4
4
0
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
"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
Terrorism
Law
GWOT
PME
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 19
1
1
0
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!
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!
(1)
(0)
SSG Dwight Amey MSA, MSL, BS, AS
SGM Mikel Dawson, first thanks for your service. On the issue of politics I agree that the act of using a veto can be used as a threat. But it goes both ways, when Congress is set on disrupting a president? Throughout our history elected officials have been used in place of soldiers. The Civil War is the only time on a grand scale when the differences could not be worked out with peaceful means at the ballot box.
It comes down to perspective. If a poor family dealing with illness guarenteed medical care is good. For the rich who are paying for it paying for others medical care is straight out robbery. I am torn on this issue because I agree on both sides. Legistlatures cannot avoid these perspectives and have to make decisions. Appear to take the Darwinian perspective and allow the survival of the financial fittest, or take money form the rich.
I was just taking with a veteran yesterday who could not afford certain cancer treatments because the copayments were too high so decided not to get them shortening his life. A Veteran?
It comes down to perspective. If a poor family dealing with illness guarenteed medical care is good. For the rich who are paying for it paying for others medical care is straight out robbery. I am torn on this issue because I agree on both sides. Legistlatures cannot avoid these perspectives and have to make decisions. Appear to take the Darwinian perspective and allow the survival of the financial fittest, or take money form the rich.
I was just taking with a veteran yesterday who could not afford certain cancer treatments because the copayments were too high so decided not to get them shortening his life. A Veteran?
(1)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
SSG Dwight Amey, I made a very short list as I figured most could figure out where I was going. You're rigth with veto thing.
I'll only say this about health care. IF the American people were really the prime concern for all those involved in making this bill, then it would have been done better!! I think if one would FOLLOW THE MONEY we'd see who the real winners are. I'll gaurantee you dollars to donuts not one insurance company will come even close to losing money over this deal!
I'll only say this about health care. IF the American people were really the prime concern for all those involved in making this bill, then it would have been done better!! I think if one would FOLLOW THE MONEY we'd see who the real winners are. I'll gaurantee you dollars to donuts not one insurance company will come even close to losing money over this deal!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
CPT Jack Durish Defining Terrorism is indeed a thorny problem. All the more important that we grapple with it, especially since many of us have served in a 'global war' against it. I didn't say PO2 William Allen Crowder's definition wasn't honest, just that we have to dig deeper in a republic to define and articulate terms. The central tenet of a society of laws rather than men is that the law be objective and observable to all. Citing examples can be good to illustrate general principles, but to refuse to define those general principals and simply act on them unspoken isn't enough.
These terms are not easy to define, and there isn't any guarantee all the people we fight against will concur. Maybe someone from a different society views family members as legitimate targets due to the 'support structure' they offer the combatant. that's something I won't buy off on and doubt we should as a people.
History is indeed written by the victors, but the minority report is rarely vanished from history and most of the historical citations I have seen here have been minority reports (Hiroshima, Dresden, Florida etc.) It is my opinion that the US has used Terrorism as a tactic before and some might call it 'total war'(perhaps for good and moral strategic reasons, perhaps not).
The purpose of provoking this debate is to move beyond topics debating the religious affiliation of this group who executed a bombing or that group engaged in mass executions, and toward a more objective articulation as a warrior society of what we do and do not consider terrorism.
Your bottom line is a good point, as a nation America made it pretty clear we intend to prosecute terrorism (we declared war on it). And there isn't even a clear single US governmental definition of it. Surely we as the sword of our nation owe it to them to temper our own understanding in the fire of friendly internal debate.
These terms are not easy to define, and there isn't any guarantee all the people we fight against will concur. Maybe someone from a different society views family members as legitimate targets due to the 'support structure' they offer the combatant. that's something I won't buy off on and doubt we should as a people.
History is indeed written by the victors, but the minority report is rarely vanished from history and most of the historical citations I have seen here have been minority reports (Hiroshima, Dresden, Florida etc.) It is my opinion that the US has used Terrorism as a tactic before and some might call it 'total war'(perhaps for good and moral strategic reasons, perhaps not).
The purpose of provoking this debate is to move beyond topics debating the religious affiliation of this group who executed a bombing or that group engaged in mass executions, and toward a more objective articulation as a warrior society of what we do and do not consider terrorism.
Your bottom line is a good point, as a nation America made it pretty clear we intend to prosecute terrorism (we declared war on it). And there isn't even a clear single US governmental definition of it. Surely we as the sword of our nation owe it to them to temper our own understanding in the fire of friendly internal debate.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
PO2 William Allen Crowder I've heard the industry argument before, and while I haven't made an enormous study of it, the counter I heard was that while Nagasaki was an industrial center Hiroshima was not... regardless, given the early overtures of a conditions-based surrender from the Japanese government to the US government it really does seem like the atomic bombs were intended to so inspire fear in the Japanese people that they (or their emperor) would sue for unconditional peace. I really didn't raise it to condemn the choice, but to challenge the notion that the tactic is inherently wrong. Or is it? Can the ends justify the means?
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
I have studied the historical record written by Japanese scholars who have shown conclusively that the Imperial Armed Forces had no intention of surrendering even following the second atomic bomb. Inasmuch as they were honor bound to accept surrender if the Emperor's statement of surrender were broadcast, two copies were made so that one could reach the radio station to circumvent attempts to stop it.
Meanwhile, the Imperial command was marshaling civilians (including women and children) to meet the Americans on the beaches, sacrificing themselves in the thousands to defend against invasion by creating a bloodbath that would test the resolve of Americans.
So, yes, the Japanese warlords were the terrorists and we should thank God that Truman had the courage to unleash atomic warfare to prevent the greatest act of terrorism, one in which the Imperial military was prepared to sacrifice their own...
Meanwhile, the Imperial command was marshaling civilians (including women and children) to meet the Americans on the beaches, sacrificing themselves in the thousands to defend against invasion by creating a bloodbath that would test the resolve of Americans.
So, yes, the Japanese warlords were the terrorists and we should thank God that Truman had the courage to unleash atomic warfare to prevent the greatest act of terrorism, one in which the Imperial military was prepared to sacrifice their own...
(1)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
Good point CPT Jack Durish . I think terrorism is when someone or some ideal can so inspire people who are willing to sacrifice themselves to a cause, such as the case in Hitler's killings, suicide bombers and the like.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
PO3 Jonathan Cooper Thanks for the input. FYI if you want to tag people to call their attention to a post you can ad the "@" symbol before their name then pick from a drop down menu.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG (Join to see) I think you and I are very close to agreeing on our personal definitions. I stumble over the word 'unlawful' because government-terrorism against its own people can be fully lawful (Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany etc. etc.)
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Hopefully anyone struggling against a Soviet Russia or a Nazi Germany type government would still limit themselves to military targets. Targeting civilian persons, even in Nazi Germany would still be terrorism.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG (Join to see) Sorry, I wasn't advocating in any way for the use of terrorism by people oppressed by states, but rather saying states themselves can use the tactic of terrorism against their own population, as the Nazis and Soviets did-by attacking and rounding up civilians to increase fear to reduce political opposition.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Capt Richard I P. I guess we could replace the word government with serious or grievous, so that it was serious or grievous violence... The problem then is defining what is serious and what is minor.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Capt Richard I P.
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
TSgt Joshua Copeland Political murders with political aims. It's the intent that separates it from ordinary murder-and in my mind doesn't necessarily tie to terrorism. counter-factual: a successful assassination of Hitler wouldn't have been a terrorist act by the USA, but an assassination intended to clear the way for new (hopefully more amicable) leadership-i.e. no intention to generate fear in any target population.
(2)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Capt Richard I P. are you sure that about that? If we assassinated Hitler they would likely be more amiable to install a leader out of fear that alligns with our target goals vs their own. This is the vary definition. An act of violence (murder) to frighten them in to getting a new leader that we want (political goal).
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
TSgt Joshua Copeland I don't think so, I think the intended effect of such a hypothetical targeted strike would not be to instill fear so much as to eliminate a specific target. I really like how we're hashing through our differences on this. It's becoming clear to me that any definition of Terrorism requires both an act and intent definition.
(2)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Capt Richard I P., Eliminating a specific target is not effective if he (or she) is replaced with someone just as fanatical. How much would we have gained in 1943 if if Hitler would have been replaced with Hermann Göring or Heinrich Himmler? So the targeted strike must eliminate the specific target, but also produce enough fear that a favorable replacement is installed.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Here's the academic definition that you said does not exist. Never known Webtser to be wrong.
http://i.word.com/idictionary/terrorism
http://i.word.com/idictionary/terrorism
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Sgt Adam Jennings That is indeed one definition. My point about a lack of consensus still stands.
"the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal"
Any violent acts? Do they have to be lethal? do they have to be executed or just threatened? What kind of people- can they be military members or do they have to be civilians? As CPT Jack Durish points out, how do we define innocent civilians? does the goal have to be political? Could there be terrorists solely interested in religious or economic goals?
Critically: How does Terrorism differ from raids, ambushes, total war bombings?
"the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal"
Any violent acts? Do they have to be lethal? do they have to be executed or just threatened? What kind of people- can they be military members or do they have to be civilians? As CPT Jack Durish points out, how do we define innocent civilians? does the goal have to be political? Could there be terrorists solely interested in religious or economic goals?
Critically: How does Terrorism differ from raids, ambushes, total war bombings?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Adam Jennings
I know in the state of Georgianif you threaten to harm someone you can be arrested and charged with terroristic threats.
Typically don't religious and economic goals go hand in hand with political goals? Look at the Middle East right now, politics and religion are one in the same.
The way terrorism differs is that terrorists don't belong to a country per say. Syrian insurgents aren't part of a Shrian Army, they're part of an organization, ISIS or Al Queda for instance. You're really trying to put more into this and make it more complicated than it really is. The issue between Russia and Ukraine, that's war not terrorism. But when an organization that has no allegiance to a country is going around threatening or physically hurting people, that is terrorism. It's that simple. It doesn't even have to be an organization. It can be a group. Look at domestic terrorists here in America, they typically work in small groups, or in Eric Robert Rudolph's case alone.
Typically don't religious and economic goals go hand in hand with political goals? Look at the Middle East right now, politics and religion are one in the same.
The way terrorism differs is that terrorists don't belong to a country per say. Syrian insurgents aren't part of a Shrian Army, they're part of an organization, ISIS or Al Queda for instance. You're really trying to put more into this and make it more complicated than it really is. The issue between Russia and Ukraine, that's war not terrorism. But when an organization that has no allegiance to a country is going around threatening or physically hurting people, that is terrorism. It's that simple. It doesn't even have to be an organization. It can be a group. Look at domestic terrorists here in America, they typically work in small groups, or in Eric Robert Rudolph's case alone.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Sgt Adam Jennings Is it your contention that there is no such thing as Terrorism perpetrated by a state? That the actions of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia were not violence against civilians intended to cause fear to create a political outcome? Do you hold that for it to be considered terrorism it must inherently have been executed by a non-state actor? Some definitions out there would agree with you if that's your position. I would disagree. As to your contention that I'm 'really trying to put more into this and make it more complicated than it really is" I would suggest that the conversation has revealed this is a complex topic that is often oversimplified.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Adam Jennings
I wouldn't quite reach that far as to compare war crimes to terrorism, not the same two entities. Perhaps before WWII when Hitler was trying to gain power you could classify that at true terrorism, but once he and Stalin gained power and led the world into war their activities are classified as war crimes, hence the Nuremburg Trials. They no longer had to achieve political goals as they were the political power, after that it was straight up murder. I mean a Possum and a Kangaroo are both marsupials, but they're different.
What I mean is, terrorists, such as ISIS are not a governing body, but they would like to be so they use terrorism to gain political control. Once they gain political control they are then an "actual" government head instead of just some terrorist organization. Then they use violence to maintain control instead of gaining political goals since their goal of control is achieved.
What I mean is, terrorists, such as ISIS are not a governing body, but they would like to be so they use terrorism to gain political control. Once they gain political control they are then an "actual" government head instead of just some terrorist organization. Then they use violence to maintain control instead of gaining political goals since their goal of control is achieved.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SPC James Mcneil And so are aggressive military powers, but they dont always employ terrorism. Or do they? I think to have valid definitions terrorism must be defined as distinct from other uses of violence.
(0)
(0)
SPC James Mcneil
That's a bit of a stretch, sir. Combat is one thing. That's a fight. If I'm in a fight (and I've been in a few), I do whatever it takes to win. That doesn't make me a bully, in my opinion. But to bully people to give you what you want is another story.
To compare that concept to a military on the battlefield is not an accurate comparison.
To compare that concept to a military on the battlefield is not an accurate comparison.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SPC James Mcneil I agree that there has to be a distinction between terrorism and other tactics. Guerrilla attacks, ambushes, hit-and run raids are all surprises that can scare the heck out of the other guy, but they're not all terrorism. To me, terrorism is directed indiscriminately at civilians.
(0)
(0)
SPC James Mcneil
That's something I can agree with. But it's not just the action but the intention behind the action. Terrorists do what they do in order to intimidate others to do what the terrorists want. That's the difference to me.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SFC Collin McMillion A personal opinion is what we all offer, sometimes guided by others' that we read or hear in discussions, one of the great things about RP is the access to so many peoples' opinions. I think your definition leaves me wondering about the difference between terrorism and any other use of force, like war, coercive diplomacy, or coercion in general. Is every murder or assault terrorism?
(0)
(0)
SFC Collin McMillion
I believe that if a murder is committed to intimate others into obedience, then I personally would consider it a terrorist action, after all isn't that what we define terrorist as doing?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google