Can anyone state the difference between a criminal act and a terrorist act?

Question

Is it a terrorist act only when certain groups/nationalities do it or can non-arabs be terrorists? Can criminal acts by Americans,Europeans or Israelis be considered terrorist acts?

Please don't copy/paste out of a dictionary or any other source,use your own words. I know there are some users here that can only copy/paste without crediting the source,they can skip the question. Feel free to give examples with your answer though.

Answer 1

A crime is for an economic advantage. A terrorist act is a murder.

Answer 2

yes

a criminal act is stealing a car a terrorist act is destroying life or property indiscriminately.and yes anyone no matter what their religion or ethnic background can be a terrorist arabs & muslims do seem to have that market cornered though,with the exception of the tamil tigers

Answer 3

Bosco is right if you are talking the difference between legitimate military actions and terrorism. As to criminality,it falls within a different filed,although crimes against humanity is generally associated with military actions.

Answer 4

I wonder why they dont call the white kid that shoots up a school a terrorist? What he did was an act of terror. I didn't see him making any money by doing that. Misplaced minds. Cheers!

Answer 5

Anyone can be a terrorist. A terrorist act is when the act is done to provoke fear and uncertainty (9/11, London bombs in the UK) normally with a reason behind it. Religion, against the government etc. An animal rights activist placing a bomb at a venue where products are tested on animals to promote fear into the employees and the company would also be a terrorist. People could of course be the process, but in the terrorist minds, this would just be part of causing fear.

A simple crime is just something against the law. A bomb may be placed to kill a certain person, or a group of people - this would be a crime, not a terrorist act, for the bomb wasnt placed for the reason of causing chaos in peoples minds, but to kill someone for reasons other than to create fear.

Answer 6

Terrorism is defined academically as wanton targeting of civilians. It can be engaged in by governments or guerillas. There is no difference in legal status with respect to perpetrators; it is the status of the victims that  decides the issue. The term "terrorism" is heavily abused by the mass media to reference any and all resistance movements that employ violence. Actually,non-governmental military activity  is usually referred to as asymetrical warfare; i.e. a militant NGO squaring off against a formal army. Collatoral damage may reference property or people but although civilians may die it does not encompass terrorism unless there was no credible military target,in which case there comes forth a legal presumption that civilians were in fact the target. In the context of the Palestinian struggle,who is or is not ultimately the terrorist of the piece must be determined on the basis of the civilian kill ratio. And the IDF kills far,far more civilians that the various Palestinian resistance groups. However they are capable of striking at civilian targets,as is the IDF. Both are capable of legally definable terrorism; however the IDF if by any normative standard the greater offender and very consistently so,this on the basis of the kill ratio.

Sorry to sound cold-blooded but this is international law and legal terminology is always cut and dried.

Answer 7

The "on the street" definition, you are asking for; of course changes with the time.  It's definition is dependent on the political will at the time.

Currently, to fit the definition of terrorist, you need to be Arab and or have attacked a zionist.

I expect that the definition will change in a few years, when a terrorist is anyone who belongs to the zionist party.  A far more fitting definition when you examine zionist history.