@ Dozywannabe
The Online OED in both UK/World and US English editions still defines "terrorism" as :
Quote:
Originally Posted by OED (emphasis mine)
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims
Now - whatever one may think about how the term "terrorism" was used and abused by politicians/arms manufacturers/security corporations in order to feather their own nests, it makes no sense to widen the definition further.
I respect your right to disagree Dozy. But legislators didn't just wake up one morning and decide they were going to change the definition of terrorism. There were good reasons why they did this. The goals and nature of terrorism have changed (and will likely continue to change), and this requires a broader definition.
It is not just semantics. If you want to charge someone with terrorism, the crime must satisfy the definition of terrorism. As the crime has become less specific, so must the legal definition.
But the whole point of terror tactics is that in doing so, there is an organised group with a distinct aim in mind, and the group is implicitly threatening further acts if those aims aren't met.
This used to be true Dozy. An event or a campaign focussed on a defined outcome. So hijack a plane and demand the release of specific prisoners. Or bomb London with the aim of an independent Ireland.
Its not like that anymore. Terrorism today is less well defined and more nebulous than before.
There is often no specific objective. Sometimes it is nothing more specific than violence and terror for the sake of violence and terror. Sometimes it is "against the west" rather than for anything more specific.
Attacks don't necessarily come from clearly defined groups. Terrorist groups today tend to be multinational decentralised groups that are continually merging and splintering in unpredictable ways. The line between "good" and "bad" is very blurred - your enemies enemy can be your enemy also.
There is no suggestion this was linked to ISIS or any other group. But ISIS has called for spontaneous acts of random violence carried out be lone wolves and in the absence of any clear goal. Ottawa, Sydney, and Paris appear to be examples of this.
At this stage we shouldn't rule anything in or out.
I've said many, many times (particularly in the many Tech Log AF447 threads) that as an engineer, one must always be cognizant of the bigger picture - specifically that when developing a technical solution to a problem scenario, it is invariably a bad idea to concentrate exclusively on that single scenario without taking into consideration the knock-on effect it will have on other scenarios. The post-9/11 flight deck door modifications and procedures fell right into this particular trap because they were tailored to fit a single scenario only - namely an attempt to endanger an aircraft from an individual outside the flight deck.
But I completely agree with you on this. We are now seeing unintended consequences of measures that were implemented in good faith to negate previous threats.