To start, the US legally defines terrorism as:
-An act of violence
-perpetrated by a sub-national group
-targeted against non-combatants
-is politically motivated
-is intended to influence an audience
The main portion of our discussion revolved around debating these legal rules of terrorism. For example, these rules rule out the KKK's lynchings as terrorism, because they're not politically motivated (or at least not all are). There was also a problem brought up about only targeting non-combatants. For example, the USS Cole bombing was defined as our government as an act of terrorism, and yet as it was the bombing of a US Navy ship, was against combatants.
Defining terrorism is a difficult thing to do, because it's meaning is so subjective.
My thoughts, were that the more rules you use to try and nail down a subjective thing like terrorism, the more arbitrary distinctions you get between what is terrorism and what isn't. I defined terrorism as "inflicting terror". Because what is terrifying is inherently subjective, using "terror" in the definition encompasses all of the problems brought about by subjectivity. Anything that inspires terror is terrorism.
Hence, 9/11 was terrorism, black lynchings were terrorism, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorism, the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, your face was terrorism. Just kidding about that last one. But not really.
I think this is the best possible definition. One of the possible implications of this, is that I think there can be degrees of terrorism based on how much terror an act inflicts. Although in practice this would be very difficult to quantify and should remain more of a philosophical construct. For example, holding an elementary school hostage (which actually happened in Russia by Chechyen separatists) can be said to be greater terrorism then the USS Cole bombings. The reason for this, is that soldiers are trained to be hardened to terror, and know that at any moment their lives are at stake. Hence, the amount of terror inflicted is less in the USS Cole bombing then in the elementary school hostage crisis, where unwitting teachers, parents, and children (all of whose emotions run wild) were the victims. I guess this part of my idea relates a lot to utilitarianism, which is funny because I don't really like utilitarianism haha.
Anyhoodles if anyone else has any ideas, I'd love to hear them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"For example, the USS Cole bombing was defined as our government as an act of terrorism, and yet as it was the bombing of a US Navy ship, was against combatants."
ReplyDeleteIt's important to keep in mind that the definition of non-combatants is still being debated academically. It's pretty much agreed that someone dressed in uniform, carrying and firing a weapon during war is a combatant. But there is considerable debate about a bunch of suspect classes. For example, in the case of the USS Cole, those on board, though enlisted military personnel and currently on duty, might be said to be non-combatants since they were not engaged in military action at the time, and were peacefully refueling at a port in Yemen, a country in which we were not actively engaged militarily. A stretch, I'll agree, but what about military personnel doing basic training on bases on US soil? What about soldiers dressed in civilian clothes out for a night on the town in a foreign land (where we may or may not be fighting), or state-side, visiting their families? What about domestic police and security forces? Considering the 'total war' concept (every resource - human, mechanic, technological, and natural - is engaged in the war machine), it is even possible to make the argument that people working in factories stateside are combatants, in that they are working as part of a military apparatus to sustain warfare. A stretch, again, in my opinion, but still all interesting things to think about.
I sincerely hope your post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, or just expressive of an overall frustration about how un-nail-down-able some of these concepts can be sometimes (I hear you brotha. Sometimes I just want to shout, "I know it when I see it!). Cuz "anything that inspires terror is terrorism" encompasses... just to start... Scary movies, R.L. Stine's "Goosebumps" (if you're under 10 years old), how messy my room is (if you're my mom), muslims (if you're Rep. Peter King), Peter King (if you're muslim), large open spaces (if you have agoraphobia), Christine O'Donnell's "I'm not a witch" commercial (if you posses a brain and knew she was running for the US Senate), and hearing footsteps behind you while walking home on a dark, lonely night (anyone).
ReplyDeleteJust sayin.... :P
To the first comment I see (apparently the very first was removed by its author), I'd say that specifically say that the USS Cole's soldiers count as combatants. They were on active duty in foreign waters, and to me that counts as combatants. I'll agree in saying that defining combatants can be a tricky thing to define, however my definition makes it irrelevant to defining terrorism haha. That is very thought provoking though.
ReplyDeleteTo the second, this isn't a tongue-in-cheek post. I kinda hoped that people would know that inspiring terror for entertainment purposes would not be encompassed by my definition, though in retrospect maybe i should have specifically said that. Same also goes for personal phobias. Suffice to say that my definition requires at a minimum of two people involved.
Peter King is engaging in an act of terrorism similar to McCarthy. He's kindling fears of persecution in an ethnic group which I think suffices as an act of terrorism. In the reverse perspective (muslims in the eyes of Peter King), they are engaging in terrorism in King's mind, though he makes the stupid error of generalizing some muslim terrorists to all terrorists. In my definition, terror is inherently relative and thus that counts as well. And in the case of Christine O'Donnell, id say that it doesn't inspire terror so much as a giant national facepalm haha
Thanks for commenting amigos