Straying from the poetry for a jaunt in politics.
Published on September 18, 2005 By Death_By_Beebles In War on Terror
College life has presented me with a few wonderful courses, one of which is "International Relations and Politics" This class has a required text based on the history, motivations, definitions and actions of terrorists and terrorism. I'm citing it down in the bottom, but I'd like to share some of my learning with a little bit of opinion on the side.


As the second term of George W. Bush's presidency moves forward past the "end" of the war in Iraq, and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and all focus is pointed now at the victims of Katrina, I find a few of my recent observations disturbing. What I see these days in our "War on Terror" is that some people are not even sure what terrorism is. Sure, they can buttonhole certain people like Osama Bin-Laden or Idi Amin and can pick out organizations like al-Queda or the IRA, but can they really define terrorism? So, to see if you can define terror, let me give you a quick two question quiz.

Do you know who Idi Amin was?

Raise your hand if you don't know (Googling him after the question doesn't count). Then lower it, because none of us can see you, and you're scaring the guy sitting next to you at the hot spot. I'd invite you to take a look at his actions in Africa. Learning a little bit of history probably won't hurt you.

(Now for the real question)

Were the actions at Columbine terrorism?


Indeed, it is a loaded question, but the true answer here is no. The answer is no, not because the violence isn't "violent" enough, or the deaths weren't "enough", but rather because although terrorism has a very broad base of thought in American public view, it is actually a specific type of act. A car bombing, although killing many civilians, can be considered a non-terrorist act. So, in that vein, what is a terrorist, and what is a terroist act?

Terrorism is not a broad term. Although it encompasses many different actions, each terrorist act has to have four specific qualifications to even be considered terrorist. Terrorism is an act of violence with a political motive or goal, perpetrated against innocent persons, and is staged to be played before and audience whose reaction of fear and terror is the desired result. Under this working international definition of terrorism, a carbomb specifically laid out to kill American soldiers at a cafe or restaurant is not terrorism, but rather an act of guerilla warfare, because terrorism has to be perpetrated against innocent persons.

Keeping that in mind, what is a terrorist? Obviously, a terrorist is a person that uses terrorism to further their gains towards a political acheivement. But, in that case, how many terrorist acts make a person or group a terrorist? For instance, organizations like the Earth Liberation Front and Persons for the Equal Treatment of Animals have attacked and destroyed animal testing facilities. These groups are not considered terrorist organizations, but have commited terrorist activites to swing a political opinion. The question then becomes "What is a terrorist?" A terrorist is a person that uses terrorist activites to help their politcal stances, and ironically enough, are only given Terrorist status by the people they terrorize. The people decide who is considered a terrorist by the amount of violence that they was a public can tolerate.

That all being said, I find it troubling that we as a nation can not define terror and yet we're at war with it. The Patriot Act, which limits the rights of all American citizens, is in place largely due to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th and yet the majority of the United States does not know what terrorism truly is. Random terror is a daily occurance in the Middle East. Tyrants continually terrorize their own people. If we as a nation do not know what we are up against and how it acts, then how can we defeat it?


Sources:

Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century - 4th ed., Combs, Cindy C.


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Sep 18, 2005
Good point. Like others before you, we're finally getting the drift of where our foreign policy is leading us into.
on Sep 18, 2005
Terrorism is a tactic

you don't go to war against a tactic
on Sep 18, 2005
Terrorism is a tactic

you don't go to war against a tactic


You can go to war against perpetrators of said tactic, but when borders are blurry and hard to define, war becomes a harder thing to accomplish. That is why policy now attaches a place to the war. If there is no place, we are in an ideological war like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, and if that is the case, then conventional troops will not be able to fight an unconventional war.
on Sep 19, 2005
amazingly i gotta almost agree with evorg. the phrase war on terror is redundant cuz war is terrorism. it makes even less sense than killing for peace.
on Sep 19, 2005
You can go to war against a tactic by destroying the powers that employ the tactic.

on Sep 19, 2005
You can go to war against a tactic by destroying the powers that employ the tactic.


I'd ask you to read my reply to Evorg's comment. As I've already said, going against powers that employ terrorist tactics is not as clean cut as it sounds. Oversimplifying things means you make mistakes. The problem here is that there really is no such thing as a terrorist group, but rather just a group that becomes labeled as terrorist for using terrorist tactics frequently.

If we destroy the powers that employ terrorism, should we destroy Palestine or Isreal first? (Loaded question obviously, but both fit your specified criteria.)
on Sep 19, 2005
"If we destroy the powers that employ terrorism, should we destroy Palestine or Isreal first? (Loaded question obviously, but both fit your specified criteria.)"

The question is not so much loaded as it is a non-sequitur. Israel does not employ terrorism. You'll have to change the definition of "terrorism" first. But that would somehow destroy the idea of fighting it, wouldn't it?

And come to think of it "Palestine" does not employ terrorism either. At least the PLO and PA claim they do not. It's Hamas and a few other groups that do. "Palestine", aka the PA officially fight them.
on Sep 19, 2005
Welcome to 1984--beware the thought police, lest they mark you too as a "terrorist."


Although I don't believe we've slipped that far down (America is not such a negative utopia) I think it is important that we know what we are doing domestically and overseas.

I think they are indeed considered terrorist organizations by various law enforcement agencies. As a matter of fact, I wrote about a dumb-ass not long ago who was facing life imprisonment for freeing a bunch of minks from a commercial mink farm


Quite an interesting article. As American citizens, I think we should be concerned with the Patriot Act and the loss of rights that we have taken to be safe.

A nice side note, but there are more car accident deaths in the United States every year than there are global deaths from terrorist activities. Not that terrorism is something to discount because loss of inoccent life is always a tragedy, but media constantly overdramatizes certain events, which in turn actually helps the terrorist build their aura of fear.
on Sep 19, 2005
And come to think of it "Palestine" does not employ terrorism either. At least the PLO and PA claim they do not. It's Hamas and a few other groups that do. "Palestine", aka the PA officially fight them


Since 1994, Palestinians and Israelis have both engaged in terrorist activites. Governmental agencies hold little sway over public opinion, where HAMAS is supported by Palestinian civilians. When two nations try to occupy the same piece of land, and will accept only that piece of land, problems undubiably arise, and violence escalates into a cyclical pattern. As to Palestine, its people view Israel as a occupying force, and by their showings of car bombings and Israel's counterterror, it is clear that peace will be difficult to achieve at best.
on Sep 19, 2005
Since 1994, Palestinians and Israelis have both engaged in terrorist activites.


Yes. That is true. But the Israelis that were thus engaged have not been supported by the government of Israel and are considered criminals. So I still do not see your point.

I don't care about whether Palestinians view Israel as an occupying force. I have lived in an occupied country, and because neither I nor the rest of the population were engaged in constant terrorism against Kindergartens of the occupying power, we've had little trouble with the occupation.

You seem to think that occupation is a bad thing per se. It is not.
on Sep 19, 2005
In the case of Palestinians vs. Israel, this is a big deal. Occupation in this situation means that each side does not have what it wants, ie. its theological homeland. Especially where religious fanaticism is concerned, this is a big deal. Because neither side has what it truly wants, the people of these areas become disenfranchized, which makes it hard for the Palestinian Authority to truly control its own people. This is also a problem for the Israeli government as well.

As to my views on occupation, that is a different blog and a different time. While one type may be a positive working force, anothe can be the complete opposite. You seem to be infering that your personal experience with one form of government seems to transcend another. This is certainly not the case, as no two cases are exactly similar. So, for you, occupation may be a fine thing. It may be good for both parties, etc. For the Palestinians and Israelis... it's not.
on Sep 19, 2005
Interesting article, DBB.

Terrorism is an act of violence with a political motive or goal, perpetrated against innocent persons, and is staged to be played before and audience whose reaction of fear and terror is the desired result


DBB--is this your definition, or the textbooks? Very well thought out if it is your own.

I had an interesting conversation recently about the rise in use of the word "terrorism" and how it is employed to discount the motivations of the groups who we label as such. Definining something as "terrorism" or someone as a "terrorist" immediately ends any discussion about the legitimacy of their political views and the perceived necessity of force when it seems that no other tactics work. This is particularly true when we are talking about groups that utilize "terrorist" acts against "legitimate" Governments. All to often in the public arena we turn a blind eye to state sponsored terrorism (ie., what the IDF does to Palestinians is not considered the same as what militant Hamas does to Israelis. The actions of the British state were not viewed the same as the actions of the various paramilitaries in Northern Ireland--though in both cases innocent cilivians were the victims).

At what point does a paramilitary organization gain the right to declare war on what they believe to be their oppressors? Why do legitimate states get to use violence (and declare civilian causalties as collateral damage)?

In my opinion, the very use of the phrase "war on terror" is used to strike fear into the American people--if we talk about it long enough and cite it often enough, eventually Americans are going to be fearful and have to agree that we need to do something. I don't believe taht al-Qaeda is one group that we could successfully infiltrate and bring down (I do wish it were that easy!)--rather, I think that al-Qadea is a mentality that we are perpetuating with the War on Terror.
on Sep 19, 2005
In the case of Palestinians vs. Israel, this is a big deal. Occupation in this situation means that each side does not have what it wants, ie. its theological homeland. Especially where religious fanaticism is concerned, this is a big deal. Because neither side has what it truly wants, the people of these areas become disenfranchized, which makes it hard for the Palestinian Authority to truly control its own people. This is also a problem for the Israeli government as well.


The fact that it is hard for the PA to control its own people is a problem for Israel. It is in fact the reason why Israel kept the areas occupied for so long.

AS LONG and UNTIL the Arabs don't give up their dream of destroying Israel and throwing all the Jews in the sea, Israel doesn't really have many options.

Letting the Arabs kill all the Jews is NOT an option. I do agree that it would solve the problem though.
on Sep 19, 2005
The fact that it is hard for the PA to control its own people is a problem for Israel. It is in fact the reason why Israel kept the areas occupied for so long.


Which came first, the occupation or, as you imply, the "unruly" Palestinians? It's a chicken and the egg situation, and it is pretty hard to deny that the occupation plays into the "unruly-ness" of the people. It's pretty hard to incite law and order when you are being undermined by the occupying government (bombing out police stations, for example, does little to help the PA "control" its people.
on Sep 19, 2005
To me terrorism is a way to influence people to think the way you want to, instill fear to control you.

All the above are aided by violence of any kind, threats,included.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last