Defining Terrorism

If raft around the world were surveyed and asked to subt lay off act of panicism, the answers would be listenmingly endless. It has been said, one mans terrorist is another mans liberty fighter. From culture to culture, people view act of terrorism in a different way. An inherent interpretation of terrorism would be the act of creating terror, sinlessly not e trulyone is terrified of the same thing. So how then is it possible to make do up with one comment for the record book? A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that coer a total of 22 different definitional elements. 1 In the book ca usance act of terrorism, the author Anthony Marsella comes up with four line of works associated with efforts to define terrorism today (a) in that location have been historical repositions in the definition, (b) media and states have been inconsistent in their apply of the marge, (c) in that location be multip le definitions across agencies even within a single country such as the United States, and (d) there is world-wide disagreement on the definition of the term. 2 Some views of terrorism say that it moldiness have political goals, while other do not rely this.Some views state that it must be opens or civilians who are the victims, while other definitions do not rely this. Another argument is whether or not the terrorists must be non-state actors. Definitions are different based on whether they were created for legal purposes or international agencies. In this paper, I will go through virtu wholey of the different arguments in order to provide a clearer sense of what terrorism truly means in this day in age. Most books written on terrorism begin by freehanded a definition of the word in the authors tactual sensation in order to put it into context for the remainder of the book.The entire branch chapter of Bruce Hoffmans book indoors act of terrorism is dedicated to trying to define terrorism. terrorist act now seems to be a opus of our e very(prenominal)day life. It appears as though every act of violence is perceived as existence terrorism. Every time violence occurs people immediately return terrorism. The term terrorism is so hard to define and there is so a lot hostility about how to define it that it is easy to make the assumption that every violence is terrorism. At the same time, because of the controversy, many media sources are reluctant to use the word. Instead, they give storms different titles.The Oxford Canadian Dictionary defines terrorism as the dogmatic employment of violence and intimidation to coerce a regime or community, especially into acceding to unique(predicate) political demands. 3 This definition might satisfy Hoffman because he conceives it must be stressed that terrorism is the use or nemesis of violence to fulfill a political aim. 4 Without a political aim, there cannot be terrorism. Nor can there be terror ism without the threat or use of violence. Hoffman believes it is difficult to define terrorism because of its ever-changing meaning passim history.A eventor that makes delimit terrorism difficult is that the definition has changed over time. The buffer definition of the word is no retentiveer the definition utilise today. The word originally gained support during the French Revolution as part of the Reign of Terror. The purpose was to browbeat people in order to save further revolutions from occurring. The terror was created by the state. Although the definition has changed since the Reign of Terror, there are two points that are similar in todays definition. First, the regime de la terreur was neither random nor indiscriminate, as terrorism is often visualised today, save was organized, deliberate, and systematic. 5 Terrorists plan out their attacks, they are not random or spur of the moment. Targets in present day are often chosen based on what will receive the virt ually media attention. Second, its goal and its very mediocreification was the creation of a new and better society in place of a fundamentally corrupt and undemocratic politically system. 6 plain put, terrorist attacks occur in order to achieve a political goal.Later, during the industrial Revolution, Carlo Pisacane argued that the most effective way to publicize his cause was through violence, and that no other means would generate the same amount of attention. 7 This revolutionary-style terrorism remained up until the First homo War. By the 1930s the meaning of terrorism had changed over again and was used to describe the practices of mass repression employed by totalitarian states and their authoritative leaders against their own citizens. 8 After the Second World War, the term returned to the original connation of a revolutionary type act.Up until the 1960s, terrorism was largely considered to be domestic. In the late 1960s and 1970s, terrorism began to work more internat ional. It is fundamental to discuss the terce types of terrorism international, domestic and new terrorism. Domestic terrorism is terrorism that takes place against people within your country. International terrorism is terrorism that takes place against people by a company that is not inborn to the country. young terrorism may have no political aims, but instead are more religious based and mainly furbish up themselves with destruction.The textbook The globalization of World Politics states that there are three factors that led to the birth of transnational terrorism the expansion of air pilgrimage the wider accessibility of televised news coverage and the broad common political and ideological interests. 9 These terrorist attacks initially took form in airplane hijackings, but as bail tightened up, the terrorists instead chose American targets in foreign countries. Since the September 11th attacks on the United States, international terrorism is mainly what people think of when they think of terrorism.Those attacks were very publicized and had a huge impact on international relations. As well as understanding the different types of terrorism, it is also all-important(prenominal) to distinguish the oddment between a terrorist, a guerrilla and a freedom fighter. The freedom fighter conducts a campaign to liberate his people from dictatorial oppression, gross disarmament, or the grip of an occupying power. 10 A guerrilla is competitiveness against a military and most importantly the terrorist goes after civilians. Any group can use terrorism to achieve their goals.In the book terrorism The New World aim, Fotion et al explain that there are take and broad views of terrorism. The narrower views insist that victims of terrorism must be innocent. A problem with the narrower view is that although it is most often innocents who are targeted by terrorists, they did not see a distinction. Whether they target a military organization or innocent civilian s, they are performing terrorist acts. Their objective does not change based on who they are attack from one day to the next. Their goal is to demoralize their opponent. It is very hard to differentiate the difference between a guerrilla and a terrorist.Although a guerrilla would be attacking military personnel, they could be designate differently based on their intentions. They could be attacking merely to push down and pervert their opponents or they could be attacking in order to scare the opponents into possibly retreating. By defining terrorism as only attacking civilians, it makes analyzing terrorism a lot more difficult. Fotion et al discussed the paradigmatic scheme, which represents the most generally accepted view of a terrorist attack. 11 An attacking group (or individual) victimizes some group of people by harming or killing them.The attackers then flying either before, during or after the victimizing event. Others, seeing what has happened to the victim group become terrorized (frightened, anxious, etc. ). We will call this the immediate effect or aftermath of the process of creating victims. While in their state of terror, they pressure their government to change its political outlook in a way that satisfies the goals of the attackers and, most likely, displeases the government and many of its people. This pressure and resulting changes count as the secondary effect or result of the victimization process. 12 The book terrorist act The New World Order points out that the word terrorism is seen as having negative connotation, so those who are often labelled as such, would try and find a definition that does not apply to them. 13 Those labelled terrorists by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultu res. 14 In the past, people did not hide seat these labels and proclaimed themselves as terrorists and their tactics to be terrorism. 15 This inability for people to make out they are terrorists makes coming up with a definition near impossible. Robert Keeley wrote an entire article about trying to define terrorism. In this article he pointed out that freedom fighters and terrorists are two different things, however freedom fighters often use terrorism. 16 Keeley believes aims of terrorism include to advertise for the terrorists cause and to weaken morale on the attacked side and build up morale on the attacking side. 17 Because of the pejorative connotation of the word, during state of warfare, groups often label their opponents as terrorists in order to gain more support for their own side. This furthers the difficulty of defining terrorism, as everyone wants to say their opponent is a terrorist, which makes everyone a terrorist. At the end of his article, Keeley did not seem t o be any closer to finding a true definition than at the beginning. In the book Terrorism Origins and Evolution, Lutz and Lutz say there are six main parts to defining terrorism.They believe that violence is directed to political ends and that there must in fact be violence or a serious threat of violence. Terrorism must affect a wide range of people, not just the victims of the action. People need to be aware when a terrorist act has happened there must be an audience. If no one is aware of an occurrence, then the attack has failed. Terrorism is organized and it is performed by a non-state actor. It is important to note the difference between war and terrorism.In simplest words, a war is a negate between two organized groups. The difference between a war and terrorism is that terrorism occurs by a non-state organization. In recent years, with the availability of the Internet, it has become much easier for terrorists to spread their ideas. It is now simpler to gain the audience tha t is requisite to be a successful terrorist. Finally, they believe that terrorism is a machine of the weak. Terrorist acts occur when the terrorists have no other options in order to achieve their political goals. 18Though there are many definitions for the word terrorism, it seems that all the definitions stressed that it is political in nature. The act is used to achieve a political aim through the means of violence. Terrorists do not necessitate extensive supplies and the goal is to gain support and demoralize their opponent. As long as those who may be seen as terrorists find other name calling to describe themselves, unwilling to admit that they are a terrorist, I believe it will continue to be difficult to agree on a specific definition. With no one willing to admit to being a terrorist, the word becomes completely subjective.There will always be controversy over finding one definition, especially with the new terrorism in which religion plays a huge role. These terrorists want nothing, but to create terror and cause destruction. They do not fit in the accepted definition of violence with a political motive, yet what they are doing is creating terror and wherefore should be considered terrorism. People will find ways to describe themselves as anything but, and their opponents will try to stress that they are in facts terrorists. Terrorism is finally a form of psychological warfare, nd it is designed to induce fear. 19 BIBLIOGRAPHY Baylis, John, and Steve Smith. globalisation of World Politics an Introduction to International Relations. 3rd ed. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2005. Bisset, Alex, ed. Terrorism. The Canadian Oxford bound Dictionary. Oxford Oxford UP, 2000. Fotion, Nicholas, Joanne K. Lekea, and Boris Kashnikov. Terrorism The New World Disorder (Think Now). New York Continuum International Group, 2008. Hoffman, Bruce. inner Terrorism. New York Columbia University Press, 2006. Jackson, Robert, and Georg Sorensen.Introduction to Inter national Relations Theories and Approaches. 3rd ed. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2007. Keeley, Robert V. toilsome to Define Terrorism. Middle east Policy IX. 1 (March 2002) 33-39. Lutz, James Michael, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism Origins and Evolution. New York Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Moghaddam, Fathali M. , and Anthony J. Marsella, eds. understanding terrorism psychosocial roots, consequences, and interventions. Washington, DC American Psychological Association, 2004. Terrorism Research Center, What is the Definition of Terrorism? (n. . ) Available from Charles Townshend, Terrorism A really Short Introduction (Oxford Oxford University Press, 2002). Whittaker, David J. Terrorists and terrorism in the contemporary world. London Routledge, 2004. 1 Fathali Moghaddam et al. Understanding terrorism psychosocial roots, consequences, and interventions. (Washington American Psychological Association, 2004), 14. 2 Fathali Moghaddam et al. Understanding terrorism, 15. 3 Alex Bisset , ed. Terrorism. The Canadian Oxford Paperback Dictionary. (Oxford Oxford UP, 2000), 1085. 4 Bruce Hoffman. Inside Terrorism. (New York Columbia University Press, 2006), 3. 5 Hoffman. Inside Terrorism, 4. 6 Hoffman. Inside Terrorism, 4. 7 Hoffman. Inside Terrorism, 5. 8 Hoffman. Inside Terrorism, 14. 9 John Baylis et al. Globalization of World Politics an Introduction to International Relations. 3rd ed. (Oxford Oxford University Press, 2005), 482. 10 David J Whittaker. Terrorists and terrorism in the contemporary world. (London Routledge, 2004), 4. 11 Nicholas Fotion et al. Terrorism The New World Disorder (Think Now). New York Continuum International Group, 2008), 4. 12 Fotion et al. Terrorism The New World Disorder, 4. 13 Fotion et al. Terrorism The New World Disorder, 1. 14 Hoffman. Inside Terrorism, 20. 15 Hoffman. Inside Terrorism, 21. 16 Robert V Keeley. Trying to Define Terrorism. Middle East Policy IX. 1 (March 2002) 34. 17 Keeley. Trying to Define Terrorism, 36. 18 James M. Lutz et al. Lutz, James Michael, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism Origins and Evolution. (New York Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 9. 19 Lutz et al. Terrorism Origins and Evolution, 8.