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.