What is Terrorism?

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:15:53 -0500

Here on RP we've done a lot of talking about Terrorism, but it occurred to me we don't agree about what Terrorism is. Words have meaning, so we should probably hash this one out. It appears to be a pretty big task: Wikipedia says
"There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term terrorism"

So let's look at it. A lot of us here have been involved in a "Global War on Terror". What have we been fighting?

I'd say a good starting point are the various US Government Definitions. I pasted three of them. Please take a minute to read over the differences (or nerd out over at Wikipedia for a while) then vote and post.

Which comes the closest?

1. Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year.

"[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

2. Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:
(1) [T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that —
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended —
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum".[54]

3. DOD Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism (24 November 2010), the Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.[3]

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 21 at 2015 12:34 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:34:30 -0500

Of the ones provided, I think the DoD Joint Pub fits best, since Title 18 specifies only international terrorism. Title 22 would be a close second.

I think one definition is missing. Webster's (the best in my opinion)

ter·ror·ism
noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

As mentioned in the other thread, I would say that if you have to qualify it beyond it's actual definition (Webster's or even the DoD Joint Pub), I would go as far as to say actions taken by any person or parties against another person or parties that does not comply with the established international laws of war.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 1:30 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:30:40 -0500

I would even go a step further as to ask who is defining it. If you were to ask our enemy we are the terrorists. It goes along with history as who defines it. The winner defines it just as they define history itself. Just think if we lost WWII. Germany would have wrote the history books and would have been viewed as liberators by the people that would now be their modern Europe.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 21 at 2015 1:57 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:57:09 -0500

I like the DOS title 22 definition best, but I don't like that it restricts the perpetrator to non-state actors, because states can perpetrate terrorism as well, so I voted 22 as closest, but it still doesn't fully satisfy me.

Title 18 doesn't work for me for its international requirement, there are absolutely domestic terrorists both in the USA and in other nations (although this narrow definition is necessary legally for what they use it for).

The problem with the DOD version is it could absolutely describe acts of war. Our armed ISR strikes are intended to eliminate the enemy they strike, but also to scare the enemy into disengaging from actions against us. Any action we undertake to strike fear into the hearts of our enemy (rather than purely to kill them) could thus be considered terrorism by our own DOD definition (OIF shock and Awe anyone?).

Here's the real problem: the term terrorism is heavily loaded emotionally. We intend it to describe tactics but it inherently becomes a motivation and people-based argument. No matter what definition you choose, as a Nation we have committed it, and that doesn't feel good.

Even my fairly stringent definition: "'terrorism' means politically motivated violence perpetrated against indiscriminate noncombatant targets" means Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were terrorist acts. They may have been good uses of the tactic to leverage public opinion and end the war faster through fear, they probably saved more lives than a land invasion. But they meet any useful definition of terrorism.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 21 at 2015 2:37 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:37:58 -0500

Capt Richard I P., One might also grade terrorism on a sliding scale. What is acceptable changes greatly overtime. Sherman's march to the seas, borderline genocidal practices, the almost utter destruction of German cities, dropping nukes on Japan. All were "acceptable" during their specific time frames.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jan 21 at 2015 2:47 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:47:15 -0500

"Our" Nation has had our hands very bloody and VERY DIRTY over the centuries. As a species, humans are capable of the most despicable actions. If you want to get biblical, humans lasted just one generation before having it's first murder. Terrorism? Ask our poor Native Americans about terrorism. We routinely go back to the last time we were on the short end of the stick and use that to justify our actions. We wiped out "savages" because we were suffering injustices in England and wanted to be free of that so we went elsewhere laying claims. People have been conquering and being conquered since the beginning. Had we lost WWII, can you imagine what would have been said about the carpet bombing that was done throughout Europe primarily by the British and Americans? The Russians and Germans were allies during WWII yet the Germans turned on their own partners in crime. The English bombed their French allies' navy and killed hundreds juuuuuuust in case they were a little slow to scuttle their warships, despite the French admiralty assuring them it would never allow the ships to fall into German hands. We can justify just about anything we do as long as we have access to the book writers after the victory. For us Sci-fi nerds: Darth Vader. Good guy because at the last second he punked out the Emperor when his back was turned? Does that make up for wiping out the Jedi order? I say terrorist. But that was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away....(lol)

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jan 21 at 2015 2:58 PM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:58:20 -0500

For me the definition is simple. Actions taken to instill fear and redirect the lifestyle of a large group of people.

The Boston bombings were not deemed terrorism. It didn't cause enough $ damage. Stupid. It was definitely terrorism in my book. 9/11 was definitely terrorism.
The Paris attacks wernt "activists", but terrorism.

I won't even mention what I think of the liberals response to terrorism!! There's not enough space for me to type that up.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 4:32 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:32:05 -0500

I believe the Dept of State definition is the best... that said, it's still too broad in some areas... tagging/spray painting a building with a political message could qualify as terrorism under this definition. It could also include action against a valid military target by someone who wasn't recognized as a legal combatant. I believe that in order for violence to qualify as terror we must ensure it is being committed or threatened against persons and not just property. I would also clearly articulate that for an attack to be considered terrorism, it would have to be against a civilian target and not a military target. Blowing up a civilian passenger jet would be terrorism, shooting down an attack helicopter would not be terrorism.

I would change the definition to:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence against civilian persons to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Jan 21 at 2015 7:05 PM

SFC Collin McMillion — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:05:56 -0500

I can only offer my personal opinion, I do believe that #3 came the closest to my belief but not extend far enough. Terrorism, to me is truly based on power whatever the reason others claim to fight for. Is not racism, bullying, etc. A form of terrorism? Whenever a person or persons, be it one or thousands, if you can not enjoy your freedoms because of fear of retaliation, weather being beaten, killed, isolated, etc then it is to me terrorism. Politics is based on agreements, religions on beliefs, but terrorism is all about power and control regardless.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Jan 21 at 2015 7:08 PM

SPC James Mcneil — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:08:00 -0500

When I think of the concept of terrorism, I think of a glorified bully. He wants his way, and he's willing to do whatever it takes to get it. Diplomacy is not the keyword here, but bullying. Terrorists are, in my humble opinion, nothing more than school yard bullies taken to a larger scale.

Response by PO2 Kevin LaCroix made Jan 21 at 2015 9:48 PM

PO2 Kevin LaCroix — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:48:26 -0500

Terrorism - literally the way of terror will have slightly different definitions for most people. My simplest definition would be to instill fear for the sake of instilling fear, with or without a clear goal.

Response by PO3 Jonathan Cooper made Jan 22 at 2015 2:03 PM

PO3 Jonathan Cooper — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:03:48 -0500

I wanted to find the pre-9/11 FBI definition, but it's been changed to Title 18. The way it was written was damn close to a phrase or quote I once heard that war was diplomacy by other means, and using that "definition" terrorism was looked at as an "illegal war" (As viewed by international law) because it's not being declared by countries/states but by individuals and groups.

From what I've read on this thread so far it seems like a lot of the opinions are dead on (SFC Mark Merino, CAPT Richard Porter, SSG Mark Colwell, etc.) It's about the act and the reasoning behind the act.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 22 at 2015 4:51 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:51:12 -0500

I suspect that the problem with defining "terror" is that simply is beyond definition. Thus, the response by @PO2 William Allen Crowder ("I know it when I see it") appears about as honest as any others I have seen here.

Any definition would have to begin with a fundamental discussion of war. From there, you would have several branches to follow. Principle among these would be the definition of "innocent civilians".

"Total War" includes attacks on civilian targets, innocents be damned, inasmuch as a nation cannot prosecute war without a significant contribution in wealth and effort from the "innocents". I suspect that there were many innocent German civilians "terrorized" by the bombing of their cities.

That brings us to another conundrum: Is a nation, group, or individual guilty of terrorism simply because someone is terrorized by their actions? (I must admit that I'm getting dizzy just peering over the edge and into the abyss of that discussion.)

The bottom line is that any nation or group of nations that wishes to prosecute terrorism must first define it. They will be able to enforce whatever definition they wish so long as they have the strength and will to ignore any objections that other nations may propose (or are able to negotiate a compromise).

On another note, some in this discussion thread have responded with historical examples to illustrate their positions (or embarrass others). Keep in mind that history is written by the victors and does not serve well to substantiate their arguments unless they first obtain consensus to their interpretation of history.

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Jan 23 at 2015 4:22 PM

Sgt Adam Jennings — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:22:24 -0500

Here's the academic definition that you said does not exist. Never known Webtser to be wrong.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/terrorism

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jan 23 at 2015 11:20 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:20:15 -0500

Examples of:

The U.S. Congress!

Obama in his SOTU speech when he threaten Congress if they passed certain bills he'd just veto.

If you don't enroll in Obama care, the IRS will be after you!

Response by SSG Dwight Amey MSA, MSL, BS, AS made Jan 24 at 2015 7:06 AM

SSG Dwight Amey MSA, MSL, BS, AS — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 07:06:51 -0500

In my view terrorism is an act of crime not with the intent to do violence, but to control behavior. It looks different in various social situations. In war, terrorist acts strikes on their schedule. Regardless of the type of weapon the effect on the targets can be significant in terms of the reality of being attacked at any time, any where, with any type of weapon.

In social settings terrorism or the possible act of being targeted by a terrorist can affect the behavior of some people.

Unfortunately, the media is helping the terrorist on a global scale by relentlessly replaying every aspects of terrorist messages backed up by their deadly attacks on the innocent. Terrorist should pay all media because they get free publicity to advance their cause.

Interesting how our free speach is a catalyist for carrying a virus set out to kill all of freedom loving people.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 24 at 2015 9:29 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:29:20 -0500

I fall under the 'old school' Intelligence (Pre Intel Czar days).

For it to be Terrorism, it had to have a few things.

1) Attempt to change Politics.

2) Use Violence.

3) Cause Fear in the Civilian Populace.

So.... Example.

"Bomb a CIVILIAN Target, demanding that X policy be changed."

Is 'classic' terrorism. Think extortion, or black mail. Just give the bad guys what they want, so they stop doing this bad thing to us.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Feb 7 at 2015 8:35 PM

Sgt David G Duchesneau — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:35:47 -0500

I attended a 13 week class in Quantico on this very subject, "Terrorism and World Order" and there were 55 students, all Law Enforcement, and many of these men were from other Countries like Israel, Jordan, Germany, South Korea, Columbia, Japan, the UK, Ireland, Spain, Australia, France, Italy, Thailand and the US. We pondered that question for several weeks and we came up with this definition: Terrorism is the politically, socially and or religiously motivated Criminal intimidation of the innocent." Fear is the intended results of a terrorist act. It is the use of violence especially against civilians in the pursuit of a political or ideological goals. As the word states, terrorism is intended to create fear, terror, in its victims. All terrorism is violent, but not all violent crimes is terrorism. One thing for sure, all terrorist are criminals and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the Law including Capital Punishment! SF!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2015 3:34 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 May 2015 03:34:27 -0400

I took a college class on International Terrorism a couple of years ago and the first thing that struck me was the fact that the US Government has three different definitions of it. One for the DOJ, DOD, and Department of state. All read along the same lines and appear tailor based for the primary objectives of each but just a little proof that the defined act is pretty broad.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Jun 18 at 2015 12:41 AM

SFC William Farrell — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:41:07 -0400

Having worked on the 104th floor of the building with the antenna on it in the early 80's, that image scares the hell out of me. I think you can consider terrorism when you have a people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause such as suicide bombers, Hitler's Armies who gave blind allegiance to his cause and killed millions, and those who kill innocent civilians in the name of their cause whatever that may be.