M: I need a definition of what a terrorist is with minimal subjectivity. So not a definition in a vacuum, but something that objectively pushes it up in ranking. For context: Trump is trying to declare anyone who vandalizes a Tesla, a terrorist. Putting aside the fact that he’s taking such advantage of libel protections that it makes me sick – in one of our conversations the other day we talked about ways to reform that – they’ve really avoided the idea of saying why they are different from someone who sprayed graffiti on a brick wall besides “we said so“. I’m trying to get a little bit of non-rage inducing thought out of this, and this popped into my head. Please do your best to define what could objectively qualify someone as a terrorist in a way that’s got the minimum possible amount of “we said so”.

G: Here’s a definition with minimal subjectivity, grounded in objective criteria that escalate it above ordinary criminality like vandalism:

Terrorist (objective criteria definition):
An individual or group that intentionally uses or threatens to use violence or severe coercion against civilians or non-combatants with the specific aim of influencing broader political, ideological, or religious outcomes, and in a way intended to instill fear beyond the immediate target.

Key objective thresholds that elevate an act to terrorism:

Target selection:
Civilians or non-military targets are chosen specifically to create fear or send a symbolic message, not just to damage property or settle a personal grievance.
Intent:
There must be a clearly discernible aim to alter political, religious, or ideological landscapes. Motivation distinguishes terrorism from random or personal violence.
Effect sought:
The perpetrator intends the act to have ripple effects beyond the direct victims—e.g., instilling fear in a population, coercing policy change, or provoking a government reaction.
Means:
The use or threat of serious harm, death, or large-scale destruction. Mere vandalism, while criminal, generally lacks this level of threat or outcome.

What this excludes:

Graffiti, minor sabotage, or corporate protest lacking an explicit goal of widespread fear or political destabilization.
Acts of violence for personal revenge, profit, or thrill-seeking, absent ideological motives.

This lets us draw a line based on observable factors, not declarations by authority. It’s not terrorism just because someone powerful calls it that. It becomes terrorism when it functions as such, according to its design and intended social impact.

G: Got it. Here's a redraft with intent and motivation minimized, relying instead on observable characteristics and outcomes. It defines terrorism by what it does, not what someone claims it's for.

Terrorist (minimally subjective definition):
An individual or group that engages in or credibly threatens acts of severe violence or destruction directed at civilians or civilian infrastructure, where the act is structured to cause disproportionate fear or disruption across a broader population than those directly affected.

Core elements (observable, not interpretive):

Civilian targeting:
The action is aimed at civilians or non-military infrastructure, not limited to combatants, law enforcement, or direct adversaries.
Disproportionate impact:
The action causes or is designed to cause disruption, panic, or paralysis across a community or population significantly larger than the immediate victims.
Scalable or symbolic method:
The method used either scales easily (e.g. bombings, mass shootings) or is chosen for its ability to magnify fear beyond physical damage (e.g. high-profile locations, transportation systems, schools).

Excluded by design:

Property crimes without widespread fallout (e.g. keying a car, spray-painting a wall).
Attacks with limited scope and no broader impact pattern, even if violent (e.g. bar fights, personal revenge shootings).
Acts that provoke fear only within a specific interpersonal context, not public life.

No guessing motive. No parsing manifestos. If it doesn't scale fear to society, it's not terrorism.

M: And this is where we start seeing how insidious the lies make everything. Again, given a propensity towards personal goals over demonstrable fact, we have to filter out the idea of “causing disproportionate fear”. The right wing media is currently designed to instill fear with no attention to truth. Just look at the immigration situation. Years of trying to convince people that every Latino is an illegal immigrant gang member has led to a significant proportion of the population, believing it, despite numbers that show that even in Texas, illegal immigrants commit less crime because they don’t want anyone to notice them. So try and strip out that kind of thing which involves manipulating public opinion.

G: Understood. You're looking for a definition that:

Cannot be weaponized through manipulation of perceived public reaction,
Avoids references to motive or intent,
Relies only on demonstrable, measurable, mechanical elements of the act itself.

Here’s a version that meets that threshold:

Terrorist (mechanically objective definition):
An individual or group that deliberately inflicts or credibly threatens mass-casualty harm or large-scale destruction outside of conventional warfare, against non-combatant populations or civilian infrastructure, using methods capable of replication or escalation.

Objective Criteria:

Target class:
Civilian individuals or infrastructure not directly engaged in conflict or armed enforcement.
Action type:
Acts involving lethal force, explosives, biochemical agents, or other tools of mass harm—or credible threats thereof—carried out without state authority or outside rules of war.
Scalability of method:
The method used is capable of repeated or wider application, beyond the immediate event (e.g. vehicle ramming, bomb-making, systemic sabotage).
Exclusions:
- Property crimes limited in scale and effect (e.g. graffiti, broken windows, vandalized cars).
- Isolated personal violence with no systemic or infrastructure-level component.
- Psychological or propagandistic tactics without material acts of violence or destruction.

This keeps the bar where it belongs: the capacity and execution of large-scale harm, not the stories people tell about it. If it can't blow up a subway, poison a town, or replicate easily to do so, it’s not terrorism.

M: That likely is as close as we’re going to get for a first try. Let’s try applying it to a couple known instances; like porn pornography, I might not be able to define it, but usually I know it when I see it… Or at least the extreme versions. We’re not going to go with the obvious stuff like 911. Let’s look at… Ted Kazinski, the Oklahoma bomber, and the guy who put a failed bomb at the Boston Marathon. That did fail right? Anyway, give a quick run of those through your criteria, please

G: Absolutely. Here's a quick application of the definition to each case, using the mechanical criteria only—no assumptions about motive, impact on media, or ideological framing.

Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber):

Target class: Civilian academics, technologists—clearly non-combatant.
Action type: Mail bombs designed to kill or maim; lethal force via explosives.
Scalability: Yes. Low-tech, replicable method, sustained over years.
Verdict: Terrorist under the definition. No ambiguity.

Oklahoma City Bombing (Timothy McVeigh):

Target class: Federal building containing both government workers and civilians, including children in a daycare center.
Action type: Truck bomb causing 168 deaths and massive destruction.
Scalability: High. Vehicle bombs are easily replicable and widely feared.
Verdict: Terrorist. Meets all criteria cleanly.

Boston Marathon Bombing (Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev):

(Note: the bomb did not fail—3 killed, hundreds injured.)

Target class: Public event, civilians.
Action type: Pressure cooker bombs with shrapnel, detonated in crowds.
Scalability: Yes—blueprints widely available, method low-tech.
Verdict: Terrorist. No need to speculate on motive or outcome.

Each of these meets the mechanical standard:

Lethal or mass-destructive method
Civilian targets
Scalable or replicable tools
Outside formal war or state authority

We don't need to read a manifesto or measure public fear—they built bombs and aimed them at crowds. That's terrorism by hardware, not spin.

G: Yeah, you’re probably thinking of one of these two, both classic examples of “almost tragic, but also profoundly stupid”:

1. Richard Reid – the “Shoe Bomber” (2001):

What happened:
Tried to detonate explosives hidden in his shoe on a transatlantic flight. The fuse wouldn’t stay lit because his feet were too sweaty. Passengers subdued him.
Outcome:
Nobody harmed, but it caused permanent airport security changes (i.e. removing shoes).
Terrorist by our criteria?
- Target: Civilians, mid-flight.
- Method: Explosives, lethal intent.
- Scalability: Yes, if it had worked.
- Verdict: Yes, qualifies mechanically despite failure.

2. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab – the “Underwear Bomber” (2009):

What happened:
Hid PETN explosives in his underwear on a Detroit-bound flight. Tried to detonate it but only managed to set his pants on fire.
Outcome:
Injured himself, nobody else seriously hurt.
Terrorist by our criteria?
- Target: Civilian airliner.
- Method: Explosives.
- Scalability: Yes, PETN is deadly and concealable.
- Verdict: Yes, again, clear attempt even though execution was pathetic.

Takeaway:
In both cases, failure didn’t exclude them from being terrorists under a definition rooted in method and structure. Even if they only managed to inconvenience themselves and make TSA worse, they still fit.

G: You're absolutely right to trust that feeling—the Boston Marathon bombing was deadly and horrifying, but it could’ve been far worse if the devices had performed to full destructive potential or been placed differently.

Here’s a breakdown of how that incident aligns with your memory:

Boston Marathon Bombing – Execution vs. Potential

Devices used:
Two pressure cooker bombs, packed with BBs, nails, and gunpowder, placed near the finish line in backpacks. These are crude but deadly IEDs often used in insurgencies.
Outcome:
- 3 people killed
- Over 260 injured, many severely (including limb amputations)
- Chaos, but relatively few fatalities given the size of the crowd
Execution analysis:
- The bombs did go off, so not a “failed bomb,” but:
  - Placement and timing limited casualties; closer to dense crowd = more deaths.
  - They were not highly optimized for maximum lethality (no shrapnel-boosted high explosives, no secondary detonation).
  - Authorities suspect the brothers had limited skill in making IEDs.
Could it have been worse?
Absolutely. With better placement, more efficient explosives, or coordination with additional attacks (as seen in Madrid or Mumbai), the death toll could’ve been exponentially higher.

So yes: you're remembering the gap between intent and result, even if the bombs technically “worked.” It wasn’t like the shoe bomber where nothing detonated—it’s more like a low-skill version of a high-risk plan that still did real damage but didn’t maximize it.