The definition of Terrorism

[NedimNapoleon]

We must ask ourselves what is the dictionary defenition of Terrorism.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). But to who does this apply? If this is the defenition of Terrorism the list wouldn't include just what we consider terrorist organizations (Al Qaeda, FARC, Fatah...) but many governments around the world, including the US, bombings [some may say undeliberate, some may say deliberate] of civillians, several instances of murders of civillians and so on... Thats just the current war on "terror" but what about the usage of Agent Orange in Vietnam, or the My Lai Massacre.

Anyways I wont get into it if the US is can be labled a Terrorist state and please dont mention it to much because it will derail the thread, my goal is to see the hypocrisy of many nations in the world but to focus it on the US because it decides whos a terrorist and whos not. We can stay away from the middle east because its "too hot" so lets focus on the FARC for a minute. The FARC is labled as a Terrorist organization by the US state department. They are labled as such because they do kidnap people to fund thereselves and sell narcotics (cocaine production). They also wish to overthrow a government thats a "client state" of the USA. But does anyone remember the Contras in Nicuaragua they were funded by the US. They were never labled as a "terrorist" or any term as such organization but as freedom fighters or rebels even though they clearly abused human rights and implemented terror. Isn't it hypocritical for the US and the Global community to label groups according to their own intrests. Is anyone who attacks the US or her intrest a terrorist? What happened to freedom fighter, revolutionary, rebel... It used to be said that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, what happened to this after the Bush "you are with us or the terrorists" speach?

Will there ever be a list of Terrorist nations and organizations or is it too subjective a term. I guess it's all just depending who your nemesis is. And I could see the justification of such asymetric warfare, do you really hope that such an organization will win against a high tech army with thousands in service, no, it uses those tactics because it must. Al Qaeda could never do anything to the US in an open battle that most people consider honorable. Of course it must use "terror tactics" to win the war. Should we not label anyone as a terrorist but as a rebel or any other term labeling them as enemy fighters not as the incarnation of evil because they use different tactics. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Terrorist is a subjective term for enemy fighter. I'm trying to be as objective as possible.

 

[Synobun]

:/

Please split that up into 2 or 3 paragraphs, it's rather messy to read.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Done.

 

[warpus]

but to focus it on the US because it decides whos a terrorist and whos not.

Say what?

 

[Aleenik]

Terrorism means different things to different people. As the saying goes, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. I could care less what some government considers to be a terrorist. What matters is the actual actions of the group and/or person in question, not some label that means different things to different people. 'Terrorist' and 'terrorist organization' are terms that are often just used to push someone's/something's own agenda.

 

[Antilogic]

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Emphasis on what I think is the best basis for an objective definition of terrorism, although it needs to be qualified. If you want objectivity, you have to look at the actions themselves and not the justifications for them. Maybe simply having a political objective instead of a personal one is enough to distinguish terrorism from murder.

I think terrorism also applies to times of at least nominal peace. This comes from [my, amongst others] perspective on war, which is kind of complicated and may not be especially relevant. Long story short, normally we have agreed upon conventions not to kill each other, international order, etc. That is peace, and war is the breakdown of these conventions. So I think war already carries the expectation of terrorism, so labeling acts of war between two warring parties "terrorism" is both redundant in terms of violence and not applicable in the sense that there is some convention that says it's unacceptable--after all, it's already gone by definition.

Yes, that qualifier above is important, because I can predict what some people will post in response and no, I'm not saying that.

Terrorism means different things to different people. As the saying goes, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. I could care less what some government considers to be a terrorist. What matters is the actual actions of the group and/or person in question, not some label that means different things to different people. 'Terrorist' and 'terrorist organization' are terms that are often just used to push someone's/something's own agenda.

I definitely don't agree with this. I think you are getting hung up on the political motivation and not the actions themselves.

 

[Tahuti]

Terrorism is the purposeful killing of innocents (i.e. people who are not directly opposed to the goals of the terrorists) to further a political, economic or religious goal.

That definition works for me at least.

 

[warpus]

Terrorism is the purposeful killing of innocents (i.e. people who are not directly opposed to the goals of the terrorists) to further a political, economic or religious goal.

That definition works for me at least.

Yep, that's the best definition right there. Except that I would include the threat of violence as well.

 

[bombshoo]

The definition sort of depends on what you want from the term terrorism in the first place. A working definition or one that is entirely comprehensive? I personally think you are going to have a very difficult time getting the latter.

The biggest dispute in the "what is terrorism debate" is probably "is there such a thing as state terrorism?". Even if you can prove that the actions of a state are comparable to the actions of terrorist groups, the fact that the two are entirely different brings into question the definition of the term. Perhaps one of the prequisites for an act to be terrorism and not be something else is that it was committed by a non-state actor in the first place. This might seem a bit stupid and pedantic, but it's a very useful distinction when simply trying to make a working definition for the purposes of getting a job done. For example, look up the FBI, CIA, and U.S. State Department's definitions of terrorism and you'll see they all apply to the scope of what each department/agency is trying to accomplish, rather than attempting to make a comprehensive definition.

Terrorism is the purposeful killing of innocents (i.e. people who are not directly opposed to the goals of the terrorists) to further a political, economic or religious goal.

That definition works for me at least.

This definition seems too vague to be of much value. Is practically all war terrorism? Is it terrorism if a company knows it is poisoning customers but won't stop it for fear of economic loss? Is it not terrorism if someone is only harmed even if the attack was entirely political?

 

[warpus]

The biggest dispute in the "what is terrorism debate" is probably "is there such a thing as state terrorism?"

I would say that if it is satisfies the conditions, it is terrorism.

Does it target civilians and is meant to evoke a political change? It's terrorism, no matter who does it.

 

[bombshoo]

I would say that if it is satisfies the conditions, it is terrorism.

Does it target civilians and is meant to evoke a political change? It's terrorism, no matter who does it.

So what makes something an act of terrorism is dictated by the intention and results of the action rather than by who committed said action? This makes sense from an ethics stand point, since I think most people would agree we should judge the morality of an action based on its intention and results, not by who committed the action.

My problem with this sort of definition is that we are not always attempting to analyze ethics when discussing terrorism. From another perspective, it is much more useful to define terrorism based on who the actor is. For example, if the FBI is attempting to combat terrorism, they don't have an ability to act against "state terrorism" so putting that into the definition just needlessly obfuscates things for them. Furthermore, there is other ways of describing what might otherwise be considered state terrorism: taking hostages, targeting civilians, attacking neutral territory, etc. There is conventions and treaties dealing with these things when states do them, while there is not really anything dealing with the concept of state terrorism.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Say what?

Its the leader on the war on "terror" and it is world power.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I was forced to read too much of the works of Jean-François Lyotard in my Freshman year college English class. As such, I keep thinking of his definition of terrorism as legitimization by performativity and exclusion of inefficient players from language games.

 

[Aleenik]

Terrorism means different things to different people. As the saying goes, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. I could care less what some government considers to be a terrorist. What matters is the actual actions of the group and/or person in question, not some label that means different things to different people. 'Terrorist' and 'terrorist organization' are terms that are often just used to push someone's/something's own agenda.

I definitely don't agree with this. I think you are getting hung up on the political motivation and not the actions themselves.

Terrorism means different things to different people. As the saying goes, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. I could care less what some government considers to be a terrorist. What matters is the actual actions of the group and/or person in question, not some label that means different things to different people. 'Terrorist' and 'terrorist organization' are terms that are often just used to push someone's/something's own agenda.

Political motivations are an important thing though too. Many people have political motivations for their actions, of course. And while I may support one act of violence I may not support another. It depends on both their political motivations and their actual actions. I do hate violence, but in some situations it is an unfortunate necessity.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I always thought of it as doing violent stuff that harms civilians to put pressure on a government for politicals or religious or ideologicals.

 

[BasketCase]

Terrorism is the purposeful killing of innocents (i.e. people who are not directly opposed to the goals of the terrorists) to further a political, economic or religious goal.

That definition works for me at least.

Second.

 

[plarq]

There's a big difference between those well-known terrorists organizations and many regimes who carry out mass-killings. Terrorists organization want everybody know what happened to the people who are killed, injured, etc., while the guilty government wants to cover the massacre as long as possible, i.e. they don't take credit from those killings.

 

[Antilogic]

5 chars.


Political motivations are an important thing though too. Many people have political motivations for their actions, of course. And while I may support one act of violence I may not support another. It depends on both their political motivations and their actual actions. I do hate violence, but in some situations it is an unfortunate necessity.

Must have read it a little too fast to catch that (and answered based on the first sentence). My apologies.

I think the existence of some political/religious motive is required, but beyond that, it doesn't matter what that is. The freedom fighter comparison really rankles me.

 

[muhtesem insan]

Terrorism is the purposeful killing of innocents (i.e. people who are not directly opposed to the goals of the terrorists) to further a political, economic or religious goal.

That definition works for me at least.

I agree with this but definition given for innocent is problematic. The problem with this definition is that, anyone opposes to any political idea become a legitimate target. I am against all forms of religious governments, and by definiton i am a legitimate target for any fundemantalist organization.

 

[warpus]

So what makes something an act of terrorism is dictated by the intention and results of the action rather than by who committed said action? This makes sense from an ethics stand point, since I think most people would agree we should judge the morality of an action based on its intention and results, not by who committed the action.

My problem with this sort of definition is that we are not always attempting to analyze ethics when discussing terrorism. From another perspective, it is much more useful to define terrorism based on who the actor is. For example, if the FBI is attempting to combat terrorism, they don't have an ability to act against "state terrorism" so putting that into the definition just needlessly obfuscates things for them. Furthermore, there is other ways of describing what might otherwise be considered state terrorism: taking hostages, targeting civilians, attacking neutral territory, etc. There is conventions and treaties dealing with these things when states do them, while there is not really anything dealing with the concept of state terrorism.

What does it matter who performs the terrorism?

Do we look at who the person is committing the murder before we call it murder? What about theft, copyright infringement, or any other crime?

The perpetrator doesn't matter..