Terrorism
Being in the military, we use terms such as Asymmetric warfare and low-intensity operations, which stand for tactics that can include terrorism. At its core, the definition of terrorism is not so much a description of a particular kind of violence, like bombing or assassination, but a way to differentiate an act of violence comparative to the speaker, and their point of view. Terrorism as a word in its usual usage has a connotation of evil, indiscriminate violence, or brutality. Terrorism, in my perspective is a term that attempts to define, as a separate phenomenon, a philosophy of coordinated violence which tends to have a high degree of social impact on the target society.
One 1988 study by the US Army discovered that over 100 definitions have been used. The United States State Department, Department of Defense, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation all have different definitions of what constitutes terrorism, broadly reflective of their areas of competence and operation. Some examples include The organized use of violence to attack noncombatants (innocents in a special sense) or their property for political purposes. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Current U.S. national security strategy premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents. United States Department of Defense the calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. British Terrorism Act 2000, defines terrorism so as to include not only attacks on military personnel, but also acts not usually considered violent, such as shutting down a website whose views one dislikes. U.S. Army training manual says Terrorism is the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to produce goals that are political or ideological in nature.
The following are some further criteria that are sometimes applied, and the acts they exclude from the definition of terrorism. Many incidents often labeled as terrorist fail one or more criteria. First is target, which commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as targets. Furthermore, an act is more likely to be considered terrorism if it targets a general populace than if it purposefully targets a specific individual or group. Secondly is objective as the name implies, terrorism is understood as an attempt to provoke fear and intimidation. Hence, terrorist acts are designed and intended to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, andor fear. The intent may be to provoke unequal reactions from states. Lastly is motive which is acts that are intended to achieve political or religious goals, not for personal gain. For example, a gang of bank robbers who kill the bank manager, blow up the vault and escape with the contents would normally not be classed as terrorists, because their motive was profit. However, if a gang were to execute the same assault with the intent of causing a crisis in public confidence in the banking system, followed by a run on the banks and a subsequent destabilization of the economy, then the gang would be classed as terrorists.
In conclusion, there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism and even when people agree on a definition of terrorism, they sometimes disagree about whether or not the definition fits a particular incident. In order to understand terrorism, one must assess the different views of what exactly constitutes terrorism. Reaching a general conclusion on the definition of terrorism has generated much debate in the social sciences and internationally. No single definition seems to satisfy the wide interpretation of what specifically is terrorism.
In this article, the author has attempted to explore the literal meanings of terrorism, using a vast variety of references to drive his point. However the question that comes to my mind, is that is such an article actually needed in our body of knowledge Terrorism to me and the rest of the world, especially the numerous civilians that are affected by it every week, is a simple derivative of terror an act that will strike fear into the hearts of every person that comes into contact with it. Do we really need to get in to the nitty gritty of the definition to properly define the term, so that some unlawful acts are excluded, or should all acts be cloaked under terrorism so that they are equally dealt with. How can a bank robbery not be defined as terrorism because the robbers were after profit Go ask the people inside the bank or the secretary that was held up at gunpoint whether they werent terrified. Go ask them whether a gun held to their head cannot be defined as terrorism. Defining the term will get us nowhere, denying it will.
Terrorism, what is it
Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)... This is also how the US Department of Defense defines terrorism. Within this definition, there are three key elementsviolence, fear, and intimidationand each element produces terror in its victims. (International Terrorism and Secruity Research) Another definition is terrorism means premeditated politically motivated violence against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or agents. This was usually to influence an audience. Terrorism is unlawful use or threat of violence. It is used against people or property to further political or social objectives. The result is to intimidate or coerce a government and individuals or groups modify their behavior or politics.
These are just a few definitions found on the web. As we can see terrorism can mean just about anything. But all these definition seem to have a few things in common, they all start by saying premeditated or calculated which when defined means to plan or intentionally do something, and it always against someone or a group. It is then described by some as both a tactic and strategy a crime and a holy duty a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination We may think that terrorism is new to the world, but it has been among us for a very long time. It is said that it has been around since the beginning of recorded history. And although it is an ancient happening, it is still hard to define.
Terrorism is used against the weak and the strong but is used in an underhanded or undermined way. Look at the way it was used against the US. Everyone that got on those planes or was in those buildings was not expecting it to be their last day. Using terrorism in a way that no one is expecting is a very deceitful, cruel, evil way. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter. But this seems to be the only way terrorists know. Harming by blind-side someone is the cowards way.
Terrorism may have many different, but the mean is still the same. It is a mean and evil way for someone to gain control over a nation or individuals by creating fear. It is a way for someone to change the way people live by bring doubt and fear in to their lives. Terrorism is not a new thing of hate it is an old way of hatred that has tried to keep people locked in fear. And the only way to stop them is to keep living as if they never happened. The pain hurt of their actions will live on, but we can not let them win by giving up. Loving, living and being happy are always the sweetest revenge.
The author provides some clever insights into the history of the terror phobia that arrests the world in our times. With countries like the United States forming global coalitions and increasing troop presence in other rogue states, her argument may come as a surprise to the think tanks in Washington. The dilemma that has plagued most of the world this time around is how does one stop all this madness Also is their really any one way to stop them Whereas governments across the globe are scrambling to increase security measures in potential threat zones, and countries are partnering to share any shred of intelligence that may help in destabilizing the global terror network, what are the masses supposed to do to protect themselves An honest answer will be nothing. There are two options that we can go with. Firstly we can go up in arms, fortify our houses and neighbourhoods and join the witch hunt, and ultimately clash with everyone who may look suspicious to us. The more intelligent option is to go about our lives as usual. One must understand as the author so correctly argues, that the basic objective of terrorism is to strike fear into the hearts of the victims. If we cower down, they have won. If we let them get to us, they have won and their objective has been achieved. If we stop coming on the streets and start hiding in corners they have been successful. If we stop enjoying our life, going out, spending money, it will bring down our economy and they will have achieved what they had planned since the outset. However, if we go about our normal lives in the freedom that is meant for us we will win. If we are brave enough, we will love one another, and we will overcome.
Terrorism has many different definitions. The Department of Justice says it means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The Department of States definition is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets and The Department of Defense states that it is the use or threat of violence intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals. All definitions of terrorism have similar meanings and generally all use the same wording violence, fear, influence, attack and civilians (Terrorism, n.d., para 1-2) Despite there being many definitions, no act of terrorism is random (Prince-Gibson, 2008). To many people, terrorism and insurgency are often synonymous. To distinguish between terrorism and insurgency, you have to look at the goals for each. The main goal for insurgency is to challenge the existing government for partial or full control of territories whereas terrorists usually dont attempt to control certain locations because it makes them easier to locate. While insurgency does sometimes use terroristic actions to attain what they want, their main goal is not invoke fear by the use or threat of violence.
There are many different kinds of terrorism ecoterrorism, cyberterrorism, state terrorism, international terrorism and many more. However, state terrorism and international terrorism seem to draw the most concern (Rourke and Boyer, 2008). State terrorism is terrorism controlled, funded or preformed by an established country. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein are just a few world leaders that have tried to control, suppress or exterminate population under their control (Terrorism, n.d., para 38). International terrorism is terrorism that transcends the boundaries of countries. Al Qaeda is the most known of international countries, spanning all oceans and reaching all continents. While these two forms of terrorism seem very different, they can (and sometimes do) cross over and become one. The lines of state terrorism and international terrorism are thin.
Although there are many differing ideas about what terrorism is, the elements and behaviors attached to each are very similar. Generally, they are all political, psychological, dynamic, deliberate and extensive. For the most part, terrorist acts are political in nature or aim to result in political change. Their threats are psychological in nature and must be coercive. If the perceived threat of violence isnt credible, than the terrorist has nothing to enforce their intended effects. Terrorism acts are always deliberate and extensive. It might take years to plan one attack but, for the terrorist, if the intended purpose is met it was worth the time.
I believe that terrorism is all of those things. Ask ten people and youll more than likely get ten different answers. Ask an Al Qaeda member and they would not say that they were terrorists. Instead theyd describe themselves as freedom fighters or legal combatants fighting for a legitimate cause. At the end of the day, every person fighting is doing so for one reason their beliefs.
The author of this article has very ably brought together the varying themes of terrorist together to create an interesting insight that explains the core of all terrorism beliefs. Whereas it may be true that all terrorists explain themselves with this singular notion, it definitely does not solve anything. The clash of beliefs is something that has been a long time coming, and although it has been studied a number of times, no research article has really provided a viable solution that has been implemented. Some critics of religion tend to say that beliefs systems and organized religion are actually the reason that many people fight today, and thus the world is in the shape that it is in. Countries like Iran tend to see the United States as the Great Satan as well. However one thing that all people of religion tend to forget, whether they are heads of state, common masses or even academics, is the singular statement that lies at the core of all religions and belief systems. Brotherhood, friendship, loves and cooperation - these are the themes that are common across every religion. Serving humanity is something that needs to tie us all together when everything else divides us. It is only this spirit that can unite us and improve the world at large.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment