Definition of terrorism
Template:Seriesdraft Terrorism/Draft, List of terrorist incidents.
At its core, the definition of terrorism is not so much a description of a particular kind of violence, like bombing or assassination, but a way to characterize an act of violence relative to the speaker, and their point of view. "Terrorism" is a term that attempts to define, as a separate phenomenon, a philosophy of coordinated violence which tends to have a high degree of social impact on the target society. The general accepted implications are that the violence is perpetrated in connection with a rebel or insurgent agenda—in opposition to a established, imposing, or even tyrannical social order.
| Part of a series on |
| Terrorism and political violence |
|---|
Noam Chomsky, a noted linguist, clearly distinguishes between the targeting of civilians and the targeting of military personnel or installations. Thereby demonstrating that in his view that causes, reasons or goals do not justify acts of terrorism. For Chomsky, terrorism is objective, not relative to the speaker or their point of view. He states in his book 9-11, page 76:
Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism.
To term an act as a "terrorist" act, will thus carry with it the above connotations, even if they may not factually fit the definitions. Thus there are large divergences between the legal use of the term, and the polemic use, which carries with it some common distortions: 1. The early characterization of an act as "terrorism", and 2. The classification as "terrorism" of actions by those considered "terrorists." For example, the assassination of individuals, if committed by "known terrorists," will be called "terrorism." Because of the above distortions, the distinctions between types of actors (miltary, paramilitary, unlawful combatant) in the Laws of War tend to be less than the definition of the violent act itself.
The implications of the new and current War on Terrorism have had a recursive social effect as well on the tacit use of "terror" itself—which by basic definition describes a pronounced state of fear. Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attack, the President of the United States claimed that the "'War on Terror" is a war of "freedom against fear," pitching his response to '911' as a cultural rejection of "evil" by the forces of "the civilized world." [1] But in the aftermath of the 'responses to 911,' (Afghanistan, Iraq) moral opposition to the War on Terror surged, claiming that the War on Terror, instead of making people less fearful, was generating more fear in the world. "We resist the manipulation of fear and challenge the narrow focus of the security agenda," said Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, adding "the definition of security must be broadened to encompass the security of people, as well as states. That means a commitment to human rights." [2]
The "terror" or pronounced state of fear that is manifest as a result of an act of terrorism is limited in terms of its immediate threat, but causes enough of a general disturbance to threaten this existing social order. Thus, terrorism, can loosely be defined as the use of violence to bring about a change in a particular social order. It is violence as a means to get political attention for causes that are out of, or contradictory to, the established agenda —which may itself also use asymmetrical and immoral violence to enforce its established political and social order.
The central item that distinguishes terrorism from other kinds of coordinated violence is the often-random choice of targets, giving the appearance of senselessness and chaos. The low-profile of terrorism actors tends to make them less succeptible to moderate common influences, and the danger imposed by enforcers of the existing order makes the potential actors more out of touch with their larger collective political body.