It is ironic that the word "terrorism" appears constantly in newscasts, congressional debates and speeches by world leaders, but for such a widely used word, there is no single definition of what "terrorism" means. There are many different versions of the meaning of “terrorism”, and often, these interpretations conflict with one another. The definition of “terrorism” that holds a superior level of importance over all other meanings, is the definition of the United States State Department. The United States State Department defines terrorism as, “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents (United States Department of State, 2003).” The carefully worded State Department definition is the most accurate definition of “terrorism”. There are four aspects to the US State Department definition of “terrorism” that makes it the most accurate when describing terrorism. The components to the definition are: a threat of violence or an act of violence, a political agenda, a threat of violence or violence on civilians, and a terrorist attack is perpetrated by non-state actors.
Many definitions of terrorism can all come to a consensus on one point: in terrorism there is the use or threat of violence. Many academics such as Lisa Stampnitzky, Philip Bobbitt, and David C. Rapaport individually have their own definitions of “terrorism”, but all their opinions converge on the theme of violence (Bobbitt, 2008) (Rapaport, 2002) (Stampnitzky, 2013). Throughout history there were four main waves of rebel terror that brought about barbaric violence in diverse ways, showing the tactic of implementing violence to reach a goal is a widespread tactic and is not a new innovation.
The four waves of terrorism that demonstrated the timeless tactic of violence to induce terror were: the Anarchist Wave (1880-1920), the Anti-Colonial Wave (1920-1960), the New-Left Wave (1960-1990) and the Religious Wave (1990-present) (Rapaport, 2002). Throughout the waves, there was a progression of the tactics used. The tactics of terror progressed from guerrilla warfare to assassinations, airline hijackings and the most recent tactic of suicide bombings (Rapaport, 2002, p. 3-9). No matter which tactic is used, they were all done with similar political motivations.
People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a political injustice. Terrorism is a specific kind of political violence committed by people who do not have a legitimate army at their disposal. Definitions have the disadvantage of needing information on motivations and intentions (Tilly, 2004, p.7). Certain conditions make violence against civilians seem like a reasonable and even necessary option (Tilly, 2004, p.7). Some definitions of “terrorism” treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political motivations, as simple criminal activity. The grouping of these acts as ones of criminality is problematic, because it does not account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate.
Ideology and political opportunism have led a number of countries to engage in transnational terrorism, often under the façade of supporting movements of "freedom fighters". The distinction between terrorism and other forms of political violence became blurred as many guerrilla groups often employed terrorist tactics. The Anti-Colonial Wave perfectly represented this struggle. Their strategy was first to eliminate via systematic assassinations the police, a government’s eyes and ears (Rapaport, 2002, p. 6). Military units would replace the police and would increase social support for terrorists by not producing counter-atrocities (Rapaport, 2002, p. 6). The State Department definition takes into account the important presence of political motives of terrorists as a means to distinguish terrorists from other crimes dealt with in courts, such as murder, that are not usually as important in the case of national security.
These problems of politically motivated violence have led some social scientists to adopt a State Department view based not on criminality, but on the fact that the victims of terrorist violence are most often innocent civilians. Perpetrators of terrorism always claim to have noble causes and values, advocate that their goals are righteous and that are working as a freedom fighter, to justify their actions. The type of terrorism that singles out civilians can be seen most prominently during the Religious Wave (Rapaport, 2002, p. 9-10).
The Religious Wave that continues today is the wave of terrorism that has a special interest in attacking noncombatant targets. During this wave, assassinations and hostage takings persevered, but suicide bombings were the most deadly tactical innovation that took out innocents (Rapaport, 2002, p. 9). Suicide bombings were especially dangerous not only because of their potential to inflict mass casualties, but also since they are difficult to prevent and predict (Rapaport, 2002, p. 9). The first suicide bombings of the 20th century involved Japanese kamikaze pilots who attacked American planes, ships and military personnel in the Pacific beginning in late 1944. Unlike contemporary suicide bombers, the pilots attacked only military targets (Momayezi & Momayezi, 2017, p. 3).
The first large suicide bombing after World War II occurred on 23rd, October 1983, when a truck laden with explosives rammed into a building serving as a barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American military personnel and wounding another 128 servicemen. Minutes later, another truck bomber struck the French barracks and some 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 were injured. These suicide truck bombings showed how shocking and destructive such attacks could be and how they can spread terror among a broad civilian population (Momayezi & Momayezi, 2017, p. 2).
The question that remains is who commits these horrendous acts against society? Depending on the definition of terrorism, the answer may change. The State Department’s working definition of terror singles out violence committed by relatively well-connected groups and directed against politically significant targets of other nationalities, especially of American nationality (Tilly, 2004, p.8). Abiding to the US state department definition, non-state actors are the main perpetrators of terrorism. Non-state actors are individuals and groups that hold influence and which are independent of state governments in some regard (Tilly, 2004, p.8). In this era of globalization the most salient threat to security and peace comes from self sustained and strong network organizations such as Al Qaeda and its followers. These stateless organizations can only be battled by neutralizing each individual members, making it difficult since the organizations can be spread out vastly over different locations.
The US State Department definition of terrorism is the most effective way to look at terrorism because it takes into account various view of what a terrorist is and compiles the main reoccurring themes into a succinct description. The problem with defining what terrorism means is in the subtext of the definition of defining who constitutes a civilian or non-combatant and who are considered non-state actors. Also, there is the moral dilemma of situations that calls into question if an act is deemed justified, is it still terrorism even though its intentions were justified? The US State Department keeps the definition of terrorism broad in a sense by not defining all the small nuances in order to protect the country. By not defining every aspect, the country is able to have wiggle room in investigating possible terrorist connections and incidents that might otherwise slip by on a technicality in the definition of what terrorism is. The definition by the US State Department protects national security concerns and at the same time covers all the facets of terrorism that other opinions and definitions deem necessary.
References
Bobbitt, P. (2008). Terror And Consent. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Momayezi, N., & Momayezi, M. L. (2017). Suicide Terrorism: Motivations beyond Religion.
The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 1-18.
Rapaport, D. C. (2002). The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism. Anthropoetics, 1-19.
Sinai, J. (2008). How to Define Terrorism. Perspectives on Terrorism, 1-2.
Stampnitzky, L. (2013). Disciplining Terror. Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, C. (2004). Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists. Sociological Theory, 22(1), 5-13.
United States Department of State. (2003). Patterns of Global Terrorism. Washington, DC:
Office of the Secretary of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
Many definitions of terrorism can all come to a consensus on one point: in terrorism there is the use or threat of violence. Many academics such as Lisa Stampnitzky, Philip Bobbitt, and David C. Rapaport individually have their own definitions of “terrorism”, but all their opinions converge on the theme of violence (Bobbitt, 2008) (Rapaport, 2002) (Stampnitzky, 2013). Throughout history there were four main waves of rebel terror that brought about barbaric violence in diverse ways, showing the tactic of implementing violence to reach a goal is a widespread tactic and is not a new innovation.
The four waves of terrorism that demonstrated the timeless tactic of violence to induce terror were: the Anarchist Wave (1880-1920), the Anti-Colonial Wave (1920-1960), the New-Left Wave (1960-1990) and the Religious Wave (1990-present) (Rapaport, 2002). Throughout the waves, there was a progression of the tactics used. The tactics of terror progressed from guerrilla warfare to assassinations, airline hijackings and the most recent tactic of suicide bombings (Rapaport, 2002, p. 3-9). No matter which tactic is used, they were all done with similar political motivations.
People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a political injustice. Terrorism is a specific kind of political violence committed by people who do not have a legitimate army at their disposal. Definitions have the disadvantage of needing information on motivations and intentions (Tilly, 2004, p.7). Certain conditions make violence against civilians seem like a reasonable and even necessary option (Tilly, 2004, p.7). Some definitions of “terrorism” treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political motivations, as simple criminal activity. The grouping of these acts as ones of criminality is problematic, because it does not account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate.
Ideology and political opportunism have led a number of countries to engage in transnational terrorism, often under the façade of supporting movements of "freedom fighters". The distinction between terrorism and other forms of political violence became blurred as many guerrilla groups often employed terrorist tactics. The Anti-Colonial Wave perfectly represented this struggle. Their strategy was first to eliminate via systematic assassinations the police, a government’s eyes and ears (Rapaport, 2002, p. 6). Military units would replace the police and would increase social support for terrorists by not producing counter-atrocities (Rapaport, 2002, p. 6). The State Department definition takes into account the important presence of political motives of terrorists as a means to distinguish terrorists from other crimes dealt with in courts, such as murder, that are not usually as important in the case of national security.
These problems of politically motivated violence have led some social scientists to adopt a State Department view based not on criminality, but on the fact that the victims of terrorist violence are most often innocent civilians. Perpetrators of terrorism always claim to have noble causes and values, advocate that their goals are righteous and that are working as a freedom fighter, to justify their actions. The type of terrorism that singles out civilians can be seen most prominently during the Religious Wave (Rapaport, 2002, p. 9-10).
The Religious Wave that continues today is the wave of terrorism that has a special interest in attacking noncombatant targets. During this wave, assassinations and hostage takings persevered, but suicide bombings were the most deadly tactical innovation that took out innocents (Rapaport, 2002, p. 9). Suicide bombings were especially dangerous not only because of their potential to inflict mass casualties, but also since they are difficult to prevent and predict (Rapaport, 2002, p. 9). The first suicide bombings of the 20th century involved Japanese kamikaze pilots who attacked American planes, ships and military personnel in the Pacific beginning in late 1944. Unlike contemporary suicide bombers, the pilots attacked only military targets (Momayezi & Momayezi, 2017, p. 3).
The first large suicide bombing after World War II occurred on 23rd, October 1983, when a truck laden with explosives rammed into a building serving as a barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American military personnel and wounding another 128 servicemen. Minutes later, another truck bomber struck the French barracks and some 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 were injured. These suicide truck bombings showed how shocking and destructive such attacks could be and how they can spread terror among a broad civilian population (Momayezi & Momayezi, 2017, p. 2).
The question that remains is who commits these horrendous acts against society? Depending on the definition of terrorism, the answer may change. The State Department’s working definition of terror singles out violence committed by relatively well-connected groups and directed against politically significant targets of other nationalities, especially of American nationality (Tilly, 2004, p.8). Abiding to the US state department definition, non-state actors are the main perpetrators of terrorism. Non-state actors are individuals and groups that hold influence and which are independent of state governments in some regard (Tilly, 2004, p.8). In this era of globalization the most salient threat to security and peace comes from self sustained and strong network organizations such as Al Qaeda and its followers. These stateless organizations can only be battled by neutralizing each individual members, making it difficult since the organizations can be spread out vastly over different locations.
The US State Department definition of terrorism is the most effective way to look at terrorism because it takes into account various view of what a terrorist is and compiles the main reoccurring themes into a succinct description. The problem with defining what terrorism means is in the subtext of the definition of defining who constitutes a civilian or non-combatant and who are considered non-state actors. Also, there is the moral dilemma of situations that calls into question if an act is deemed justified, is it still terrorism even though its intentions were justified? The US State Department keeps the definition of terrorism broad in a sense by not defining all the small nuances in order to protect the country. By not defining every aspect, the country is able to have wiggle room in investigating possible terrorist connections and incidents that might otherwise slip by on a technicality in the definition of what terrorism is. The definition by the US State Department protects national security concerns and at the same time covers all the facets of terrorism that other opinions and definitions deem necessary.
References
Bobbitt, P. (2008). Terror And Consent. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Momayezi, N., & Momayezi, M. L. (2017). Suicide Terrorism: Motivations beyond Religion.
The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 1-18.
Rapaport, D. C. (2002). The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism. Anthropoetics, 1-19.
Sinai, J. (2008). How to Define Terrorism. Perspectives on Terrorism, 1-2.
Stampnitzky, L. (2013). Disciplining Terror. Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, C. (2004). Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists. Sociological Theory, 22(1), 5-13.
United States Department of State. (2003). Patterns of Global Terrorism. Washington, DC:
Office of the Secretary of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
Hi Zoe,
ReplyDeleteI must say, this is extremely well written. I totally agree with your point on the definition of non-combatants vs civilians vs non-state actors and how fuzzy this can be, especially if it might be in our best interest in terms of national security. Looking ahead at the syllabus, I think we me begin to unpack that question a little bit more. Keep this question on the docket.
There are two things that you mentioned in which I have questions. In your essay you mentioned a "legitimate army". I don't understand what this means, because armies (at least in my mind) are state entities. In recognizing the opposing side in terms such as "opposition forces" or "rebel group(s)" are used. Are you trying to ask the question of who has access to a legitimate use of violence? (Hobbes/Locke?) Additionally, what do you mean by justified attacks on governments?
I like how you set up your thesis in the first paragraph, first discussing the lack of cohesive argument and then moving on to a definition that you do agree with. I also like how you separated the definition into four separate points and then proceeded from there. Another part of your essay that I really enjoyed was that your second paragraph introduced the theorists that you would be discussing. This is something that I lacked in my essay. Lastly, I enjoyed your conclusion, that the State Department definition is a compilation of what the theorists believe. Awesome first essay!
ReplyDeleteZoe,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your essay, you made some great points! You brought up the uncertainty of whether acts of terrorism against a government are legitimate, and this ties into the conversation we had in class about Stampnitzky's argument of terrorists being labelled as evil or morally incompetent actors. I feel that we often resort to this moral standard of judging terrorist events because the definition of the term terrorism is so vague and open to interpretation. However, like Dan I am a bit confused on when the use of violence against a government is justified. At what point, if any, would the use of terror be reasonable?