasonable scrutiny. Fortunately, you were rash and now your changes are being looked at with caution. I must say, I still do not see your assessment as valid in any way. Others apparently agree with me. --Connel MacKenzie 17:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a tribute to Ronald Reagan's precocity that he should have convinced the editors of the 1913 Webster to include the word when he was two years old. :-) Eclecticology 18:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Someone else's turn
Apparently I have a new vandalous fan. Strange, that the vandal would attribute other people's submissions to me. The outside world beckons me...time for someone else to take over. {Sigh.} It would be quite nice if our vandal turned out to not be a passing freak, and actually supplied legitimate references for some of this stuff. It does look interesting, but obviously false. --Connel MacKenzie 01:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

_________________________

Yes, Connel MacKenzie, your ridicule is tiresome. Maybe you could write a dictionary for twits. Freak is a good entry for people who have difficulty expressing themselves and want to instill fear. I am surprized you did not use terrorist to describe your opponent, it's more popular now than vandal. You can create more worry for your word.

I like the definition as it stands, good work. Donek 10:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist
An individual or group in a state of delusion or intoxication to oppress personal agenda up on communities or a single living being - WS Walo030792 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Oppress" personal agenda upon? This doesn't seem to make sense. You mean on? "Intoxication" doesn't seem very meaningful here either. Equinox ◑ 02:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is already shown to read, no edit required - WS Walo030792 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)