The Definition of Terrorism

[stealyourface]

I came up with this definition at college while writing a paper on the morality of terrorism:

Politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by clandestine groups or agents, which usually involves creating terror, fear, or panic in a population.

Anyone got any beef with it? If not, I say we use it as a standard for the oh so many times the "T" word is tossed around in the politics forum.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I consciously use it different than the definition [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[stealyourface]

Can you explain how your definition differs from mine?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I don't oppose the definition. I just use terrorism about abuses conducted by governments as well. I do this in an attempt (probably unsuccessful [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) to make people aware that abuses conducted by governments is just as a big problem as abuses conducted by terrorist organisations.

[superleeds]

Do they have dictionarys in college anymore.

[stealyourface]

They do, but the definition of terrorism is heavily debated.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
They do, but the definition of terrorism is heavily debated.

[/ QUOTE ]

As are the definitions of words like agnostic, liberal, and "is."

Just use these arguments to weed out people you'd rather not talk to anyway.

[zipo]

>>Just use these arguments to weed out people you'd rather not talk to anyway. <<

nh.

Decent and reasonable people know what 'terrorism' is. Attempts to twist, distort, and/or redefine the term for the sake of a particular political agenda is transparent and futile. We're not buyin what they're sellin.

[stealyourface]

[ QUOTE ]
Decent and reasonable people know what 'terrorism' is. Attempts to twist, distort, and/or redefine the term for the sake of a particular political agenda is transparent and futile. We're not buyin what they're sellin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then what is your definition of terrorism?

[nothumb]

This is a pretty good attempt. However, it leaves out some obvious perpetrators of terror.

I think you can remove the 'clandestine groups' clause. That's a common belief that causes people to ignore it when government forces use the same tactics (sometimes). Even when people do object to state-sponsored asymmetric warfare, they call it something else, like "human rights abuses." It's interesting.

Also, terrorism is not necessarily only directed against non-military targets. As others have pointed out in other threads, what is generally regarded as against the rules of conventional war also involves hiding among civilians, improper treatment of prisoners, etc.

However, 'terrorism' has simply become a buzzword to refer to particularly brutal (and often effective) methods of asymmetric war, which has been practiced by governments and independent groups alike for centuries. What war is NOT about striking terror into your enemy's heart? The difference is whether one has the means to engage the enemy in a supposedly 'conventional' military confrontation. Even when a nation does posess the capacity to overwhelm an opponent militarily, that state often chooses to engage in asymmetric tactics WITHOUT provocation, as a primary move. Because these tactics - ranging from espionage, assassination, disruption of public works and resources, poison, to attacks on civilians - are, to varying degrees, EXPECTED of any thinking opponent.

In other words, the whole vocabulary of war has evolved in the last century. The disparity between the powerful and the weak has grown, and so has the disparity in tactics. In the meantime, extremely destructive devices and strategies have become widely available, so the potential for any motivated agent to wreak utter havoc has increased.

Basically, I propose that we retire the word 'terrorism' from any serious discussion of military tactics or politics. Not that I expect this to happen, but I think the term is utterly meaningless when comparing the range of phenomena it supposedly describes to its common usage.

NT