Definition of a terrorist/terrorism?

The_Conductor

I've been thinking lately about what the definition of a terrorist and/or terrorism actually is. A brief hunt on the web wasn't very enlightening- the definition varied depending on who was asking the question and what the purpose of their asking was.

E.g. The UN has no official definition of terrorism whatsoever. A.P. Schmid's proposed definition "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime" was voted down in 1994.

The FBI considers terrorism to be "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives".

Ayatullah Shaykh Muhammad Ali Taskhiri considers terrorism to be: "an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind."

By my reckoning this means that there seems to be unilateral acceptance by all sides that their view of the other proponents in the current Israeli-Lebanon conflict, is as terrorists? Obviously people will most probably not accept that their own government or armed forces are terrorists.

How is a peacekeeping force supposed to step into the breech and maintain peace when the view of both sides of the divide is that the other side are terrorists, involved in acts of barbaric terrorism, impossible to reason with by diplomacy and with nothing short of wiping the other side off the face of the map as their raison d'etre?

I know this is an effective extension of at least 2 other ongoing threads in this forum at present- Mod- please feel free to move it as appropriate.

bonkey

smccarrick wrote:

I've been thinking lately about what the definition of a terrorist and/or terrorism actually is. A brief hunt on the web wasn't very enlightening- the definition varied depending on who was asking the question and what the purpose of their asking was.

Terrorism is what the enemy engages in when its not a straight-up fight.

How is a peacekeeping force supposed to step into the breech and maintain peace

Its not.

Peacekeeping is for when peace has broken out and needs to be kept. It is not for seperating two warring sides.

jc

Triangle

bonkey wrote:

Terrorism is what the enemy engages in when its not a straight-up fight.

What is a straight up fight?
An Ambush? - America invading ireland? Seems pretty unclear to me.
i don't think any army plans an attack/defence with straight up fight i.e. we meet on the ridge at sundown.......

The_Conductor

bonkey wrote:

Peacekeeping is for when peace has broken out and needs to be kept. It is not for seperating two warring sides.

jc

Someone should tell that to the Israelis......
Actually maybe this is why they insist on a "stabilisation force" as opposed to "peacekeepers"- the difference being they do not forsee peace as a possible outcome......

Hmmmm fortress mentality......

Dg101

bonkey wrote:

Terrorism is what the enemy engages in when its not a straight-up fight.

But then, this is all going to go back to the justification for terrorism which has to be examined. When is a terrorist a freedom fighter or a resistance member? Were the French resistance terrorists during world war 2? Or the IRA during the war of independence?

If

an inhuman and corrupt objective

is applied it becomes far too vague because, after all, it all depends on your point of view. I'm sure Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda don't see themselves as inhuman and corrupt, so it'd come down to your opinion.

And the FBI's definition leaves no space for differentiating between rebellion against an unjust government and criminal acts. Which leaves it flawed.

the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives

does not take into account whether such actions are justifiable.

As Benjamin Franklin said

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

.

Bookee

I think Tony & George would like us all to believe it's someone with a VERY SHORT HAIRCUT & VERY LONG BEARD..... ! :rolleyes:
Now, that sounds a bit Flippent, doesn't it... !

bonkey

Triangle wrote:

What is a straight up fight?

Two armies meeting on a field of battle.

Seems pretty unclear to me.

Well yes. Thats the point. Terrorism is something you accuse someone else of doing. There is no clear, widely-accepted definition. Never has been, never will be.

People will tailor definitions to suit their perspective. THen when you find something that meets their definition but is clearly not what they want to classify as terrorism, they'll calmly and rationally explain why you're being stupid, or will add caveats or additional qualifiers to their descriptions, or whatever.

When the US were heading for Afghanistan, someone here asked if the Taliban were terrorists. The best answer I saw was along the lines of "yes - because it will be repeated enough by the media that it will be accepted as truth".

Terrorism is a handy moniker. Its like "left wing", "right wing", "extremist", "liberal", or any other ill-defined label. It is used where one wants the impact associated with the word, rather than worrying about the finer details of first defining what terrorism is and then making sure that it is used consistently where it is applicable and never where it isn't.

bonkey

Dg101 wrote:

But then, this is all going to go back to the justification for terrorism which has to be examined.

Not really. Terrorism is a label of convenience, nothing more. If you agree with what they're doing, its not terrorism. If you disagree, it might be.

When is a terrorist a freedom fighter or a resistance member?

When you agree with their actions.

If is applied it becomes far too vague because, after all, it all depends on your point of view.

Thats exactly my point. It doesn't matter how you define terrorism, this ultimately holds true.

And the FBI's definition leaves no space for differentiating between rebellion against an unjust government and criminal acts. Which leaves it flawed.

It also doesn't say who's laws it refers to. So if an act is committed by a national of country A, in country B, in a manner which contravenes the laws of country C...is it terrorism by the FBI definition? Exactly who has to say its illegal? The victim? The perpetrator? The US?

As Benjamin Franklin said .
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

Unfortunately, Mr. Franklin failed to say where the line is drawn in terms of what is acceptable as an act of rebellion. I hear echoes of the current day "a nation must have the right to defend itself", where apparently no lines are drawn meaning that genocide (as an extreme example) should be perfectly acceptable as a means of rebellion (in your case) or defence (in the example I've just given).

Naturally, few will argue that this is the case....meaning that rebellion, defence, and everything else has implicit limits. Terrorism should presumably be on the other side of those limits....if only people could define it in advance rather than waiting to see whether or not they approve of an action and then declaring it as terrorism or not.

Jackie laughlin

There is an enormous library on the definition of terrorism. The difficulty is that it is an emotive term and is often used as abuse. However, if one goes down this road, "terrorism" becomes a synonym for "violence" or loses meaning in the glib pseudo-definitions, "Terrorism is violence of which we disapprove" or "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter." The problem then is that we have this phenomenon of bombings, killings etc. which are primarily media events designed to make some statement and if we can't call them terrorism, we'll have to think up another term.

Dg101

True. The current definition lacks force. It is far too open to interpretation and it is unlikely such acts can ever really be justified logically, regardless of your political viewpoint. Loss of life can never be acceptable. I just pointed out, that as it stands, terrorism is a very broad concept which needs refining. Pursuit of a violent ideology perhaps?

The Corinthian

smccarrick wrote:

I've been thinking lately about what the definition of a terrorist and/or terrorism actually is. A brief hunt on the web wasn't very enlightening- the definition varied depending on who was asking the question and what the purpose of their asking was.

I prefer the term asymmetric warfare. I’ll explain why in a moment.

Asymmetric warfare is essentially where one party is by far more powerful than the other. They possess far more resources, assets and / or numbers that their opposition. As such, more orthodox warfare - what jc called ‘a straight fight’ - would result in the inevitable defeat of the materially weaker party.

Thus the purpose of the materially weaker party is not an orthodox and direct military victory, but a war of attrition; to wear down the resources and resolve of the enemy to the point that they are forced to withdraw from the field. Thus targets will be designed to cause maximum cost, not just economically, but to the morale of the enemy; so-called soft targets are especially important as the maximize the efficiency of the materially weaker party - after all, if your opponent outnumbers you ten to one, you want to aim towards taking out at least twenty of their assets for each one of yours.

As to why I’m using the term asymmetric warfare; it is because it applies not only to terrorists, but also to freedom fighters. And what differentiates them? In practical terms, nothing. Both will in varying degrees fight for impassioned causes and commit atrocities against civilians.

What in reality differentiates them is what side you’re on - one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. The same people who were freedom fighters in Afghanistan twenty years ago are today terrorists. It’s simply a question of partisanship.

The FBI considers terrorism to be "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives".

Ayatullah Shaykh Muhammad Ali Taskhiri considers terrorism to be: "an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind."

Both these are self-serving definitions. The first will always default to what is lawful, which is a rather flexible term in US politics. The latter does the same, but cites religion rather than secular law, and we all know who gets to interpret religion there, don’t we?

Ultimately the reason there is no accepted third party definition is because it would mean that we could no longer define whom we considered terrorists or freedom fighters as we wish, when it suits us.

Jackie laughlin

The notion of "asymmetric warfare" would appeal to the delusions of the likes of the IRA who love to think in terms of armies, ranks, parades, flags, funerals etc. but it would exclude the likes of the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The notion of "asymmetric warfare" would appeal to the delusions of the likes of the IRA who love to think in terms of armies, ranks, parades, flags, funerals etc. but it would exclude the likes of the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh.

Actually, in principle it does not exclude even lone nutcases. Asymmetric warfare is a military strategy, nothing more. As such any smaller force against a larger one can practice it, even if that smaller force is only one man.

And it is those who practice this military strategy that we call either terrorists or freedom fighters.

imeatingchips

Fully agree with, and applaud, Corinthian's answer.

One man’s terrorist IS another’s freedom fighter. The word terrorist is bandied about when the word "guerrilla", "rebel" or even "soldier" should be used (that in itself is a weapon i.e. propaganda).

For example, when America were invading Iraq (the second time), I was in New York. It was reported on CNN that "an Iraqi terrorist threw a grenade into an Allied camp killing one marine" (sorry, can't find the source on the internet, but that's what was said verbatim - it started a big discussion with the group of lads I was with). Notice how American soldiers are differentiated from any other soldier by being called "marine" and how an Iraqi soldier defending an invasion of his country is a terrorist.

Anyway, putting aside the use of the word for propaganda purposes and focusing on an objective meaning for the word, I think most people now associate the word in some way with hijacking and/or civilian deaths and I wouldn't be surprised it it does eventually evolve to mean something along the lines of targeting civillians.

ps. Re: Bonkey, by "straight-up fight" I assume you mean "not guerilla tactics" but there's no such thing as a straight-up fight! technologically advanced armies will use technologically advanced weapons, outnumbered armies with the support of it's people will employ guerilla tactics. The same applies on any scale: boxers with long reaches will try to keep shorter reached boxers at a distance. Football teams with strong strikers will etc. etc. Geurilla fighting is an oft used tactic in war. The Irish army successfully employed it, the Vietnamese (to a lesser extent), pus too many to mention.

The Corinthian

imeatingchips wrote:

but there's no such thing as a straight-up fight!

Sure there is, we just realised (for the most part) what a bad idea they were back around 1918

monosharp

I would have thought this was extremely simple.

Terrorists commit terrorism. Terrorism is acts of terror against a civilian population for no "real" military purpose (although maybe a slight military purpose) other then to terrorise.

e.g > A lot of the Israeli's actions at present are clearly terrorism, a lot of Hizbollahs are too. The British Army in Ireland (war of Independence) committed loads of terrorist actions while the IRA (of the time) committed comparitively few, probably due to the lack of the "other" population being within reasonable reach.

e.g > British soldiers actions on bloody sunday (WOI) was clearly terrorism, same with the burning of Cork City and numberous other events during the war of Independence. The Provos bombing london was terrorism, even if for a "purpose" other then to terrorise it was still terrorism. While killing soldiers was not.

Dg101

monosharp wrote:

Terrorists commit terrorism. Terrorism is acts of terror against a civilian population for no "real" military purpose (although maybe a slight military purpose) other then to terrorise.

Depends how you define military purpose. The ultimate goal of a conflict is to win, not to inflict maximum military damage. And the basic principle of guerrila warfare is that you have to avoid direct confrontation because you know you'd get beaten. So, the targeting of "soft targets" or civilians and civilian infrastructure is still serving towards that same end, of ultimately being the victor. Whether it's terrorism or not only really depends on where the goalposts are and they keep getting moved. The victors always right the history books and if you win you're a freedom fighter, if you lose you're a terrorist.

bonkey

imeatingchips wrote:

ps. Re: Bonkey, by "straight-up fight" I assume you mean "not guerilla tactics" but there's no such thing as a straight-up fight!

I mean a war between two armies where both fully observe the Geneva Conventions and any other applicable "rules of war"....and yes, I know it never happens.

War isn't like soccer, where losing honourably is considered to have some higher or more noble value than winning by cheating. Neither the losers nor the victors generally care how the victors won. The victors aren't going to overly chastise themselves for winning, and the losers won't be happy regardless.

bonkey

monosharp wrote:

Terrorists commit terrorism. Terrorism is acts of terror against a civilian population for no "real" military purpose (although maybe a slight military purpose) other then to terrorise.

So as long as a military purpose is being fulfilled, its not terrorism?

What about PsyOps? They're non-tangible, psychological military objectives.

How do you differ between those and the psychological objectives which are a central tenet of terrorism?

A lot of the Israeli's actions at present are clearly terrorism,

How? All of Israels actions serve a military purpose. They may not be effective at achieving that purpose, but you never said that success was a prerequisite in your "simple" explanation.

jc

Dg101

War isn't like soccer, where losing honourably is considered to have some higher or more noble value than winning by cheating. Neither the losers nor the victors generally care how the victors won. The victors aren't going to overly chastise themselves for winning, and the losers won't be happy regardless.

So it's like Serie A soccer then?

imeatingchips

War isn't like soccer, where losing honourably is considered to have some higher or more noble value than winning by cheating. Neither the losers nor the victors generally care how the victors won. The victors aren't going to overly chastise themselves for winning, and the losers won't be happy regardless.

In a way it is.

No, I wasn't comparing war with soccer. I was trying to illustrate the point that a properly managed "side" will make the most of it's advantages while trying to exploit it's opponents disadvantages.

What about PsyOps? They're non-tangible, psychological military objectives.

How do you differ between those and the psychological objectives which are a central tenet of terrorism?

You don't - they're the same, no?

bonkey

imeatingchips wrote:

You don't - they're the same, no?

They are similar, if not the same. The point I was making is that unless we suggest PsyOps are not legitimate military actions, then monosharp's "simple" explanation would appear to have (another) large hole in it.

If, on the other hand, we suggest that they are terrorism, then we must accept that operations designed to cajole people to your side through acts of kindness, help and support classifies as terrorism...as that can constitute a PsyOp operation just as much as "negative" psychological operations can.

Basically....its not simple. Its certainly not "extremely simple".

jc

Jackie laughlin

Rhetorical violence. Many attempts to define terrorism focus on the fact that the target of violence is not the main target. The target of the attack is those to whom the message is addressed. Delivery of the mesage depends on media treatment.

Botany Bay

bonkey wrote:

Two armies meeting on a field of battle.



Well yes. Thats the point. Terrorism is something you accuse someone else of doing. There is no clear, widely-accepted definition. Never has been, never will be.

People will tailor definitions to suit their perspective. THen when you find something that meets their definition but is clearly not what they want to classify as terrorism, they'll calmly and rationally explain why you're being stupid, or will add caveats or additional qualifiers to their descriptions, or whatever.

When the US were heading for Afghanistan, someone here asked if the Taliban were terrorists. The best answer I saw was along the lines of "yes - because it will be repeated enough by the media that it will be accepted as truth".

Terrorism is a handy moniker. Its like "left wing", "right wing", "extremist", "liberal", or any other ill-defined label. It is used where one wants the impact associated with the word, rather than worrying about the finer details of first defining what terrorism is and then making sure that it is used consistently where it is applicable and never where it isn't.

Terrorism and the word terrorist are too often used for shock effect in the media or just by lazy journalists. It's always used by sides who want to appear on the moral high ground. Your definition is spot on!!

Jackie laughlin

OK, fine! Let's accept for now that "terrorism" is no more than a term of abuse. Now, please suggest a word or label so that we can discuss the phenomenon of polical violence committed by non-state actors for the benefit of a target audience.

New_Departure06

The FBI considers terrorism to be "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives".

I would modify this slightly as follows:

The unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or ethnic, religious or cultural group, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives".

Anyway,

How? All of Israels actions serve a military purpose. They may not be effective at achieving that purpose, but you never said that success was a prerequisite in your "simple" explanation.

I would see the IDF as committing terrorism in terms of A: Demolitions of Palestinian homes under the pretext of legal difficulties (ethnic-cleansing really). B: Excessive military force against civilians.

Jackie laughlin

Israel is committing atrocities and war crimes. It is not terrorism. Misuse of the term terrorism will prevent our being able to discuss it.

bonkey

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Misuse of the term terrorism will prevent our being able to discuss it.

But a lack of an accepted definition - which seems to be the case - means that its kinda hard to say what constitutes misuse with any accuracy.

Jackie laughlin

There is a phenomenon of violence by non-state actors against random or symbolic targets and victims whose purpose is to communicate with a larger target audience via the media.

It desperately deserves study but someone always wants to drag it off topic by talking about something quite different like war crimes or genocide or indeed war. The usual reason for dragging it off topic is the emotive tone of "terrorism" whereby if one discusses ,say, IRA terorrism, a supporter will be off into accusations about, say, British/American violence in Iraq.

bonkey

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a phenomenon of violence by non-state actors against random or symbolic targets and victims whose purpose is to communicate with a larger target audience via the media.

OK, but why distinguish non-state and state actors?

More explicitly - why have the implicit suggestion that terrorism is defined by the actors being non-state, rather than terrorism being related to the actions carried out.

Similarly, your definition also suggests that there is no distinction between what we today term freedom-fighting, rebellion, civil-war and terorrism, in that each and every one of them can be described in part or in whole by the description you've offered.

It also suggests that terrorism is fundamentally media-linked - that its aim is not to inspire terror, but rather to be reported.

It desperately deserves study but someone always wants to drag it off topic by talking about something quite different like war crimes or genocide or indeed war.

With respect, I think you are confusing discussion and study.

People who desperately want to study a topic can do so regardless of what that topic has been titled.

The discsusion of the topic, however, may indeed fall prey to your "scope-widening" problem. Of course, given that this particular thread is about how that scope should be initially defined, its difficult to see what your objection is, unless its that people stop using definitions other than the one you agree with. After all, if there was a clear definition of terrorism, there would be far less Punch-and-Judyism about whether or not certain acts constitute same.

The usual reason for dragging it off topic

"It" in this case being what, exactly? A discussion about a specific terrorist act / an act alleged to be terrorist in nature?

Do you believe such acts can and should be viewed in isolation? Do you believe that looking to understand motive is a wasted effort? That we shouldnt' questions the aims or motives behind why Lebanon is rocket-attacking Israel, nor what Israel is doing in return, but should rather focus ourselves on the actions of the non-state actors and nothing else?

What, exactly, would this achieve?

whereby if one discusses ,say, IRA terorrism, a supporter will be off into accusations about, say, British/American violence in Iraq.

And what if they merely limited themselves, say, to British violence and discrimination in Northern Ireland...would that still be off-topic? This tends to be the more common "divergence" that we see - people pointing out that the alleged victim is hardly without blame.

Indeed, were we to bridge to the US/Britain in Iraq from N. Ireland, I would hazard that it would first do so through a widening of scope which first demanded that the British be judged as well as the 'RA in terms of the acceptability of actions, followed by a further second-stage widening of scope where it could be shown that British actions in the North were not isolated in time -that they weren't saints either before nor after.

Whether or not such widening of scope / straying off-topic is a problem or not has nothing to do with how we label the IRAs actions. Whether you call it freedom fighting, insurrection, terrorism or patriotism, the off-topicness comes from the refusal to view those acts in isolation - to recognise that there are (at least) two parties involved. It comes from believing that those actions should not be viewed and judged in isolation.

Whether you call it freedom-fighting-crimes, war-crimes, terrorism, heroic-stance-against-the-Weevil-Empire....whatever....someone is still going to feel the need to point out that you cannot understand nor judge such acts in isolation and someone else (as you've just done) will say that any such attempt to claim context is only a distraction.

jc

Jackie laughlin

Bonkey,
Fair point about discussion and study.

I general the ground needs to be staked out when saying anything complex. There's always a danger that a topic will blossom into a "history of the world" at which point we reach babble.

Many (but not all) definitions distinguish between non-state and state actors. I think it is useful to do so. It certainly doesn't prevent condemnation of State atrocities.

Yes, I think media or at least communication is THE feature which sets terrorism apart from other forms of political violence. If the problem is the word "terrorism", we'll have to find a different term for the phenomenon. It is common to refine terms for the purposes of discussion, e.g. "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing". I'd like to keep "terrorism" as it's commonly understood.

Allowing the actions of Israel to be described as terrorism does a lot more than damage common speech. It is gross understatement. Terms such as "war crimes", "massacre of civilians" etc. seem more appropriate.

I'm not clear about some of your criticism of me. Do you think that I object to trying to understand the causes of terrorism? I don't.

bonkey

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Many (but not all) definitions distinguish between non-state and state actors.

These would, at a guess, coincide with those definitions supplied by state-actors. Forgive me if I consider as suspect any definition which precludes the possibility of the definer being guilty. Its nothing more than a polite way of saying "terrorism is something that others do".

I think it is useful to do so. It certainly doesn't prevent condemnation of State atrocities.

Sure, but it also suggests that there is a fundamental distinction between an atrocity comitted by a state and non-state actor.

Yes, I think media or at least communication is THE feature which sets terrorism apart from other forms of political violence.

We'll just ahve to differ on that one, I guess. If media was the defining point, then I would argue that it shoudl be called something like "mediaism" rather than terrorism.

Would self-directed violence by non-state players for the purpose of media attention count as terrorism in your book? Y'know...monks pouring petrol on themselves and burning themselves to death and the like? Or will you not at the very least accept that a fundamental feature of all terrorist acts is the use of terror as a weapon or tool.

If the problem is the word "terrorism", we'll have to find a different term for the phenomenon.

Alternately, one could say that my problem is the artificial distinction between identical acts based only on the status of the actor when the name of the classification is a clear reference to an aspect of the methodology and that I don't necessarily see what you describe as a phenomenon at all. I see it as a subset of a larger phenomenon which has no real basis for being taken in isolation that I as yet agree with.

It is common to refine terms for the purposes of discussion, e.g. "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing".

No argument from me. I'm just disagreeing at how you're proposing to refine the meaning of terrorism to something like "non-state violence-based propaganda".

I'd like to keep "terrorism" as it's commonly understood.

The problem is that its not commonly understood. Its commonly used by people who mean very different things when the use it. The two of us most certainly don't have a common understanding of the term. Why should I agree to use it in a manner I disagree with just because you like it that way?

Allowing the actions of Israel to be described as terrorism does a lot more than damage common speech
. It is gross understatement. Terms such as "war crimes", "massacre of civilians" etc. seem more appropriate.

Then you're free to use those terms. I see no reason why the same act can't constitute both terrorism and a war-crime and a massacre and a number of other things all at the same time.

I also have no doubt that people who disagree that those terms apply will agree that you're misusing them, just as I disagree with how you understand the term terrorism.

At the end of the day, I go back to where I started. Terrorism is what the other guy does. Nations allege its what non-state actors get up to. They in turn say they are merely attempting to resist state-originating terrorism and that their own acts are legitimate. Everyone adapts a view of what constitutes terrorism that doesn't conflict with who htey see as the terrorists. Very few people have a want to actually have a clear definition. Its far more convenient to use an emotional one.

Jackie laughlin

Bonkey,
Where we disagree is that you want to use "terrorism" in all sorts of situations while I want to use it specifically. The most crude "definition" of terrorism is "violence of which we disapprove". This is just a case of, "If you call me a terrorist, I'll call you a terrorist!" Sure, it's an emotive term but this line leads to the end of discussion.

No, definitions which focus on non-state actors don't come from state sources. In fact I can't off-hand think of one which does. State sources tend to throw the term all over the place, e.g. accusations that a regime or even a whole country is "terrorist".

I didn't try to define terrorism ONLY in the use of media. I included the media aspect as essential but not exclusive. Your question re political suicide for TV but without the intention of harming anyone else is a very good one. At first glance it would seem to fall within the definition but then the suicide can't be described as a "victim" or as an "immediate target" (because these imply an attack) as opposed to the target audience who are meant to be frightened or at least stirred into facing up to what the terrorist wants.

bonkey

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Bonkey,
Where we disagree is that you want to use "terrorism" in all sorts of situations while I want to use it specifically.

Yes. And given that we're discussing the definition of what constitutes terrorism, I think thast a pretty big disagreement.

The most crude "definition" of terrorism is "violence of which we disapprove". This is just a case of, "If you call me a terrorist, I'll call you a terrorist!" Sure, it's an emotive term but this line leads to the end of discussion.

But thats how its often used, whether we like it or not, whether we think it should be or not, and regardless of what we personally think it should mean.

Saying it leads to the end of discussion is only true if we're either in agreement that this is how most people seem to use the term (hence agree on a commong non-definition), or if we agree that people simply don't use the term consistently (hence agree that there is no common definition)

No, definitions which focus on non-state actors don't come from state sources. In fact I can't off-hand think of one which does.

WEll you haven't supplied a single one which doesn't either so that means that so far there's nothing to choose between the two possibilities.

State sources tend to throw the term all over the place,

They use "terrorism" to be what the other guys engage in. Same thing.

I didn't try to define terrorism ONLY in the use of media. I included the media aspect as essential but not exclusive.

You highlighted media as the defining requirement. Not the use of terror, not the target, not the aims....media and communication was the purpose as you defined it.

Indeed, according to your definition, one can engage in terrorism without the use of terror. If I were to go and attack some symbol of another nation in a manner that was violent but clearly not threatening to the citizens (civilian or otherwise) of said nation, for the purposes of communicating my message to those people....its terrorism.

On the other hand, if I were to go to an isolated region and use the threat of violence to cow the local population into doing what I wanted....that wouldn't be terrorism because my aim was never one of communication and I didn't actually resort to violence but merely the threat of same?????

From my perspective, the prime requirement is the use of terror as a means to achieve an objective. Media attention is probably going to play its part, but is not an absolute requirement. Violence will be almost-certainly involved, but is - again - not necessarily an absolute requirement (the threat of violence may be sufficient).

In terms of state vs. non-state, I believe the only relevant distinction is the nature of the target rather than the nature of the perpetrator. I believe a military unit is fully capable of using terrorism to cow a civilian population. I do not believe, however, that a military unit can be the target of terrorism.

Iraqi insurgents blowing up US soldiers in Iraq is not necessarily terrorist in nature from my perspective, although it meets all of your criteria. Iraqi insurgents choosing to deliberately deploy their offenses in civilian populations in a manner that suggests civilian casualties are an additional objective and not just something they don't care about...that is terrorist in nature - but only because of the civilian aspect, not because of the blowing-up-US-soldiers aspect.

Nevyn

remember " If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist you are a terrorist"
G.W. Bush.

Jackie laughlin

Th,
I'd almost agree but there are levels of responsibility and the perpetrator is more guilty than the apologist.

Bonkey,
Believe me I'm not trying to antagonise you but your use of the term would be the same as that of the US Government. (No, I'm not saying that you agree with US foreign policy) I'm trying to refine the concept so that discussion of a type of political violence can take place.

I did indeed highlight media but of course I didn't say that it was the only characteristic. I said the use of media set terrorism apart from other political violence.

Yes, of course a terrorist would love a symbolic, headline grabbing, casualty- free target. Sometimes no casualties is an objective. However, it's hard to achieve.

Voipjunkie

As has already been trashed out there is not definitive definition of what terrorism is. It depends on your perspective so for some the Iraqis fighting the US and its allies are terrorists others would call them resistance fighters etc
Just as some would view Bush and Blair as spreaders of democracy others would see them as terrorists.

For me the only way to define terrorism is by the actions not the motives and my personal definition is the deliberate attempt to kill or injure civilians or a complete disregard for the lives of civilians.

And in that regard
I would consider
Israel
Hizbollah
USA
UK
Taliban
Al Queda

All to be involved to some extent in terrorist activities

Jackie laughlin

Voipjunkie,
With such a broad definition, your list is hardly exhaustive.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Voipjunkie,
With such a broad definition, your list is hardly exhaustive.

I don't consider the definition to be broad and the list was in no way supposed to be definitive just an observation on the current middle east situation and the so called "war on terror" All parties IMO are guilty of terrorism to some extent including those who claim to be conducting a war on terror

MiddleE

The Corinthian
I prefer the term asymmetric warfare.
Asymmetric warfare is essentially where one party is by far more powerful than the other. They possess far more resources, assets and / or numbers that their opposition. As such, more orthodox warfare - what jc called ‘a straight fight’ - would result in the inevitable defeat of the materially weaker party.

Thus the purpose of the materially weaker party is not an orthodox and direct military victory, but a war of attrition; to wear down the resources and resolve of the enemy to the point that they are forced to withdraw from the field. Thus targets will be designed to cause maximum cost, not just economically, but to the morale of the enemy; so-called soft targets are especially important as the maximize the efficiency of the materially weaker party - after all, if your opponent outnumbers you ten to one, you want to aim towards taking out at least twenty of their assets for each one of yours.

Yes. I offer Canary Wharf as an example. The authorities could sustain a reasonable level of civilian casualties. What they could not sustain was another economic 'spectacular'.

Similarly in Middle East. Lebanon has lost it's infrastructure and so has no more to lose except additional lives, which will be lost anyway when this flares up again. Israel is on its knees militarily and also economically now. Another 2/3 weeks of the same and there would be the best hope of peace in the Middle East since 1948. The Israeli war party would be replaced and REAL peace discussion would take place. Now? A wounded RAT is very dangerous, particularly one trying to cling on to power. Now the temptation is to widen the conflict outside of the Lebanon to divert attention off its only bashing.

The Corinthian
As to why I’m using the term asymmetric warfare; it is because it applies not only to terrorists, but also to freedom fighters. And what differentiates them? In practical terms, nothing. Both will in varying degrees fight for impassioned causes and commit atrocities against civilians.

EU rejects U.S. call to label Hezbollah 'terrorist' group
UPI ... Published Aug/2/2006
"Given the sensitive situation where we are, I don't think this is something we will be acting on now," said Finland Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, who is also the EU president. The decision came in response to a letter signed by 213 members of the U.S. Congress demanding the intergovernmental organization join the United States in branding Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

EU rebuffs US call to put Hezbollah on terror list
By Mark Beunderman ...02.08.2006 - 09:54 CET