NationStates Jolt Archive

So, what do you say, want to take another misguided shot at defining terrorism? I say yes.

Here's how I'd define it:

Terrorism is "war as theater". Whereas in traditional war, violence is generally directed towards military or strategic targets, with the specific goal of destroying that target, to deny your enemy of the resources or abilities that target provides, in a terrorist event this is not sol. Instead, a terrorist attempts to create a climate of fear and terror, so as to influence public opinion and make the target societies change their modes of operation. This is espescially effective against open societies. That x number of people die, and n quantity of stuff is destroyed is incidental. If there was a way to create a similar societal response without the destruction, it is equally likely that a terrorist would opt for that method, espescially if it were easier or cheaper.

Furthermore, terrorism is an act carried out specifically by non-state actors.
There ought to be a clear distinguishing factor here, between state-sponsoring of non-state groups, and state-initiated groups. Hiz'bo'allah, for example, receives funding from the Syrian and Iranian governments, but they are not technically beholden to either state. Meanwhile, a group such as SAVAK under the Shah of Iran had many terrorist qualities, but, because they were forces of the state, cannot be classified as terrorist (this is to be regarded as a taxonomical difference).

Be they Narco-terrorists like the FARC in Columbia, Religious extremists like Al-Qaeda or just criminals hiding behind the veil of ideology like the Baader-Meinhof Gruppe, terrorists come in many different types. Left-wing, right-wing, drugs, racism, nationalism or just group psychosis are all potential rallying cries of terrorist organizations.



Random person who I think is a terrorist, but isn't typically regarded as one: The Zodiac Killer

Furthermore, terrorism is an act carried out specifically by non-state actors.

Why do you define it so?

If a state is willing to use indiscriminate killing and destruction to inspire terror among a population, why is that not terrorism?

Why do you define it so?

If a state is willing to use indiscriminate killing and destruction to inspire terror among a population, why is that not terrorism?

There is a very blurred line between terrorism and psychological warfare...

Why do you define it so?

If a state is willing to use indiscriminate killing and destruction to inspire terror among a population, why is that not terrorism?

For taxonomic purposes.

Clarity in understanding our subjects of discussion is vital to any good social science debate, and if we come into the debate with different conceptions of certain words, then we'll waste an awful lot of time realizing the difference, and cataloging it, and what our individual definitions mean.

If a state is willing to use indiscriminate killing and destruction to inspire terror among a population, why is that not terrorism?

I'd like to second that question. I have no problems with the rest of Andaluciae's post, and tend to agree, but considering states as being unable to perform terrorist acts really does seem odd.

By excusing states from being able to commit terrorism you whitewash any number of attrocities. In that event you basically boil terrorism down to "you are too poor and too powerless to be morally forthright like us."

terrorism depends on an action not an actor

For taxonomic purposes.

Meaningless. Do you classify terrorism committed by people with brown hair and terrorism committed by people with black hair differently?

Do you have a relevant reason why terrorist tactics should suddenly cease to be terrorist because they happen to be committed by the forces of the state?

Delilo stated that terrorists were taking the place of artists (specifically authors). Their job used to be to shock people and change minds. Today, that falls on the shoulders of the terrorist. Mind you, this was written in 1992, even before the first WTC attacks.

Terrorism: A style of unconventional warfare under the banner of a certain ideological standpoint, religious reasons, or other cause. Generally geared towards attacking the civillian population, in order to raise national dissent to give in to the groups desire.

Usually they are de-centralized, focused on various cells with some generally anonymous leader who controls the organization through Cell Leaders. Generally fight guerilla warfare, usually attacks involve bombings, assasinations, or other surgical strikes to further their aim, and maximize enemy fear.

Examples of modern terrorists:

Al-Qaeda
PIRA (Provisional Wing of the Irish Republican Army...now disbanded)
Hamas
Hezboallah (Party of God)


Examples of Past Terrorists


Vietcong
United States Continental Army (Yep, our army used terrorist actions to gain our independence, assasinations, hanging pro-king supporters, many other gruesome things....)
Boers
German Ost-Afrika Corps Schutzrtruppe (World War One German military unit that gave the Brits hell in 1914-1918)

Just some of many terror groups to give an idea of what they are.

Clarity in understanding our subjects of discussion is vital to any good social science debate, and if we come into the debate with different conceptions of certain words, then we'll waste an awful lot of time realizing the difference, and cataloging it, and what our individual definitions mean.

"State terrorism" gets me 979,000 results on Google.

Why should I accept your conception of terrorism over theirs (since clearly theirs is not merely an isolated occurrence)?

I'd like to second that question. I have no problems with the rest of Andaluciae's post, and tend to agree, but considering states as being unable to perform terrorist acts really does seem odd.

Once again, I fully recognize that states can carry out acts closely akin to what terrorists do (In Latin America I'd highly recommend referencing the right-wing death squads that some local dictators used, as well as several the acts of Che Guevera after the Cuban revolution), but I make a distinction between the two types of acts on the basis that states and non-state groups are different, and being able to differentiate tends to be very useful.

Non-state actors are more easily dealt with in a law-and-order fashion, with international cooperation, and no real need for major military operations. Furthermore, you cannot really strike at a state when a non-state actor is behind it (unless they are giving shelter or haven to such an actor).

States though, if they are the ones who committed a terrorist act, are much more of a problem to deal with, because there are classical war-and-peach issues there. You can't just call up the local cops and ask for help, because the local cops will fight against you.

By excusing states from being able to commit terrorism you whitewash any number of attrocities. In that event you basically boil terrorism down to "you are too poor and too powerless to be morally forthright like us."

terrorism depends on an action not an actor

Once again, I'm most definitely not absolving states of responsibility for violence that they perpetrate, instead, I'm saying that there is a qualitative difference between violence perpetrated by the state and violence perpetrated by non-state actors, and the appropriate responses to each type of act.

Once again, I'm most definitely not absolving states of responsibility for violence that they perpetrate, instead, I'm saying that there is a qualitative difference between violence perpetrated by the state and violence perpetrated by non-state actors.

And there's a "qualitative difference" between the terrorism committed by, say, Hamas in Israel/Palestine and that committed by al-Qaeda around the world (scope, objectives, method, etc.), but that doesn't mean we should adopt different terms for them.

Terrorism, more than anything else, refers to a tactic, and all those who use that tactic should be included within the category of "terrorists."

(Even better might be a cessation of the use of that propagandistic word entirely, but that seems out of the question.)

"State terrorism" gets me 979,000 results on Google.

Why should I accept your conception of terrorism over theirs (since clearly theirs is not merely an isolated occurrence)?

I'd gladly use the term state terrorism as a method to differentiate it from non-state terrorism. It would accomplish the taxonomic difference that I want to achieve.

I'd gladly use the term state terrorism as a method to differentiate it from non-state terrorism. It would accomplish the taxonomic difference that I want to achieve.

That's a good idea.

It removes ambiguity while still preserving the universality of standards.

That's a good idea.

It removes ambiguity while still preserving the universality of standards.

Hear, hear.

Why do you define it so?

If a state is willing to use indiscriminate killing and destruction to inspire terror among a population, why is that not terrorism?

"State terrorism" could be called just "war." That's what it is, without the courtesy of a formal declaration (I know, that's so 19th century).

(That's a pet peeve of mine, in the rapidly expanding collection of such. If the Serbs, Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, and Saddam's Iraq were so nasty, we should have passed a formal declaration of war. Congress didn't have the balls, though, so they just passed a resolution saying it was okay for the President to send troops and blow things up.)

Freedom Fighting that you don't agree with personally.

Terrorism is all about semantics, to be honest.

Examples of Past Terrorists


Vietcong
United States Continental Army (Yep, our army used terrorist actions to gain our independence, assasinations, hanging pro-king supporters, many other gruesome things....)
Boers
German Ost-Afrika Corps Schutzrtruppe (World War One German military unit that gave the Brits hell in 1914-1918)

Just some of many terror groups to give an idea of what they are.
All of those were guerilla groups rather than terrorists..

That's like calling the Royal Green Jackets in the Napoleonic wars terrorists... hit and run warfare isn't really terrorism.

All of those were guerilla groups rather than terrorists..

That's like calling the Royal Green Jackets in the Napoleonic wars terrorists... hit and run warfare isn't really terrorism.

Not true. Any group that uses fear as a weapon is a terror group, thus all the afore mentioned groups are indeed, terrorists. Though I prefer to refer to them as freedom fighters in most situations....


Generally, hit and run warfare is designed not to kill mass numbers of your enemy, but to scare them from the knowlege that you can attack and kill them, but they can't hurt you back. To any infantrymen, that is an extremely scary prospect.

There is a very blurred line between terrorism and psychological warfare...

And that line is indistcriminant killing.

And that line is indistcriminant killing.

Very true. I find it abominable when innocents are killed. However, when the Mujahideen would kill Soviet Soldiers in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan War, and would take their bodies and line them up on the roads all the way into their cities, this is merely psychological warfare. If the US was invaded, I'd do the same thing to the enemy soldiers.

I had not really thought about it before, but now I think that how broadly or how finely I would define what is/is not a terrorist act depends almost entirely upon the intended use of the definition. If I was making blanket statements like "All who commit terrorist acts must be ferretted out and put on international trial" my definition of terrorist act would be different than if I was making statements like "All these terrorist acts are terrible and pointless, why alll the suffering?"

My largest blind spot and gray area as regards defining terrorist acts is that in my opinion the targets have only tenuous connection to the stated enemy of the terrorist. For example zealots from religious group A might blow up house-of-worship of religious group B. That would be a terrorist act. However if zealots from religious group B's former house-of-worship blow up house-of-worship from religious group A believing that the zealots who bombed them were inside along with other worshippers I am on the fence as to whether this retaliation is terrorism or not. It is unconscienable murder, and Im not trying to defend it, but I'm not certain that I included revenge on specific enemies to be terrorism even when that is the only difference between an act of revenge and a purely terrorist act.

Why do you define it so?

If a state is willing to use indiscriminate killing and destruction to inspire terror among a population, why is that not terrorism?

The definition of terrorism is like the definition of "art," or "gay." It's means "what we're talking about when we use the term."

It's little more than an empty epithet at this point. One politician called the local teacher's union a terrorist organization for threatening labor action. I think it was Tom Delay who called Texas legislature Democrats, "legislative terrorists employing weapons of mass obstruction," when they used the only means available to them to attempt to prevent an illegal redistricting vote in Texas.

Any definition of terrorism that we try to cobble together at this point could just as easily apply to our founding fathers. They didn't have the term terrorist back then, they used the term "irregular." And that's what the English called those whom we call "patriots."

And that line is indistcriminant killing.

So the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden were terrorist actions?

All of those were guerilla groups rather than terrorists..

That's like calling the Royal Green Jackets in the Napoleonic wars terrorists... hit and run warfare isn't really terrorism.

The whole lynching of tories was hardly guerilla warfare.

The problem with the term terrorist and terrorism is that it is a particularly partisan term.

Its very difficult to draw lines that will be universally agreed to as to which acts constitute terrorism.

Terrorism can vary from suicide bombers blowing themselves up in market squares.
Through car bombing military bases.
To bombing of schools and hospitals by military forces.
Through to simply building..not even using a nuclear weapon.
And whether or not they are acts of terrorism not only depends on your views on the act itself but from which particular side of the act you are viewing it.

Personally I don't think it makes any difference whether the act is being performed by or to military combatants. All war is terrorism, just about all acts of war are terrible. I don't care if its us bombing them or them bombing us..

The point is that people are terrified. People are hurt, and the people around them are left to pick up the pieces.

Israel and Hezbollah are both terrorists.. the US and Al Qaeda are both terrorists. Any discussion of who is a worse terrorist is pointless.. the whole.. "Well they started it" thing is childish and pathetic.

a terrorist attempts to create a climate of fear and terror, so as to influence public opinion and make the target societies change their modes of operation

is not a bad definition but I think as soon as you start trying to say who can and can't be called a terrorist and what exactly you have to do be branded a terrorist you run into pretty shaky territory.

The objective is to use violence and fear as a form of coaxing.

My definition of terrorism: An unconventional tactic in which one party tries to force another party into giving in by attacking third parties related to the attacked party.

For instance, the American Revolution was not necesarily terrorism. The Americans and the "redcoats" were attacking eachothers' soldiers in order to force their surrender.

It would have been terrorism if the Americans killed civillians or non-British soldiers in order to force the British to surrender.

OK, I didn't read any of the thread and am merely responding to the question posed in the title: How does one define terrorism? So if I say anything that someone else already said or take the thread off topic, I'm sorry.

"-isms" are constructs we use to describe how we believe problems might be solved. Capitalism is the belief that the answers to issues come through the application of capital, i.e. money. Racism is the application of race to solve problems, e.g. affirmative action. Terrorism is the application of terror or fear to solve problems. This is not unique to Muslims who strap bombs to their bodies or fly planes into buildings.

Freedom Fighting that you don't agree with personally.

Terrorism is all about semantics, to be honest.Absolutely. What was it called when it was the French partisans doing it? Us in the Revelution? The ANC? When we agree with them it's freedom fighting. When we disagree it's terrorism.

Terrorism is great. It is the new Guerilla warfare. Just like Mechanized warfare, Bombs, aerial combat, camoflage, Trench combat, tactical warfare, gunpowder, mounted combat, armour, Iron working, Bronze, copper, and stone before it, Terrorism is simply the next great innovation in effective warfare. Akin to guerilla warfare especially, though, in that it can be used by small, underfunded forces to excellent effect. That is not to say large well funded forces cannot use it, because they can and do. It is more that a small group can increase their percieved threat fantastically if they implement terrorism, whereas a large force will only notice the increase to an average degree (most likely because people are already afraid of them). Even one individual can afford the reputation and terror that comes with an army of men.

I think, Terrorism is technically a form of psychological warfare. In that it is built around the psychological goals of fear and terror, rather than by the means by which it is attained. Terrorists wouldn't bother killing civilians if there was an easier way to scare people just as effectively. You always hear politians waffling on about how if we change our way of life, the terrorists win. This is nonsense. The terrorist win when we make a big deal out of their otherwise small acts. As such, the victims of the WTC attacks of 11/9/01 died to make Al qaeda notorius, which they did. The terrorists won. In fact, I can't think of a single time a terrorist has failed (paradox really, because if one did fail, I wouldn't know about them, would I?). That is why terrorism rocks. Massive impact, low cost, near certain effectiveness.

Well... it says it on the packet - Activities aimed at causing terror.

In more detail: Terrorism is the carrying out of activities with the primary goal of causing terror and to use the terror caused to change the situation at hand.

So the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden were terrorist actions?

The former two were targeted with specific regard to the psychological effect and the need to make an impression on the Japanese public, according to the target selection committee. That reads as "terrorism" to me. Whether or not it was justified is the only argument.

The former two were targeted with specific regard to the psychological effect and the need to make an impression on the Japanese public, according to the target selection committee. That reads as "terrorism" to me. Whether or not it was justified is the only argument.

I believe the goal in those instances was focused more on the Japanese leadership than the Japanese public.

Terrorist; N, Any individual or group who has stated goals or opinions contrary to the ruling party.

Terrorist; N, Any individual or group who has stated goals or opinions contrary to the ruling party.

And that makes the term so politically loaded that it becomes totally worthless.

And that makes the term so politically loaded that it becomes totally worthless.

Which brings me to my point. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. During the revolutionary war our founding fathers were terrorists, atleast in the eyes of royalists and jolly ol' England.


Now there are people who genuinely seek to inspire fear alone, but most "terrorists" are simply fighters for a cause which is unpopular.

de same problem than definiying Democracy,