What Is Terrorism?

Wendy Lucas

February 7, 2017

POL 357 - Global Politics of Terrorism

Terrorism Versus Violent Acts

“U.S. President George W. Bush declared that ‘our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated’ (State Department 2002a:i)“ (Tilly 2004), but it is currently 2017, and we, as a nation and global community, have yet to establish a single definition for the word terrorism. It seems that the term has been open to interpretation, and until there is a clear definition of terrorism that is universally confirmed and accepted, it will be difficult to classify violent acts as terrorism. The word is severely overused, and this is because, as previously mentioned, it is a word without a concrete, universal definition. Because it has been overly used, its value has been diminished. We, as a society, have been desensitized to its meaning. According to Lisa Stampnitzky, in her work called Disciplining terror: how experts invented “terrorism”, we have not been able to formulate a universal definition of the word “terrorism”, and in her opinion, we never will be able to do so. Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder, and we need to reflect and take into consideration the perspective in which the person who is identifying the act of terrorism is coming from. This is a crucial part of judging whether or not it is true terrorism.        

Terrorism is clearly something that involves terror. It may seem that it is obvious whether an act is an act of terrorism or not, based on the intention and the circumstances in which the act was committed, but when taking a closer look at the event, the lines become blurrier than anticipated.  But despite the confusion and gray area, educated researchers and writers have been able to produce a definition that strongly represents what terrorism is, from their perspective.

In “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists”, Charles Tilly categorizes terrorism as a tactic. It is purely a means to an end, and the end is a political, ideological, or religious, goal. If terrorism is simply a violent tactic, and a means to an end, then a terrorist is someone who is using that tactic to accomplish his or her political, ideological, or religious objective. An important factor to remember is that the event must be politically, religiously, or ideologically related or driven. In addition, the purpose of the violent event is usually to implement fear into a larger audience. Even with these specific guidelines, “terrorism” is a difficult term to define.

As Laura Clarke stated in her article, “Why has Defining Terrorism Proved so Difficult?”, “definitions find their use in application”. Therefore, the definition may vary depending on what situation it is being applied to. It is easy to say that terrorism is simply something that someone uses to accomplish a certain political goal. It is equally as easy to say that the purpose is to instill fear in a larger audience of spectators, rather than just the few victims. However, it becomes trickier to define such a term when you dissect each act independently. From the point of view of the victims, the act of 9/11, committed by Al Qaeda, is most definitely a violent act of terrorism. From the opposite point of view, however, this act was simply just a strategy that was used to further the group’s progress towards their religious goal. Al Qaeda “holds the goal of ‘seeking the violent transformation of an irremediably sinful and unjust world’” (Clarke). Osama bin Laden, the former leadership figure within the radical terrorist group, refers to the massacre of Westerners as ‘an individual duty for every Muslim,’[13]. (Clarke).

Using terror as a tactic to reach a certain goal, whether it be political, ideological, economic, or religious, is not a new strategy. If you look back into history, piracy was referred to as “terrorism of the sea”.  Pirates used violent actions to achieve their economic goals, which was to collect booty and riches. Piracy went through phases. It was legal when it was benefitting historical England, but then the law changed, and piracy was suddenly an illegal act. The legality of a violent act is unrelated to whether it should be referred to as terrorism, or as just another act of violence. For example, Kim Jong-Un uses terrorism as a tactic towards civilians, but in his country, he has deemed it legal, however, it is still terrorism. If his tactics were used within the United States, however, it would be viewed as illegal, and still be recognized, by some, as terrorism.

 The nature of the word “terrorism” is troublesome and problematic because it is nearly impossible to produce or invent a clear, and universally agreed-upon definition. To create a mutual understanding of the word is impractical when each terrorist act that occurs has a different set of margins and rules. How do we set guidelines for a word that is an umbrella for so many different and diversely violent acts? There are far too many cases of “terrorism” that are so different from each other and have such different natures, and this makes it impossible for anyone to attach a solid definition or a single identity to the word. If a single definition was created, there would be more specifics. With every new act of terror, exceptions to the rules and definition would come about. There would be more technicalities and specifics to be aware of and to consider.

In conclusion, there are several basic rules and guidelines that are attached to using the term terrorism. It is an obviously an act that immensely involves terror. The purpose of the act is to instill fear in an audience that involves others than just the victims. The act must be simply a tactic to accomplish a goal, and that goal must be economic, political, ideological, or religious. Whether or not the event is an act of terrorism is independent to the legality of the act. The intention of the act is important, but is not enough to classify the act into the category of terrorism. These circumstances and details are crucial to remember, but it is not only limited to those. There will never be exact perimeters of what can and cannot be labeled as terrorism, and therefore, we cannot confidently and wholeheartedly define an event as an act of terrorism.

                                                                      Works Cited

Clarke, Laura. "Why Has Defining Terrorism Proved so Difficult?" E-International Relations.   

            N.p., 14 May 2009. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

Stampnitzky, Lisa. “Disciplining terror: how experts invented ‘terrorism’” Cambridge

University Press. (2013).

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

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