Terrorism Definitios
Essay Preview: Terrorism Definitios
Report this essay
Definition
Criticisms of the term
Jason Burke, an expert in radical Islamic activity, has this to say on the word “terrorism”:
“There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as the use or threat of serious violence to advance some kind of cause. Some state clearly the kinds of group (sub-national, non-state) or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term war on terrorism is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term militancy. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way.” (“Al Qaeda”, ch.2, p.22)
Other arguments include that:
There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries.
Almost every serious attempt to define the term have been sponsored by governments who instinctively attempt to draw a definition which excludes bodies like themselves.
Most groups called “terrorist” deny such accusations. Virtually no organisation openly calls itself terrorist.
Many groups call all their enemies “terrorist”.
The word is very loosely applied and very difficult to challenge when it is being used inappropriately, for example in war situations or against non-violent persons.
It allows governments to apply a different standard of law to that of ordinary criminal law on the basis of a unilateral decision.
There is no hope that people will ever all agree who is “terrorist” and who is not.
The term as widely used in the West reflects a bias towards the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as “defence”, even when that claim is considered dubious by some; any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labelled “terrorism”.
If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents perceive them, such labels would be very controversial, for example:
State of Israel, USA, but also the states of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban
The Contemporary Palestine Liberation Organization
Groups conducting revolution, such as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), are routinely denigrated as “terrorist”
Almost all guerrilla groups (like Tamil Tigers or Chechen rebels) are accused of being “terrorist”, but almost all guerrilla groups accuse countries they fight against of likewise