Definition of a terrorist/terrorism?

bonkey

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Many (but not all) definitions distinguish between non-state and state actors.

These would, at a guess, coincide with those definitions supplied by state-actors. Forgive me if I consider as suspect any definition which precludes the possibility of the definer being guilty. Its nothing more than a polite way of saying "terrorism is something that others do".

I think it is useful to do so. It certainly doesn't prevent condemnation of State atrocities.

Sure, but it also suggests that there is a fundamental distinction between an atrocity comitted by a state and non-state actor.

Yes, I think media or at least communication is THE feature which sets terrorism apart from other forms of political violence.

We'll just ahve to differ on that one, I guess. If media was the defining point, then I would argue that it shoudl be called something like "mediaism" rather than terrorism.

Would self-directed violence by non-state players for the purpose of media attention count as terrorism in your book? Y'know...monks pouring petrol on themselves and burning themselves to death and the like? Or will you not at the very least accept that a fundamental feature of all terrorist acts is the use of terror as a weapon or tool.

If the problem is the word "terrorism", we'll have to find a different term for the phenomenon.

Alternately, one could say that my problem is the artificial distinction between identical acts based only on the status of the actor when the name of the classification is a clear reference to an aspect of the methodology and that I don't necessarily see what you describe as a phenomenon at all. I see it as a subset of a larger phenomenon which has no real basis for being taken in isolation that I as yet agree with.

It is common to refine terms for the purposes of discussion, e.g. "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing".

No argument from me. I'm just disagreeing at how you're proposing to refine the meaning of terrorism to something like "non-state violence-based propaganda".

I'd like to keep "terrorism" as it's commonly understood.

The problem is that its not commonly understood. Its commonly used by people who mean very different things when the use it. The two of us most certainly don't have a common understanding of the term. Why should I agree to use it in a manner I disagree with just because you like it that way?

Allowing the actions of Israel to be described as terrorism does a lot more than damage common speech
. It is gross understatement. Terms such as "war crimes", "massacre of civilians" etc. seem more appropriate.

Then you're free to use those terms. I see no reason why the same act can't constitute both terrorism and a war-crime and a massacre and a number of other things all at the same time.

I also have no doubt that people who disagree that those terms apply will agree that you're misusing them, just as I disagree with how you understand the term terrorism.

At the end of the day, I go back to where I started. Terrorism is what the other guy does. Nations allege its what non-state actors get up to. They in turn say they are merely attempting to resist state-originating terrorism and that their own acts are legitimate. Everyone adapts a view of what constitutes terrorism that doesn't conflict with who htey see as the terrorists. Very few people have a want to actually have a clear definition. Its far more convenient to use an emotional one.

Jackie laughlin

Bonkey,
Where we disagree is that you want to use "terrorism" in all sorts of situations while I want to use it specifically. The most crude "definition" of terrorism is "violence of which we disapprove". This is just a case of, "If you call me a terrorist, I'll call you a terrorist!" Sure, it's an emotive term but this line leads to the end of discussion.

No, definitions which focus on non-state actors don't come from state sources. In fact I can't off-hand think of one which does. State sources tend to throw the term all over the place, e.g. accusations that a regime or even a whole country is "terrorist".

I didn't try to define terrorism ONLY in the use of media. I included the media aspect as essential but not exclusive. Your question re political suicide for TV but without the intention of harming anyone else is a very good one. At first glance it would seem to fall within the definition but then the suicide can't be described as a "victim" or as an "immediate target" (because these imply an attack) as opposed to the target audience who are meant to be frightened or at least stirred into facing up to what the terrorist wants.

bonkey

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Bonkey,
Where we disagree is that you want to use "terrorism" in all sorts of situations while I want to use it specifically.

Yes. And given that we're discussing the definition of what constitutes terrorism, I think thast a pretty big disagreement.

The most crude "definition" of terrorism is "violence of which we disapprove". This is just a case of, "If you call me a terrorist, I'll call you a terrorist!" Sure, it's an emotive term but this line leads to the end of discussion.

But thats how its often used, whether we like it or not, whether we think it should be or not, and regardless of what we personally think it should mean.

Saying it leads to the end of discussion is only true if we're either in agreement that this is how most people seem to use the term (hence agree on a commong non-definition), or if we agree that people simply don't use the term consistently (hence agree that there is no common definition)

No, definitions which focus on non-state actors don't come from state sources. In fact I can't off-hand think of one which does.

WEll you haven't supplied a single one which doesn't either so that means that so far there's nothing to choose between the two possibilities.

State sources tend to throw the term all over the place,

They use "terrorism" to be what the other guys engage in. Same thing.

I didn't try to define terrorism ONLY in the use of media. I included the media aspect as essential but not exclusive.

You highlighted media as the defining requirement. Not the use of terror, not the target, not the aims....media and communication was the purpose as you defined it.

Indeed, according to your definition, one can engage in terrorism without the use of terror. If I were to go and attack some symbol of another nation in a manner that was violent but clearly not threatening to the citizens (civilian or otherwise) of said nation, for the purposes of communicating my message to those people....its terrorism.

On the other hand, if I were to go to an isolated region and use the threat of violence to cow the local population into doing what I wanted....that wouldn't be terrorism because my aim was never one of communication and I didn't actually resort to violence but merely the threat of same?????

From my perspective, the prime requirement is the use of terror as a means to achieve an objective. Media attention is probably going to play its part, but is not an absolute requirement. Violence will be almost-certainly involved, but is - again - not necessarily an absolute requirement (the threat of violence may be sufficient).

In terms of state vs. non-state, I believe the only relevant distinction is the nature of the target rather than the nature of the perpetrator. I believe a military unit is fully capable of using terrorism to cow a civilian population. I do not believe, however, that a military unit can be the target of terrorism.

Iraqi insurgents blowing up US soldiers in Iraq is not necessarily terrorist in nature from my perspective, although it meets all of your criteria. Iraqi insurgents choosing to deliberately deploy their offenses in civilian populations in a manner that suggests civilian casualties are an additional objective and not just something they don't care about...that is terrorist in nature - but only because of the civilian aspect, not because of the blowing-up-US-soldiers aspect.

Nevyn

remember " If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist you are a terrorist"
G.W. Bush.

Jackie laughlin

Th,
I'd almost agree but there are levels of responsibility and the perpetrator is more guilty than the apologist.

Bonkey,
Believe me I'm not trying to antagonise you but your use of the term would be the same as that of the US Government. (No, I'm not saying that you agree with US foreign policy) I'm trying to refine the concept so that discussion of a type of political violence can take place.

I did indeed highlight media but of course I didn't say that it was the only characteristic. I said the use of media set terrorism apart from other political violence.

Yes, of course a terrorist would love a symbolic, headline grabbing, casualty- free target. Sometimes no casualties is an objective. However, it's hard to achieve.

Voipjunkie

As has already been trashed out there is not definitive definition of what terrorism is. It depends on your perspective so for some the Iraqis fighting the US and its allies are terrorists others would call them resistance fighters etc
Just as some would view Bush and Blair as spreaders of democracy others would see them as terrorists.

For me the only way to define terrorism is by the actions not the motives and my personal definition is the deliberate attempt to kill or injure civilians or a complete disregard for the lives of civilians.

And in that regard
I would consider
Israel
Hizbollah
USA
UK
Taliban
Al Queda

All to be involved to some extent in terrorist activities

Jackie laughlin

Voipjunkie,
With such a broad definition, your list is hardly exhaustive.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Voipjunkie,
With such a broad definition, your list is hardly exhaustive.

I don't consider the definition to be broad and the list was in no way supposed to be definitive just an observation on the current middle east situation and the so called "war on terror" All parties IMO are guilty of terrorism to some extent including those who claim to be conducting a war on terror

MiddleE

The Corinthian
I prefer the term asymmetric warfare.
Asymmetric warfare is essentially where one party is by far more powerful than the other. They possess far more resources, assets and / or numbers that their opposition. As such, more orthodox warfare - what jc called ‘a straight fight’ - would result in the inevitable defeat of the materially weaker party.

Thus the purpose of the materially weaker party is not an orthodox and direct military victory, but a war of attrition; to wear down the resources and resolve of the enemy to the point that they are forced to withdraw from the field. Thus targets will be designed to cause maximum cost, not just economically, but to the morale of the enemy; so-called soft targets are especially important as the maximize the efficiency of the materially weaker party - after all, if your opponent outnumbers you ten to one, you want to aim towards taking out at least twenty of their assets for each one of yours.

Yes. I offer Canary Wharf as an example. The authorities could sustain a reasonable level of civilian casualties. What they could not sustain was another economic 'spectacular'.

Similarly in Middle East. Lebanon has lost it's infrastructure and so has no more to lose except additional lives, which will be lost anyway when this flares up again. Israel is on its knees militarily and also economically now. Another 2/3 weeks of the same and there would be the best hope of peace in the Middle East since 1948. The Israeli war party would be replaced and REAL peace discussion would take place. Now? A wounded RAT is very dangerous, particularly one trying to cling on to power. Now the temptation is to widen the conflict outside of the Lebanon to divert attention off its only bashing.

The Corinthian
As to why I’m using the term asymmetric warfare; it is because it applies not only to terrorists, but also to freedom fighters. And what differentiates them? In practical terms, nothing. Both will in varying degrees fight for impassioned causes and commit atrocities against civilians.

EU rejects U.S. call to label Hezbollah 'terrorist' group
UPI ... Published Aug/2/2006
"Given the sensitive situation where we are, I don't think this is something we will be acting on now," said Finland Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, who is also the EU president. The decision came in response to a letter signed by 213 members of the U.S. Congress demanding the intergovernmental organization join the United States in branding Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

EU rebuffs US call to put Hezbollah on terror list
By Mark Beunderman ...02.08.2006 - 09:54 CET