Comments on: Definition of Terrorism

By: Sanawi

Sanawi — Mon, 22 May 2006 03:34:30 +0000

Hello there,
Just I want to reminde you. Have you read “Good Muslim Bad Muslim by Mamdani? Please try it out, and let me know.

By: Craig S.

Craig S. — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:20:19 +0000

I am heading off to Israel next month to do some primary research on terrorism. I’ll let everyone know what my findings are!

By: Steve H

Steve H — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:53:24 +0000

I depends on what you think the aims of the terrorism really are. If, as one commentator has argued (a Purdue professor whose name eludes me at the moment) the real intent is to forstall peace with Israel each time things come close, it has been amazingly successful. That is, we assume that the Palestinians are trying to gain independence, their own land, and some probably are. But there are some that simply want to perpetuate the strife with Israel because they don’t recognize their right to exist and feel it is their duty to destroy them. If they are trying to forstall anything that would officially recognize Israel, they have done a good job. There certainly hasn’t been a lasting peace of any kind. (By the way, there are those on both sides who want to forestall this peace. I’m not trying to villify the Palestinians in any blanket way. The problem, then, becomes when an effort to forestall the peace is terrorism and when it is poilitical stagemanship.)

By: danithew

danithew — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:23:35 +0000

I haven’t been able to decide to what degree terrorism succeeds in its aims. I’ve seen plenty of evidence that terrorism provokes retaliation (in violent or non-violent forms) that tends to damage the whole population from which the terrorists originate. Hamas suicide bombers killed many Israelis but then and today the Palestinians are suffering tremendous economic and political losses as a result. Groups and nations that are normally very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause are now at least giving lip service to cutting off ties/communications with the Palestinian Authority because Hamas has gained power. Not to mention the barricade/fence/wall that the Israelis have imposed — unilaterally splitting the two peoples to a great extent.

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Stephen M (Ethesis) — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:55:00 +0000

Interesting.

What struck me about studying terrorism is how it generally fails.

By: Copedi

Copedi — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:42:49 +0000

Another issue involved in defining terrorism is who is perpetrating the violence. If we’re talking about attacks on noncombatants, then clearly something like the U.S. attack on Hiroshima would be considered a terrorist act. Yet, typically such acts are not considered terrorism, because they are carried out by a recognized authority (and because the U.S. won the war).

By: annegb

annegb — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 17:50:02 +0000

D’Nesh D’Souza has a good exploration of this topic in his book, “What’s So Great About America?”

By: Craig S.

Craig S. — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:24:54 +0000

Steve,

Apologies for the disjointed ending, I have to admit I cut and pasted selections from my upcoming book. As a result some of the transitions may seem rough.

To a terrorist, terrorism is a rational act. As this is a political phenomenon ideological rationalization is an important aspect to terrorism. Terrorists will justify the killing of innocents.

As for the targeting of “innocents”. I believe that terrorism is a value laden term which carries moral baggage. I think it is entirely appropriate that my definition carries a normative perspective. Those that wish to justify the targeting of non-combatants will, in the end justify their attacks however they can.

When we look at act perpetrated by terrorists, I believe that we can attribute intent to their actions by looking at their operations. A islamic fundamentalist shaheed or suicide bomber that elects to detonate the explosive device in a crowded mall IS targeting non-combatants. A psychological analysis of their true intent in not necessary at that point.

Again, part of the intent of terrorists is to foment this violence in a a way that creates fear in a larger audience than the proximate targets. The targeting of “innocents” does this in a way that is much more effective because anyone, anywhere, becomes a target. Thus de-legitimizing the current government as well as gaining greater attention.

By: Steve H

Steve H — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:01:39 +0000

Your last paragraph seems to me to be a bit out of tone with the rest of the post. Are you saying that you believe that the killing of innocents is occasionally justified or that those involved may attempt to justify it in this way?
It seems to me, in addition that this misses, either way, the point of view of those involved in the terrorist act. the typical justification that I hear from those sympathetic with causes is that terrorism does not target innocents–that non-combatants, even children are part of the evil that they are fighting and support it, or are being raised to support it financially.
I don’t note this because I agree, but because I think it needs to be taken into account when we assess the justification of terrorist acts by those who perpetrate them, and to deal with these groups with another understanding of their justification obscures and mystifies their reasons, making some acts seem inexplicable. We can’t believe, for instance, that anyone could justify the killing of innocents, but the difficulty is just this seeing them as innocents. I do, but that doesn’t mean the terrorist does.
This also is a difficulty if we say that terrorism is dependent on the perpetrator’s intention to harm innocents or non-combatants, since there may be no such line in the terrorist’s mind. The line of definition then becomes a translated version of the terrorist’s intent into our vocabulary, justified as such a translation might be.
TMD–I wish you would post your reply here. I feel as if I’m out of line not to have read your post replying, especially as yours is the first response, but if I do, then it would make more sense to reply to it there, which hardly seems fair to the complexity of Craig’s argument. I would have to refer back to this post.

By: TMD

TMD — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:25:16 +0000

am posting a response over at T & S…