Thread: Defining Terrorism

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

The key term in most definitions of Terrorism is the use of the term "Unlawful" violence. As mentioned while the State has the monopoly on violence in international law, where does that leave the terror state? If it is using unlawful violence against it's own citizens (Recent killings in Iran for example and Irans open state sponsorship of Terrorism) would an armed resistance against that regime be considered terrorism?

I'd suggest if it were targeting only military or police then I suppose it would not be considered terrorism in the real sense of the word as no civilians are being targeted.

Originally Posted by devilish

I'd suggest if it were targeting only military or police then I suppose it would not be considered terrorism in the real sense of the word as no civilians are being targeted.

In this country the police are civilians and there is no legit reason as to why they should be a target of any violent group.

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

The key term in most definitions of Terrorism is the use of the term "Unlawful" violence. As mentioned while the State has the monopoly on violence in international law, where does that leave the terror state? If it is using unlawful violence against it's own citizens (Recent killings in Iran for example and Irans open state sponsorship of Terrorism) would an armed resistance against that regime be considered terrorism?

If not directly via the CIA, I wouldn't be at all surprised if any such group that sprung up in Iran would be partly-funded by some organisation within the US, be it paramilitary, humanist, spiritual or even female emancipationist there will be some group putting money in the tin.
They will generally be viewed as freedom fighters fighting to throw off the yoke of oppression. If they kept their fight within Iranian borders and didn't seek to blow up planes in International Airspace or carry out hits on foreign soil then I should imagine they will receive a fair amount of support both in the Middle East and the West.

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

I was thinking of using the following simplified definition.

Non state terrorism: When a minority uses unlawful violence or intimidation against the majority to obtain political power or influence.

State terror: When a government uses unlawful violence and intimidation against its people to keep political power.

Valid point. For what it's worth, here's an extract from one of my essays for MSc:

Wilkinson states that terrorism is just one tactic available in the insurgent’s repertoire. Depending on the scale of the insurgency, it can be used on its own, or in conjunction with other more conventional tactics such as guerrilla warfare and full scale military battles. However, terrorist tactics are not the sole preserve of terrorist organisations, and so Wilkinson develops his theory further by differentiating between violence carried out by Governments, individuals and small groups. When committed by such groups, the violence is generally referred to as terrorism; but when the exact same tactics are adopted by a state to repress sections of its own population, the violence is simply referred to as terror.

[Wilkinson P, (2002): Terrorism Versus Democracy, the Liberal State Response (2nd Ed): Frank Cass, London.]

Originally Posted by John_Mosby

IMO, accountability, targeting, and the end goal of an organization is what delineates a terrorist from all others.

Terrorist organizations are loyal to no state, nation, or accountable government. Only their own internal leadership. While they may get funded from governments, none will take proper ownership of them, hence avoiding being accountable for their actions.

They do not openly carry arms, wear any type of distinctive uniform, carry identification, or carry out their operations openly. ALL to avoid accountability for their actions.

Terrorists rarely select targets that do anything significant for their cause besides create shock value, and they use murder and torture to maintain their secrecy. They wantonly murder innocent people in their operations, despite the fact that those they kill can NOT effect the changes they desire. Even when they do attempt to target military or police, the methods of engagement are generally more hazardous to innocent bystanders than to the intended target. They don't care.

Lastly, the end goals of a terrorist organization, and the manner selected to obtain those goals, are generally not accepted, or desired, by the majority of citizens. Citizens will indeed use violence to achieve their goals, however, the violence used must be justified by the perceived benefit when that goal is reached.

Terrorist organizations are small and cellular because the goal of the organization, and the means they use to obtain those goals, are not supported by the people, hence, the organizations can not get the manpower and support they need if they were legitimate.


When no nation, state, or masses of the people will support you, and you are accountable to no one but your group, when you are intentionally and indiscriminately killing men, women, and children, and when you can't raise a force large enough to take on more than a squad sized element and must hide among the populace like a cockroach, you just might be a terrorist.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with pretty much all of that, and can think of many examples which don't fit your criteria.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

Originally Posted by devilish

The wilful act of instilling fear and panic into law abiding citizens by use of violence for political ends.


Well that what I define it as.

Succinctly put and in the same ball park as the academic, Walter Laquers definition.

The problem is the politicians are loathe to use such a definition because it puts most of them in the frame. Hence the many differing definitions.

But if you look at it realistically, they are in the frame, regardless of what they wish to call it. There's no denying that armies cross the line now and again, Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of that.

MsG

Are you suggesting that the US or any other western army willfully engaged in terrorizing the Iraqi populace and directly targeted civilians for political gain?

By Iraqi definition, having had a rifle, then hiding said rifle, then getting snubbed, does not equate to a civilian being targeted.

Careful, they may take away your tinfoil hat and soap box.


Terrorism, as I define it is like porn: You will know it when you see it.

Directly and willfully targeting non-military objectives to extract maximum psychological effect from a populace in an effort to achieve a political outcome.

Case in point: Taking a child from a parent of 4 and then baking him in an oven and serving to the parents while telling them that the rest will share the same fate if they do not comply is along those lines.

Going into an open market with not a one military target in sight and blowing yourself up with ball bearings laced with rat poison to stop blood from clotting is another example.

Originally Posted by John_Mosby

IMO, accountability, targeting, and the end goal of an organization is what delineates a terrorist from all others.

Terrorist organizations are loyal to no state, nation, or accountable government. Only their own internal leadership. While they may get funded from governments, none will take proper ownership of them, hence avoiding being accountable for their actions.

They do not openly carry arms, wear any type of distinctive uniform, carry identification, or carry out their operations openly. ALL to avoid accountability for their actions.

Terrorists rarely select targets that do anything significant for their cause besides create shock value, and they use murder and torture to maintain their secrecy. They wantonly murder innocent people in their operations, despite the fact that those they kill can NOT effect the changes they desire. Even when they do attempt to target military or police, the methods of engagement are generally more hazardous to innocent bystanders than to the intended target. They don't care.

Lastly, the end goals of a terrorist organization, and the manner selected to obtain those goals, are generally not accepted, or desired, by the majority of citizens. Citizens will indeed use violence to achieve their goals, however, the violence used must be justified by the perceived benefit when that goal is reached.

Terrorist organizations are small and cellular because the goal of the organization, and the means they use to obtain those goals, are not supported by the people, hence, the organizations can not get the manpower and support they need if they were legitimate.


When no nation, state, or masses of the people will support you, and you are accountable to no one but your group, when you are intentionally and indiscriminately killing men, women, and children, and when you can't raise a force large enough to take on more than a squad sized element and must hide among the populace like a cockroach, you just might be a terrorist.

One example alone kills most of your definition. Adolf Hitler.

Buzz bombs, Carpet Fire bombs over London, et al. I would consider that a terrorist act.

First Gulf War, Saddam firing missiles at Israeli civilian cities... again, terrorism.

Both, entire countries devoted to the tactic.

Bugger, just wrote a mahoosive post on the problems of trying to define terrorism and lost it.

Meanwhile the problems are:

1. There are as many definitions of terrorism as there are national governments and international organisations trying to define its meaning.

2. In the US there is no one definition throughout the organs of the US Government. For example the definitions used by the FBI and DoD are very differnent.

3. In the 1980s Scmid & Jongman identified 109 definitions and it is likely that today there are twice as many.

4. Since the 1972 Munich Olympic Games the international community in the form of the UN has been trying to produce a definition acceptable to all. Despite the existance of 12 international conventions relayting to terrorism an explicit definition has yet to be identified.

5. The UN Terrorism Prevention Branch uses:

An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby - incontrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main target. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat-and-violence based communication processes between terrorist (organisation), (imperilled) victims and main targets are used to manipulate the main targets (audiences), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.

6. The short version used by the UN Anti-Terrorism Branch is "an act of terrorism = a peace-time equivalent of a war crime".

7. Although the short definition might be appealing it does lead one into the legal moinefields of what constitutes a war crime.

8. Meanwhile the quest to define terrorism has been drawn into the wider Arab-Israeli conflict with the 57 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference rejecting "any attempt to link terrorism to the Palestinian people..... [w]e reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism.

9. The two foremost acts of mass terrorism, the Nazi regime and the Siviet Great Terror are hardly thought of examples of terrorism in a world where the image of the masked gunman and fanatiocal Islamist has imbedded itself in people's conciousness.

A large chunk of my dissertation was spent on this subject. Do not forget that terrorism has many guises and forms, as well as the obvious, including:

repression, deception, racism, sexual exploitation, regulation, control of information, surveillance, the invasion of privacy, suspension of personal liberties, and the corruption of ideals.

However, typical terroist crimes are those involving, systematic genocide and massacres, random murder and wounding, mutilation, selective murder and wounding, torture, forced suicide of victims forced to take part in terrorist acts, depopulation and ethnic cleansing, political purges, the destruction or damage of structures, resources and property, hi-jacking, kidnapping, hostage taking, racketeering, extortion and drug trafficking, disruption of information networks, the poisoning of consumer goods, brainwashing and psychological warfare.

Both, entire countries devoted to the tactic.

And both were held accountable for their actions, as it was perfectly clear that the respective government entities funded, ordered, and provided the agents to conduct the attacks in their names.

The same can not be said for terrorist attacks as they are accountable to none but themselves.

Originally Posted by ancienturion

Originally Posted by devilish

I'd suggest if it were targeting only military or police then I suppose it would not be considered terrorism in the real sense of the word as no civilians are being targeted.

In this country the police are civilians and there is no legit reason as to why they should be a target of any violent group.

Agreed, but in a dictatorship such as Iran/N. Korea, then the police are seen by the 'terrorist' as a tool of the state, therefore are a legitimate target.

"The use of violence or intimidation to further a political aim."