Revision: What is Terrorism? - Wendy Lucas

Before I took The Global Politics of Terrorism, I did not have a clear definition of terrorism. What I did know is that terrorism involved the use of terror. I also understood that for an act to be considered an act of terrorism, the act needed to be motivated by political reasons. In addition, I understood that violence needed to be incorporated and that an important component of terrorism is instilling fear in the minds of civilians. Although I understood and recognized many of the components of terrorism, I came to the conclusion that the word “terrorism” was overused and therefore had lost some of its meaning. In addition, because each case of terrorism is unique and circumstantial, I had concluded that the world did not have a universal and agreed-upon definition of the word “terrorism”. I still do believe that this is the case and that there is no universal definition of the word, but I have constructed my own definition of “terrorism” during the course of the class.

A common debate is whether or not terrorism can be committed by state actors, rather than solely non-state actors. Some argue that what a state chooses to do, even if it may be horrific, is not ever considered terrorism. The state’s tactics may inflict terror and instill fear, and may even be political, but some believe that it is still not terrorism, and instead believe that the actions fit into some other category. In my opinion, terrorism can be committed by anyone, including a state. Anyone can be a victim of terrorism, and anyone can be a terrorist. My definition of terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence, intimidation, and fear, especially against civilians, by a state or non-state actor, in the pursuit of political or theological goals.”

Terrorism can be difficult to pinpoint. In “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists”, Tilly states, “We actually need a twofold distinction: first between violent specialists and others, and then between actors who deploy terror within their own operating territories and those who direct it elsewhere.” This statement can be interpreted in a few ways. One might argue that Tilly is expanding on the theory that terrorism can be committed by experienced terrorists, a common person, someone who is foreign to the targeted territory, and someone who belongs to the targeted territory. I, however, believe that this statement can be interpreted to mean that states and governments are not excluded from being terrorists. In addition, Tilly explains that “the terms terror, terrorism, and terrorist do not identify causally coherent and distinct social phenomena but strategies that recur across a wide variety of actors and political situations.” This sentence reiterates the fact that there is a “wide variety of actors and political situations”. I believe that state actors are included within this “wide variety of actors”, and that states can indeed participate or conduct terrorism.

In the past, North Korea, and its ruler Kim Jong Un, has been mentioned and used as an example to show that states can commit terrorism. Human rights in North Korea are severely limited, and sometimes are even nonexistent. The ways in which citizens are treated in the country are some of the worst in the world. North Korea is currently on the United States’ list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The fact that Kim Jong Un’s country is on this list is enough evidence to prove that states can commit terrorism. The fact that there is even a list of this kind shows the confusion about this topic. This debate, whether or not terrorism can be committed by state actors, may never be decided.

In conclusion, terrorism is something that is complicated and difficult to dissect and discuss. Terrorism is not purely black and white. There is plenty of gray area when it comes to terrorism because each individual case is unique and contains circumstances that are specific to that situation only. I do not believe that the world will ever agree upon one single definition for the word “terrorism”. There are different opinions about whether or not a state can commit terrorism, and that is a major component of defining terrorism. Without a consensus on that issue, “terrorism” will never have one single definition. Because each scenario of terrorism is different and unique, it is impossible to have one definition that would be efficient enough to cover all situations that could potentially be terrorism. Again, in my opinion, terrorism is the unlawful use of violence, intimidation, and fear, especially against civilians, committed by a state or non-state actor, in the pursuit of political or theological goals.

Works Cited 

"State Sponsors of Terrorism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 May 2017. Web. 05 

May 2017.

Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists” Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of       

           Terrorism: A Symposium. (Mar., 2004).

Defining Terrorism - Revised - Bobby Orokos

Bobby Orokos

May 5, 2017

Determining Terrorism - Final Essay

POL 357 - Global Politics of Terrorism

In the beginning of this class, I observed terrorism as a way for people to gain attention to their cause by invoking fear through rebellious, politically motivated, and strategic practices.  My ideas have stood in a similar place, with some key components being added: the importance of the targets, actors, and goals, the means of achieving goals, and the accessibility to governmental institutions.  I believe terrorism is classified using certain requirements, and later categorized by taking these classifications, and using them to evaluate the level of threat a person or organization holds against the public.

One case study to determining terrorism is the War on Terror, declared by President George W. Bush in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.  In order to determine whether this entity is terrorism, we must look at the TAGs, intent of actors, and access to governmental institutions.  The targets of the War on Terror are potential terrorists working against the United States, primarily people in the Middle East or active participants of Islam.  The primary actor in the War on Terror is the United States, both a state actor and a global hegemon.  The goal of the War on Terror is to eradicate terror throughout the world, and protect the United States from future terror attacks.  During the War on Terror, the United States had the intent of killing anyone and obtaining as much information as possible from people associated with forms of terrorism, especially any affiliates of al-Qaeda.  The overall goals of the United States declaration of War on Terror were to protect the homeland from another attack, the overall destruction of al-Qaeda, and the democratization of the Middle East.  The means of achieving its goals placed the United States in using tactics such as rendition to obtain targets, black sites to contain targets, and double tapping drone strikes to ensure the target they were after is hit, despite the likelihood of hitting civilian targets.  This combination of the intent and means of achieving the goal of eliminating terrorism can itself be viewed as terrorism.  Despite these, the United States is arguably the strongest democracy in the world, meaning there is plenty of access to governmental institutions.  However, being a state, this access is not measured through domestic access to institutions, but access to create change in the international system.  Although a superpower, through the United Nations, the United States is not able to create change as it pleases, putting it in a state of distress.  By destroying jurisdiction in these states, as seen in Syria and Iraq, the United States engaged in a new form of war, one in which jurisdiction is completely overtaken.  In this case, the line for war and terrorism is blurred, with many unsure of whether or not a state is capable of committing an act of terrorism.  Although the United States is a superpower, it has limited access to powers in the international system, putting them at a disadvantage.  By staying involved internationally, the United States builds up itself while taking away from the sovereignty of other states.  When applied on a domestic level, terrorist organizations are exactly that: outside groups with extreme ideas to influence change through violent means.  While the United States and the War on Terrorism are internationally viewed as “casualties of war”, had the United States been a domestic actor in these areas, they would be labeled terrorists because their actions taken throughout the War on Terror are identical to terrorist organizations and their campaigns to fight for their political goals.

Another case to look at is the instance of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).  The determination of whether or not this organization engages in acts of terrorism is seen through the three components observed earlier.  Starting with the TAGs of the group, the targets are formally identified as populations of people who are harmful to the environment, primarily organizations the profit off the destruction of nature.  The actors of the ELF are environmentalists dedicated to saving the environment through the punishment of those who harm it.  The goals are the group are to,  “1) To cause as much economic damage as possible to a given entity that is profiting off the destruction of the natural environment and life for selfish greed and profit, 2) To educate the public on the atrocities committed against the environment and life, 3) To take all necessary precautions against harming life” (Loadenthal, 2013).  As the means of achieving their goals, the ELF was dedicated to property destruction, but also vowed to stay away from harming life, despite using fear as a way to manipulate their targets to act in their favor.  Their approach to property damage is observed through primarily fires set to offices and workshops of corporations that contribute to deforestation and other environmental degradations.  By committing these actions, the ELF hopes to scare people out of damaging the environment.  The ELF, being a terrorist group in the United States, has access to arguably the greatest democracy in the world.  However, despite being a part of this great democratic system, the ELF is a minority group, and could be considered a faction, as observed in Madison’s Federalist 10.  United to oppress another group (people who harm the environment), the ELF holds many similarities to a faction, more so than they are to terrorists.  Despite their harmful actions against property, their actions are not even comparable to past terrorist attacks, such as the Orlando nightclub shooting or the 9/11 attacks, where the primary motivation of these attacks was to kill.  Using these comparisons, the ELF is considered as a unified oppressive group, but not the extent of a terrorist group, as their cause specifically stated their opposition to casualties to living beings.  It is because of this intent that the ELF is more a faction than a terrorist group.

Terrorism is a vague term applied to many situations, often some that are not the extent of terrorism.  My views of terrorism have changed since the start of the semester.  Originally, I viewed terrorism as a way for an oppressed group to gain attention for their causes and goals, but now I understand that terrorism is a combination of targets, actors, goals, intent, and access to create change within their system.  By studying these areas and analyzing groups that commit acts of terror, they can be classified as terrorist groups.  As seen with the War on Terror, terrorism is capable of being committed by a state.  As seen with the ELF, not all groups that commit violence are terrorists, but there are varying classifications of factions, insurgents, and terrorists.  Strongly built off of Lisa Stampninsky’s arguments of classifying terrorism, terrorism is a way to measure phenomena to declare who is an ally and an enemy in the public eye based off their actions.

Bibliography:

Loadenthal, Michael (2013).  The Earth Liberation Front: A Social Movement Analysis.  Retreived from http://journal.radicalcriminology.org/index.php/rc/article/view/13/html#sdfootnote1sym

Rapoport, D.  (2002).  Four Waves of Terror.  Anthropoetics - The Journal of Generative
Anthropology, Vol 12 (issue 1).  

Stampninsky, Lisa (2013).  Disciplining Terror.  PLACE OF PUBLICATION: Cambridge
University Press

Tilly, C.  (2004).  Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists.  Sociological Theory, Vol 22 (issue 1), p. 5-13.

USS Cole (October 6, 2016).  Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/world/meast/uss-cole-bombing-fast-facts/

Kennedy Muise

Professor Shirk

POL 357 B

5 May, 2017

What is Terrorism? (Revised)

               Throughout this course, many different cases of terrorism have been studied and analyzed, from 18^th century piracy, to the Irish Republican Army (IRA), to Al Qaeda, and many others. After revisiting my first essay on the topic, I recognized that my initial definition of terrorism does not deviate too much to what I think it is now, after having taken this course. My original definition of terrorism was: “a set of tactics used to inflict violence and fear onto noncombatants to obtain specific political goals, such as regime, territorial, and policy change, social control, and maintenance of the status quo.” While I still agree with this definition, I think it could be expanded further to include state and non-state actors. Terrorist actors and groups such as HAMAS and the French government during the Algerian War of Independence, have caused me to expand my original definition. Therefore, an even more concise definition of terrorism is a set of tactics used to inflict violence and fear onto noncombatants by state and non-state actors to obtain specific political goals, such as regime, territorial, and policy change, social control, and maintenance of the status quo.

               Before analyzing HAMAS and the French government according to the new definition of terrorism, I would like to review some of the main concepts I presented in my first essay. First, I explained that according to Michael Lewis, a combatant is part of the “‘armed forces of a Party to a conflict’”, a noncombatant is not a member of the military and keeps his/her civilian immunity by not participating in armed and violent acts, and a terrorist is a civilian who gives up his/her civilian immunity to inflict violence onto others (Lewis 227). Next, I explained that according to Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, terrorists have five main tactics and five main political goals. These tactics include attrition, intimidation, provocation, spoiling, or outbidding. However, for the analysis of HAMAS and the French government, I will only focus on the intimidation strategy, which is executed when failed or weak states are easily threatened and exploited, and the spoiling strategy, which is used to break apart peace agreements by developing mistrusting relations between the moderate leaders of terrorist groups and the government itself (Kydd and Walter 66-67, 74). In addition, the five political goals of a terrorist include regime, territorial, and policy change, social control, and maintenance on the status quo. To concentrate on HAMAS and the French government, I will only be looking at territorial change, which shows how a group wants to expand a state’s territory in hopes of creating a new state; social control, which includes threats; and the maintenance of the status quo, which involves constraining the rights of a certain population (Kydd and Walter 52).

               Through this quick review, most of the major parts of the new definition of terrorism have been defined again—the definition of a noncombatant and the explanation of a “set of tactics” and “specific political goals.” The last major component of the new definition involves the explanation of state and non-state actors which will be cleared up by analyzing two cases from this course: HAMAS and the French government during the Algerian War. These two cases will show that terrorism involves both state and non-state actors, and will demonstrate how the new definition of terrorism categorizes these two groups are terrorist organizations.

               First, HAMAS is an example of a terrorist organization that is a non-state actor because it inflicts fear onto noncombatants, uses the spoiling and intimidation strategy, and has the goal of territorial change. According to the HAMAS Charter, HAMAS is known as “a distinct Palestinian Movement which… strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” HAMAS is a non-state actor whose goals are heavily driven by Islamic beliefs. While HAMAS is an Islamic group, its main goal is to acquire Palestine because HAMAS members believe this land was taken from them by the Jews. By applying Kydd and Walter’s categorization of terrorists’ political goals, HAMAS’ goal can be categorized as territorial change. As mentioned, territorial change involves gaining territory. According to the HAMAS Charter, HAMAS “believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and…no one can renounce it…or abandon it.” While Palestine is shared between the Jews, Arabs, and Muslims, HAMAS believes that Palestine rightly belongs to them, according to the teachings of the Koran and the prophet Muhammad.

To achieve this goal of territorial change, HAMAS uses tactics that inflict violence on noncombatants, namely the spoiling and intimidation strategies. HAMAS employs the spoiling strategy by refusing to form peace agreements over Palestine land, simply because the members believe that peace resolutions “are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement” and that those resolutions are not “capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed [Muslims]” (HAMAS Charter). By rejecting all potential and current peace agreements made between Israel and other Muslim organizations, such as the PLO, HAMAS breaks apart any hopes for peace in the region; in addition, HAMAS causes a mistrusting relationship between Israel, the PLO, which is trying to establish effective peace agreements, and themselves. As an Islamic organization, HAMAS wants to “usurp” Palestine from the Jews through jihad which is “a duty [that binds] all Muslims” (HAMAS Charter). Due to the instability in the Israel-Palestine region, HAMAS had used the intimidation strategy to threaten and exploit the population living there. HAMAS has targeted, killed, and terrorized thousands of Israeli and Palestinian noncombatants, especially in Gaza, through kidnappings, stabbings, torture, beatings, shooting, and suicide bombings (Van Esveld). Therefore, due to these specific tactics, goals, and violence against civilians, HAMAS is a valuable example of a non-state terrorist organization.

The French government during the Algerian War is an example of a state terrorist group because it used the spoiling and intimidation strategy, and because it attempted to obtain the maintenance of the status quo. First, the French government was a colonial power that conquered Algeria, and ruled over the country for about 130 years, which shows that the French government is a state power (Thomas 218). Before the war of independence, the French government reacted to the revolt of Muslim Algerians during the Setif Massacre with “retributive violence of army, police, and settler vigilantes…to restore orderliness to colonial society” (Thomas 221). The Setif Massacre shows that the French government wanted to “maintain the status quo” by constraining the rights of the revolting individuals who wanted to secede from the French government’s colonial grasp. The massacre also demonstrates how the French government used violence against non-combatants through the spoiling and the intimidation strategies. While the French government fought against the FLN in later battles, it also targeted Algerian civilians and the Pied Noirs, in attempt to strike fear into the population and to again, maintain the status quo. During the Setif Massacre, the French government was partly responsible for over 20,000 deaths through assassinations, bombings, and killings (“French troops massacre thousands…”). In other battles, such as the Battle of Algiers, the French government was responsible for bombing and killing around 70 noncombatants, or those not involved with the FLN (Evans). The Setif Massacre and other battles “marked a turning point in the relations between France…and the Muslim population” and had a traumatic “impact on the Algerian Muslim population” (“French troops massacre thousands…”).  These details show how the French government employed the spoiling strategy, where it broke the trust of both FLN and the Algerian people because of its violent retaliation; they also show how the government employed the intimidation strategy by using fear and violence through bombings and mass killings throughout the war. Both of these tactics lead to the death of civilians. Therefore, the French government is a significant example of a state terrorist actor during the Algerian Civil War due to its tactics, goals, and violence against noncombatants.

               Most definitions of terrorism, such as that of the US State department definition, only involve non-state agents. However, the French government should be included in the definition of terrorism as a state actor. There is no reason why a state cannot be a terrorist; a state can employ any of the five tactics and political goals that Kydd and Walter explain in their academic work. A state can also incite fear onto a civilian population, and may even be more effective at it than a non-state actor. Therefore, a state can be a terrorist actor and the French government during the Algerian War is a telling example.

               The cases of HAMAS and the French government during the Algerian War of Independence show that my previous definition of terrorism needed to be expanded to include both state and non-state actors. Therefore, a more complete definition of terrorism describes: a non-state and/or state actor; their use of fear and violence against noncombatants; their specific tactics, such as attrition, intimidation, provocation, spoiling, or outbidding; and their political goals, such as regime, territorial, and policy change, social control, and maintenance of the status quo. As the cases of HAMAS and the French government demonstrated, each case of terrorism involves different contexts and circumstances, making terrorism a rather confusing and controversial topic. Nonetheless, defining terrorism concisely may allow global leaders and organizations to easily recognize and evaluate terrorist attacks and organizations, in order to implement more effective counter-terrorism strategies to ultimately maintain a more peaceful world.  

Works Cited

Evans, Martin. “The Battle of Algiers: Historical Truth and Filmic Representation.” Open Democracy. 18 December 2012. Web. Accessed 5 May 5, 2017.

“French Troops Massacre Thousands in Algeria After Demonstration at Setif Leads to Violence.” Palestine: Information with Provenance. Web. Accessed 3 May 2017.

Kydd, Andrew H, and Barbara F. Walter, “The Strategies of Terrorism.” International Security. MIT Press, Vol. 31, No. 1. 49-80. Print. Accessed 3 May 2017.

 

 Lewis, Michael W. “Examining the Legality of Unmanned Targeting.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics. Ed. John T. Rourke. McGraw-Hill, 2014. 226-231. Print. Accessed 3 May 2017.

“The Charter of the HAMAS.” Ariel Center for Policy Research. Web. Accessed 3 May 2017.

Thomas, Martin. “Violence in the Algerian War of Independence.” The Routledge History of Terrorism, ed. Randall D. Law, Routledge, 2015, 218-234.

Van Esveld, Bill, and Fred Abrahams, and Darryl Li. “Under Cover of War: HAMAS Political Violence in GAZA.” Human Rights Watch. 20 April 2009. Web. Accessed 3 May 2017.

What is terrorism

Brady Gambone

Prof. Shirk

5/1/17

What is Terrorism? 

Originally, my definition of terrorism was “Terrorism”: committing an act of violence to invoke fear by a non-state actor, that will conclude with a politically motivated decision by the target of the attack. A “terrorist” is someone who commits these acts of “terror”. I also believe that to classify something as terrorism or not, we must look at each act individually. For example, Abu Sayyaf is considered a terrorist group, however their acts of piracy are not in themselves terrorism. There executions, and bombings of civilian markets however, are. After taking this course, I am having trouble deciding if I agree with one part of my definition. Non-state actors. Originally, I believed states could not commit acts of terror. I no longer believe this. I wrote a blog post about how the War on Terror was not terrorism, and received some very intriguing responses.

The first part of my definition I still agree with. Terrorism must have some act of violence. 9/11, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Nice Paris attack, Presidential assassinations, and the burning down of Superior Lumber are all examples of terrorism. However, not all forms of violence are terrorism. A woman killing her husband because he cheated on her is not terrorism. This is a crime. I believe that all terrorism is a crime, but not all crime is terrorism. Piracy, kidnapping, murder, use of a weapon of mass destruction; these are all crimes. But only when they meet the remaining criteria should they be considered terrorist.

An act that does not involve violence, is not terrorism. For example, peaceful protests are not terrorism. One might argue they are an alternative to terrorism. Advocating for possibly the same things, but without the mass violence and cruelty, and therefore should not be considered terrorism. For example, every year in Texas, there is "Texas Muslim Capitol Day" where muslims come to protest, and speak to their representatives about changes they want. Some of these changes ISIS, or al-Qaeda advocate for, such as the right to practice their religion freely, to build mosques, and to wear what they want for religious purposes. Although no one in Texas is advocating for the banishment of other religions, some ideas do overlap. This however is not terrorism. They use peace and respect to advocate for what they want, not bombs strapped to people, or by ramming planes into towers.

The third and last part of my definition is, “that will conclude with a politically motivated decision by the target of the attack. “I still believe this to be true. Terrorist attacks are carried out for political reasons. For example, Daniel McGowan burned down Superior Lumber because he believed that the United States was not doing what it should be doing to combat climate change. He did not support businesses that contributed to climate change, and burned down the mill as an act of political defiance. This was a terrorist act of violence, done for a political response.

However, can a state be a terrorist? In my war on terror blog, I argued that drones were not terrorist in nature because they do not cause harm to anyone except terrorists. If you are a civilian there is nothing to be afraid of because it does not target you specifically. However, civilians do die in drone strikes. The concept of double tapping, when a drone will strike a target, then wait for people to come to the destroyed target, and strike again, is terrorism. It is not far-fetched to assume that the majority of the people who rush to the site are civilians there to provide help, not terrorists there to see their comrade’s dead bodies. It is difficult to label the United States as terrorist. I do not think we target civilians on purpose, however, there are aspects of are drone program such as double tapping that I would consider terrorist.

Overall, the only part of my definition I would change is that states can commit terrorism. My new definition of terrorism is: committing an act of violence to invoke fear by anyone, that will conclude with a politically motivated decision by the target of the attack. Even though states can commit terrorism, I think it is important to note, that a state can not be a terrorist, unlike individuals or organized groups. This would imply that everyone in the state is involved in the act of terror, however, it is clear that there are many in the U.S. who despise the drone program. For this reason, I believe only those who are directly involved in the act should be held accountable.

Blog #3 War on Terror Tactics

The War on Terror was declared by George W. Bush in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks took place. There are many parts and components to the War on Terror, including extradition, rendition, torture, drone strikes, and targeted killing or signature strikes. While the War on Terror is not terrorism, in itself, certain components of the War on Terror may be considered acts of terrorism. The major conflict in this debate is the varying opinions on whether a state can commit terrorism, but if one answers yes to that question, or if one disregards the question, it is clear that some of the tactics that the United States of America uses, in its War on Terror, especially black sites, torture, and targeted killing and signature strikes, can be considered acts of terrorism.

Black sites are areas of the world where the United States holds terror suspects far away from the US. These sites are often unregulated and usually consist of systems where fewer protection rights are included and considered. In these secret sites, what goes on is hidden and ignored, and although that may not be terrorism, terror undoubtedly takes place at these black sites, and it is very possible that there are inhumane conditions.

Torture is a tactic that is used either as a punishment, or as a strategy to extract information from a potential suspect, or someone who has valuable knowledge on a particular situation. When using torture as a tactic, officials will inflict severe pain on the person being interrogated to force the person to do something, or to say something of value. There are arguments for using torture as a tactic, and there are arguments that are against using torture as a tactic. When using torture as a tactic to gain information from a valuable and knowledgeable person, it does not always prove to be successful. A lot of times, the person being interrogated will answer the questions with false or misleading information. When a person is under extreme and stressful conditions, such as torture, the priority and more prominent goal is obviously to break free from the immense stress or pain. The person will say or do anything to get away quickly, including giving false information to the officials. If torture is not as useful and successful as it was once thought to be, then putting a person in a situation where he or she is facing extremely stressful and painful circumstances is unarguably a form of terror, and depending on the details, this can be seen as terrorism.

In other situations, torture and terror are used as a way to punish a person for an act that he or she has committed. This is unnecessary because if the person committed this crime, he or she should be tried fairly, and should be given a fair and just sentence.

Targeted killing, and signature strikes are very similar tactics, but are a bit different. Targeted killings are extrajudicial executions based on knowledge that the person committed a crime or attack. A signature strike, on the other hand, is when a suspect is killed based on a pattern of behavior that is consistent with terrorist activity. Civilians do become victims to these attacks sometimes. In addition, the information may not be 100% accurate. Targeted killing and signature strikes are two tactics that inflict immense terror onto people.