Terrorism is a term that has not been strictly defined, yet it is often used to categorize a wide range of violent and tragic events. The United States has dedicated itself to fighting a “War on Terror” since 2001, yet government agencies themselves cannot agree upon a singular definition of the term. As a society we have a general idea of the type of incidents we consider to be terrorist activity, yet when articulated there are similarities between events where only one is regarded as a terrorist attack, as well as significant differences between two circumstances categorized under the umbrella of terrorism. This inconsistency has already begun to cause major problems and these complications will only become worse until a formal definition of what constitutes terrorism is created.
There are some indisputable components of the events we label as terrorist attacks; most definitions of terrorism conclude that there is a motive and agenda behind the act, the action included premeditated violence and harm, and the goal behind the incident was to instill fear within the affected population. These classifications are extremely broad and do not lend themselves to a complete definition of the term, but events labeled as terrorism often do not have much more than these few characteristics in common.
For example, it would be false to conclude that terrorist attacks are carried out on civilians alone because there have been multiple occurrences of terror events in military bases both domestically and internationally. We have studied the 1983 Beirut barrack bombings in class multiple times; two truck bombs were detonated near a group Marine barracks in Lebanon during the civil war. Our society has labeled this event as a terrorist attack on the United States military, yet depending on the definition of terrorism being used the event may not fall into this category. The State Department specifies that terrorist attacks are “perpetrated against non-combatant targets”, which would mean this attack against soldiers is not an act of terrorism (www.state.gov). However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation does not include this clause in their definition, so these bombing would be considered terrorism within their agency. The Marines, however, believe “there are three key elements: Violence, Fear, Intimidation” that are linked to terrorist activity (www.marines.mil) These three components were achieved after the bombing, so they too would consider the attack to be an act of terrorism. These variations can cause immense problems when determining how to investigate the attack, especially since these departments would have to work closely together since each plays a different role in the investigation and aftermath.
When examining the recent shooting in Las Vegas on October 1st, similar discrepancies appear again. The State Department considers events to be acts of terror when they are carried out “by subnational groups or clandestine agents” yet this mass shooting was carried out by only one American citizen, who was not affiliated with either of the two specifications the State Department puts forth. However, this event fits the part of the State Department’s definition that the Beirut attacks do not: the Las Vegas shooting was committed against innocent civilians. This incident has not been referred to widely as a terrorist attack because the term is so vague and typical stereotypes created by past terrorist attacks were not present. The question then arises: how many of the characteristics listed in the definitions of terrorism must apply for an event to be considered a terrorist attack? If we cannot answer this question or correctly label these tragic events correctly, we cannot accurately analyze the situation and prevent similar events in the future.
Defining terrorism is clearly a very complicated task that cannot be completed quickly or by one person alone. I have only included three definitions of terrorism, however almost each United States government and military agency provides a slightly different explanation. This naturally causes confusion and creates complications when attempting to investigate whether an act is linked to terrorism, as government agencies and branches of the military must come together for joint-investigations after terrorist acts occur. It's easy to look at an event and call it terrorism, and we often can articulate why a certain act should be considered terrorism, but this term must be fully defined before we truly categorize a violent incident as a terrorist attack.
Sources Used:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExactly, the term terrorism is complicated to understand because we live in a world where prejudice is in the heart of every person. I used to think that terrorism is an act of violence against civilians. However, after I have seen what is going on around the world, terrorism is label based on the skin color, the religion or the nationality of the person. The fact you mentioned about the Las Vegas shooting is a prime example of how the term terrorism is defined based on the nationality or the religion of the person. We all see and know nowadays if Muslim attacks, the media and other leaders of the world would immediately label it as a terrorist attack, but if Christian attacks it can be a mental health issue or a hate crime. Do you think the other countries of the world would define terrorism similarly as we do? Or do you think the identity of the attacker could play a role the way we label the term terrorism?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment! I agree with your points, most events we consider to be terrorism are categorized this way because of the ethnicity, religion, or other characteristic of the attacker. I am not sure the extent to which these classifications impacts what is considered to be terrorism in other countries, but I'm sure there is disproportionate labelling of terrorism in other places beyond the United States. I've done some of research on this topic and found this article that explains the underrepresentation in American media of some terror attacks as compared to ones carried out by people practicing Islam. Hopefully it will help you as well!
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/13/yes-the-media-do-underreport-some-terrorist-attacks-just-not-the-ones-most-people-think-of/?utm_term=.f06d9edf0c8f
Great job! I found your blog post to be quite intriguing and I definitely agree with your argument that it is extremely difficult to establish one specific definition for the term “terrorism.” This is absolutely an ongoing debate that has been very central to several recent violent acts. It can be quite difficult to label an act of violence as terrorism when there are so many different definitions related to the term. Do you think we will ever establish a concrete definition of terrorism? Or do you think the term will always remain ambiguous due to the many conflicting views of what the term actually means?
ReplyDeleteThanks Victoria! I don't think that a formal definition of terrorism can ever be created, precisely because terrorism yields itself to such a vague set of violent occurrences. To formally define this term I think that as a society we would need to create subgroups under the umbrella of terrorism and established preexisting ones. We use the terms domestic terrorism and international terrorism in discussion today, but if new categories within the broad classification of terrorism were created we could define each one concretely and subsequently sort violent events into these established groupings.
DeleteBrenna, I enjoyed reading your post! It provided a compelling and insightful perspective on the definition of terrorism. I agree with your points, it is clear that one single definition of terrorism would make it much easier to define an act of violence as a terrorist act. In my opinion, I believe the act itself should define terrorism. Like you and Riten have mentioned, the traits of the person who committed the act should not define if the act was terrorism. A trend that is becoming more and more prevalent is the "mental illness vs. terrorism" defense. It seems that whenever a white person commits what is clearly terrorism, they are labeled as "mentally ill" and to some degree, they are excused of their actions. When a person with darker skin commits a terrorist act, it is almost always labeled as terrorism. Since it seems society defines terrorism based on race, do you think there is a solution to this problem/misunderstanding?
ReplyDeleteThanks Liz! I think that the solution to these misunderstandings would stem from formalizing a definition of terrorism so that such activities could be clearly defined. This would certainly help these problems, but it is a very difficult solution that is not foreseeable in the near future.
DeleteTerrorism is definitely something that can be found to be very ambiguous in International politics. Even domestically between offices we cannot decide on a single definition. How would you say that we should remedy this ambiguity? Obviously having one solid definition would be concise, but how would we get to that?and who would have the authority to define it? Do you think that a solid, single definition can exist?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Zach! I think that creating subcategories within the large definition of terrorism would help to remove some ambiguity from the term. Honestly, I do not think a single definition is possible unless we change how we currently think of terrorism. If we were to find a definition for this term, however, we would need to inform the public and the media exactly how to determine what is a terrorist attack and what is not included under the definition to avoid misstatements from occurring and causing more havoc.
ReplyDelete