Terrorism More Properly Defined
The term terrorism is often misused, both by those who wish to purposefully obfuscate what it might mean, and also by those who have much more honest and good intentions, but in the end but do the term a disservice by not articulating why something many be considered a terrorist act.
Definitions in the dictionary are too vague and can be misapplied too readily.
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
This is a start, but it is not specific enough either. For one thing, the term 'lawful' is meaningless since any revolution would be considered unlawful as well, but the actions would not very well be the work of terrorists. Following the idea of revolutionaries, let's look further…
"… violence by a person or an organized group…", I'm still not seeing the difference between the the revolutionary and the terrorist.
"… against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments…" This still does not draw a distinction between the actions of a military force, a revolutionary, or a terrorist. Now some may say, "But to coerce a society or government is EXACTLY what terrorists want to do.", but to that I would reply, "And so did the Allies when we demanded the surrender of the Japanese after blowing up cities full of people. We could not kill every soldier, so we had to bring the national government and its people to their knees."
"… often for ideological or political reasons." This is slightly better since we moved for militarily reasons, though obviously politics and ideology mattered since we had to fight a Bushido-driven warrior class, but in the end what is missing? Something must be or all those leftist professors are right when they say that a terrorist to one is a freedom fighter to another.
The part that is missing is the purposeful killing of non-combatants as an primary method of reaching one's ends. This is why the term 'collateral damage' is so important - in any combat situation there will be non-combatant deaths, but the method in which this happens is of paramount importance. If the deaths happen because a military force is attempting to eliminate opposing forces then those deaths are not an act a terror, though to those affected the acts are terrible. If the deaths happen in a metropolitan subway and in and of itself is the 'attack' thus leading to the deaths of people simply living their lives, then the act should be considered a terrorist activity.
If one agrees with this idea of what terrorism is then we need to also back down on some other charges of terrorist that really are not. One would be the bombing of the USS Cole. This action may have even been done by a group known to use terrorist activity, but the target was not non-combatants, it was a military ship with military crew stationed in a foreign port.
As an American, I despise the attack and hope all are caught and dealt a similar fate, but by definition, it was not terrorism any more than a U-Boat attack at night during the Second World War.
The Barracks in Beirut in the 1980s is another non-terrorist act. Its mission was simple: Remove the US forces from the region by directly attacking them. While these people did in fact use methods commonly employed in terrorist attacks, the attack was once again against a military force - not non-combatants. And while some non-combatants might have died, it was not the focus of the attack, and the attack certainly would not have happened if the military force was no there. Again, as an American I despise it, but it does not fit the more accurate definition.
Why is such a definition important? Simply because if not then most violence in general is 'terroristic'. If someone gets in a fight at the schoolyard because there is a bully, then since the violence is being used to coerce someone on the ideological grounds that bullying is wrong, what does not fit the definition?
The current vague and general definition can be misused to stylize Israeli forces who knock down a house as terrorists, as well as when allied forces bombed German cities, and of course the use of nuclear bombs on Japanese population centers.
Yes, it can be argued that the bombing of German cities could be justified as an attempt to slow down the production of the German war machine, and it could not be helped if people living in cities like Dresden ended up dying, but then could not Osama also say the same thing about 9/11 as an attempt to strike at the economic muscle that drives our large and expensive military as well?
This is why the distinction must be made - if we do not define it as: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group with the designed and purposeful killing of non-combatants as an primary method of reaching one's ends - often as the means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, mainly for ideological or political reasons."
With this definition in place the leftists, nor terrorists, have any way of manipulating the moral high ground of arguments. Definitions are key because in this, and any other environment, people play on the lack of solid definitions, and the lack of popular understanding of various terms in an effort to manipulate those who do not possess clarity on the subject matter.
Definitions in the dictionary are too vague and can be misapplied too readily.
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
This is a start, but it is not specific enough either. For one thing, the term 'lawful' is meaningless since any revolution would be considered unlawful as well, but the actions would not very well be the work of terrorists. Following the idea of revolutionaries, let's look further…
"… violence by a person or an organized group…", I'm still not seeing the difference between the the revolutionary and the terrorist.
"… against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments…" This still does not draw a distinction between the actions of a military force, a revolutionary, or a terrorist. Now some may say, "But to coerce a society or government is EXACTLY what terrorists want to do.", but to that I would reply, "And so did the Allies when we demanded the surrender of the Japanese after blowing up cities full of people. We could not kill every soldier, so we had to bring the national government and its people to their knees."
"… often for ideological or political reasons." This is slightly better since we moved for militarily reasons, though obviously politics and ideology mattered since we had to fight a Bushido-driven warrior class, but in the end what is missing? Something must be or all those leftist professors are right when they say that a terrorist to one is a freedom fighter to another.
The part that is missing is the purposeful killing of non-combatants as an primary method of reaching one's ends. This is why the term 'collateral damage' is so important - in any combat situation there will be non-combatant deaths, but the method in which this happens is of paramount importance. If the deaths happen because a military force is attempting to eliminate opposing forces then those deaths are not an act a terror, though to those affected the acts are terrible. If the deaths happen in a metropolitan subway and in and of itself is the 'attack' thus leading to the deaths of people simply living their lives, then the act should be considered a terrorist activity.
If one agrees with this idea of what terrorism is then we need to also back down on some other charges of terrorist that really are not. One would be the bombing of the USS Cole. This action may have even been done by a group known to use terrorist activity, but the target was not non-combatants, it was a military ship with military crew stationed in a foreign port.
As an American, I despise the attack and hope all are caught and dealt a similar fate, but by definition, it was not terrorism any more than a U-Boat attack at night during the Second World War.
The Barracks in Beirut in the 1980s is another non-terrorist act. Its mission was simple: Remove the US forces from the region by directly attacking them. While these people did in fact use methods commonly employed in terrorist attacks, the attack was once again against a military force - not non-combatants. And while some non-combatants might have died, it was not the focus of the attack, and the attack certainly would not have happened if the military force was no there. Again, as an American I despise it, but it does not fit the more accurate definition.
Why is such a definition important? Simply because if not then most violence in general is 'terroristic'. If someone gets in a fight at the schoolyard because there is a bully, then since the violence is being used to coerce someone on the ideological grounds that bullying is wrong, what does not fit the definition?
The current vague and general definition can be misused to stylize Israeli forces who knock down a house as terrorists, as well as when allied forces bombed German cities, and of course the use of nuclear bombs on Japanese population centers.
Yes, it can be argued that the bombing of German cities could be justified as an attempt to slow down the production of the German war machine, and it could not be helped if people living in cities like Dresden ended up dying, but then could not Osama also say the same thing about 9/11 as an attempt to strike at the economic muscle that drives our large and expensive military as well?
This is why the distinction must be made - if we do not define it as: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group with the designed and purposeful killing of non-combatants as an primary method of reaching one's ends - often as the means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, mainly for ideological or political reasons."
With this definition in place the leftists, nor terrorists, have any way of manipulating the moral high ground of arguments. Definitions are key because in this, and any other environment, people play on the lack of solid definitions, and the lack of popular understanding of various terms in an effort to manipulate those who do not possess clarity on the subject matter.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 20:35
<< Home