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
6
6
0
"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)
(6)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SFC Mark Merino Well said. I think a good definition of Terrorism is 'act' focused rather than ultimate motivation or actor focused. And thus can be applied over time and space. Even a long time ago in a galaxy far away. I would say Darth Vaders' terrorism was destroying all of Alderaan to compel other planets into compliance through fear. Jedi strike me as pretty legitimate military targets. (How did the death-star move through space-and thus act as a credible terror-threat to other planets?)
(2)
(0)
SFC Mark Merino
Thanks for indulging the nerd with his Star Wars analogy! I shall call you...Obi Wan. Semper Fi.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SFC Mark Merino Obi-wan was a badass. Maybe the best. Who knows with Qui-gon and yoda in the running.... I'd follow any of them into battle.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
TSgt Joshua Copeland Great points, time changes the acceptance of terrorism as a legitmate action. Romans would crucify hundreds when cities were sacked, Assyrians would flay city leaders alive and nail their skins to gates. Sherman was all about property destruction (I will note his troops were under orders not to kill civilians). I would say these are all still terrorism (except maybe Sherman's march as I understand it), in the way I define it, they were just more acceptable then than they are now.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
in police academy we had a course called Response to Terrorist Act. it defined it as an deliberate act designed to cause fear in individuals by causing mass injury/death, typically performed by someone who adheres to a strict ideology.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Sgt Packy Flickinger Would you argue that major attacks on an enemy army intended to create fear and change their pattern of operation could be considered terrorism? Or do the attacks have to be directed at civilians/noncombatants?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Packy Flickinger
Personally I feel attacks on an enemy army isn't terrorism, it's war. That is a tactic in war. Terrorism to me is purely against civilians. Terrorism is synonymous with cowardess.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Sgt Packy Flickinger I agree. I think TSgt J.D. Hall's card is a great example of successful Info Ops. Putting fear into our enemy is part of war, and I think it should be defined as distinct from Terrorism.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
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.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SFC Mark Merino beat me to the pithy classic quote. I, however, think terrorism can be defined by careful thinkers willing to accept the label being applied to actions of governments they agree and disagree with.
For instance: The Colonial Army was raised as an example. Actions by patriot militias including lethal targeting of Torry civilians? Terrorism. Coloinial Army snipers shooting British Officers? Violation of the then current LOAC, but not terrorism.
I would argue that the references made by CPT (Join to see) to US government actions against Native Americans are incisive. I think some of the actions were probably terrorism. So too, were some of the actions by various tribes against civilians under the protection of the US government.
In WWII as I mentioned above I would hold up the targeting of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as terrorist in nature, so was the Bombings of London, the Concentration Camps (National Terrorism against 'undesirables') or the Russian Pogroms. We might think our use of Terrorism was for a better purpose (reducing end casualties of an invasion of the mainland) but surely we can agree we intended to terrify the Japanese into surrendering by indiscriminately targeting their civilians.
A careful definition of terrorism doesn't care who wins and loses, but what actions are taken.
For instance: The Colonial Army was raised as an example. Actions by patriot militias including lethal targeting of Torry civilians? Terrorism. Coloinial Army snipers shooting British Officers? Violation of the then current LOAC, but not terrorism.
I would argue that the references made by CPT (Join to see) to US government actions against Native Americans are incisive. I think some of the actions were probably terrorism. So too, were some of the actions by various tribes against civilians under the protection of the US government.
In WWII as I mentioned above I would hold up the targeting of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as terrorist in nature, so was the Bombings of London, the Concentration Camps (National Terrorism against 'undesirables') or the Russian Pogroms. We might think our use of Terrorism was for a better purpose (reducing end casualties of an invasion of the mainland) but surely we can agree we intended to terrify the Japanese into surrendering by indiscriminately targeting their civilians.
A careful definition of terrorism doesn't care who wins and loses, but what actions are taken.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Capt Richard I P. I would think you look no further than Andrew Jackson and Florida. He attacked the Indians and even executed two Brits by Hanging them for allying with the Indians after he took a Spanish Fort.. He pretty much killed anything and everything in his way.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
CPT (Join to see) The history of Florida is indeed largely tragic...http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Florida-T-D-Allman/dp/ [login to see]
Finding Florida: T. D. Allman: 9780802122308: Amazon.com: Books
Finding Florida [T. D. Allman] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Longlisted for the National Book Award and a Kirkus Reviews Best Nonfiction Book of the YearOver the centuries
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Capt Richard I P. My Brigade Combat Team, formerly being a Division, was named after him. We the "Old Hickory." He was called that due to being the extremely touch. The 30th Division was composed of National Guard units in and around the NC, TN, SC, and GA area.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
1SG (Join to see) interesting observation. Seems pretty self serving to define something around your own pre existing objectives and capabilities doesn't it?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google