Terror is from latin, meaning `fear`.

Are "nihilists" terrorists or is it a separate word worthy of equal usage these days? How about "anarchists"? I am thinking that calling Al Queda fascist is a mis-nomer as they have not any possibility to impose an islamic perversionistist-fundamentalist Taliban-esque state anywhere. Fascism is a form of governance. Anarchists seek to disrupt governance. I think they are "islamo-anarchists" (technically a contradiction) as opposed to the Chechen mod who are "separatist-nihilists".

nihilism: belief system predicated on the belief that nothing matters as everything is just going to get worse and worse. used most accurately in the field of philosphy.
anarchism: belief system based on the belief that humans are all soverign individuals and essentially good and will work together to create the best possible society and that government is essentially bad and inhibits people from developing a perfect society. used most accurately in the field of political theory.
fascism: a form of government whereby leaders govern through organized force and fear in order to perpetuate their hold on power. rarely self-identified.
terrorism: an operating system using extreme violence or the threat of extreme violence to achieve an end or to achieve publicity for an associated end. also rarely self-identified.

[<i>Thinks</i>: Have I been too strict? People are just citing definitions at me.]

Ahem...so, which definition fits which terrorist wacko movement?

ahr! 'tis a labelin' yer after, then?

i think the term "nihilist" fits the chechen suicide terrorists. they seem to want to bring suffering on others based in response to the suffering they (or their people) have suffered. so how about "islamic nihilist chechen liberationists"?

the al-qaida bunch i don't think fall into any of the categories you suggest. they are not fascists and they are certainly not anarchists. they ultimately want to see the imposition of a strict muslim government supplanting the current "free enterprise-ish" world order. their suicide bombers certainly have nihilist tendencies, but they are doing acts with a view to advancing the cause of tearing down existing global society in favour of an islamic one. the term "islamist revolutionary" might be accurate as this would cover the desire to impose an islamic government (islamism) and the desire to tear down the old order (revolution). the term "wahibism" has been used to describe a credo out of saudi arabi that follows the teaching of some guy named al-wahab ans also recommends a revolution overthrowing existing government followed by an imposition of an islamic government. "wahabist terrorist" might be the best term.

"wahabist terrorist" is a bit specific; the Chechens aren't exactly wahabist islamists. What about "occidentalist terrorist"? (see Occidentalism)

I think "terrorist" is the wrong word. A terrorist is not interested in governance. They are "wahabist revolutionaries" which is a sub-set of "occidental revolutionaries" of which "Chechen separatists" are another sub-set. See also "Kashmiri revolutionary separatists". The Chechens do not require a radical transformation of governance do the? If not, they are not revolutionaries, just separatists.<p>All revolutionary separatists may use terror but if terror is a means to an end, the label better describes the end. The adjective "terroristic" might be added to any of these occidental movements.

Just to be clear, the term "terrorist" does apply to vestigal remnants of organizations like the Real IRA, what is left of Al Queda and the fragments of the Chechens. Where any hope of governance is gone, it is only lashing out murderously.

Whatever happened to the good old fashioned term "jihadist"?

Too narrow - sub-set of the occidental movements which does hot include Chechens and most other Caucus region activites and would only represent part of wackos led on by Mulahs, which would not include wahabism in the form that it finds itself in the House of Saud.

I would draw a distinction between the chechen types and the al-quaeda types or, stated another way, i wouldn't necessarily lump those 2 groups together through nomenclature. maybe, that is naive of me, but i think it helps understand the situations better.