In our class discussion about terrorism, there were arguments revolving around how to actually define it and and what it means in a general sense and what it means in a more finite sense. In my mind there is only one way to define terrorism: the way the State Department/FBI/CIA/White House define it. While there are differences in their individual definitions, they are all saying the same things: Terrorism is carried out by a non-state actor, on a non-military population, in order to start political change.
While some may argue that this definition is only such because it shield the United States from committing terrorism, I disagree. There are several reasons terrorism should not include state-sponsored attacks. When a state attacks another state, whether they attack a military base or a civilian population, it is much different than terrorism. As we discussed in class, it is an act of war carried out by that state. If the United States government attacked Cairo, that would be an act of war; if the Westboro Baptists attacked Cairo, that would be terrorism. (Side note: hopefully neither of those things ever happen)
Secondly, if the Westboro Baptists attacked a naval ship in Dubai, it would be different than them attacking a mosque in Dearborn, Michigan. The first is an attack on an armed military ship, the second is an act carried out to frighten a group of people. Both can be done in order to advance a political agenda, but they are different things.
Third and finally, if the aim of the attack is not political change, it cannot be considered terrorism. If someone is crazy and attacks a mosque purely because they cannot control themselves, it is not terrorism. If someone is mad that their ex-wife got the children and the house in the divorce and therefore shoots up a courthouse, that is also not terrorism. If a group of people in the United States is unhappy that we accept Syrian refugees and tries to bomb Congress, that is terrorism.
Even though some might see this needing to be amended, as long as our government abides by this definition of terrorism, we much also do that. We can try to change the definition, but until then we must accept it and understand it is a good definition.
Kathryn,
ReplyDeleteGood point that there are differences in scale and effect when a state attacks another state or when a non-state actor attacks a clear military target. But two comments:
1) What about more ambiguous situations? What about something like Drone attacks or lots of serial executions like in the Reign of Terror? The latter was where the term 'terrorism' came from.
2) Should we maybe think of terrorism as something that can be a part of an act as opposed to the whole act? In other words, should we put actions into boxes or should we use our concepts to understand certain parts of actions? For instance, take the fire bombing of Dresden which killed a lot of German citizens (the London Blitz would also count) and provoked a sense of terror. There are good reasons why it may not be terrorism (interstate war) but there might be good reasons why it is (killed civilians for political purposes and provoked terror amongst the populace). So may we can use terrorism for this act to understand some aspects of it while simultaneously not putting it fully in the 'terrorism' box. Does that make sense?
On your first point, do you mean governments carrying out these attacks? If so, it would be terror-inducing but the definition of terrorism right now is set up so that governments are not held responsible for committing acts of terrorism.
DeleteOn your second point, I think that putting actions into boxes is an okay idea, but I think it's hard to straddle the fence on this issue. I my opinion those attacks were terrible acts during war, and possibly could have been avoided, but they still were carried out by a government instead of a non-government group. We can definitely use terrorism to help understand some aspects of an attack, but I don't think we can have a subsection when classifying acts of violence.
I like how you distinguish random, illogical violent acts from terrorism. In today's ISIS threat environment, American citizens are quick to jump to conclusions when violent acts are committed by Muslims. Racial stereotypes are indirectly promoted by the media when violent acts are carried out by people who just so happen to be practicing Islam. In the most recent San Bernardino shooting, media outlets started portraying the shooters as possible jihadists, even though there was no evidence at the time. Speculation by the media plays into people's prejudices, reaffirming the false belief that Muslims signify some kind of danger to America.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analysis of terrorism and think it is an important distinction. It is interesting to see how the definition of terrorism has, and will continue to evolve. I also think it is interesting to think about if a county was to attack its own citizens with a political agenda. What do you think about that?
ReplyDeleteI'm not actually sure how I would characterize that, I've never thought about it before. I guess that wouldn't be terrorism, because it is carried out by a state. It would be a huge humanitarian crisis, the government would be lambasted by others around the globe, and the people would probably rise up, starting a civil war. This does happen, albeit usually implemented by citizens first instead of governments, but I think it would just bee seen as a terrible act, not terrorism as a whole.
DeleteI agree with your definition of terrorism, but I disagree with what you talked about in your 4th paragraph. I think that someone crazy who for example commits a mass shooting can be considered an act of terrorism. It is domestic terrorism and may not be intended for political change, but is a violent act with the intention to kill a large number of people. This to me seems like terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThe entire reason there is terrorism is because people want to change the functions or actions of their government, hence meaning there has to be some form of political motivation. This example would be an atrocity but would not be terrorism. If the shooter wrote an entirely politically-motivated manifesto before he shot up a school, that would be domestic terrorism. If that manifesto is not written, it cannot be considered terrorism.
Delete