NewsAndAnalysis.org

Defining Terrorism

Adam Schneider

16 February 2004

 

Introduction

 

The label “terrorism” is an often used, and arguably often misused, term applied consistently in a pejorative sense to describe acts or threats of violence. Its definition has evolved considerably over time and continues to evolve. Politicians, the media, academics, and ordinary citizens use it broadly to label these acts or threats committed by a wide spectrum of perpetrators, against a wide spectrum of targets, and for a wide spectrum of reasons. The term terrorism is used today in a sweeping and often ill-defined manner similar to the usage of slurs like “evil.” However, despite the broad usage of the terrorism brand, it is possible to scope its definition by first examining what terrorism is and what terrorism is not. For example, certain acts carelessly labeled as terrorism are already credibly designated otherwise. Next, an examination of past, present, and potential future acts of terrorism can provide a better understanding of which perpetrators, targets, aims, and inspirations can be used to characterize terrorism. This paper proposes the following definition of terrorism: A pejorative term used to label ideologically inspired, premeditated acts or threats of violence or sabotage by unlawful combatants against societies, governments, or non-combatants designed to intimidate, coerce, or kill its targets using dramatic and visible means.¹ This definition, as will be argued, provides the proper level of specificity in the modern era of terrorism.

 

Targets and Aims of Terrorism

 

Terrorism is largely defined by its overall objectives and selection of targets. Its link to violence is almost universally understood. Indeed, 91 of 109 definitions of terrorism cite violence or force as a crucial component of terrorism.² However, even in the age of “cyber-terrorism” and “agro-terrorism” threats, terrorism’s linkage with non-violent sabotage is far less common. Globalization, and the dependence on interconnectedness it brings, has increased the threat of sabotage as a means of disrupting systems vital to the world economy. For terrorists determined to attack the centers of the globalizing Western society, this form of sabotage appears to be a viable option.

 

Terrorists are not criminals in the traditional sense, although their acts are indisputably illegal according to domestic and international laws. Criminals threaten or commit acts of violence for selfish – usually material – gain.³ Terrorists, however, typically identify themselves as altruistic warriors for a larger cause.⁴ Although political motivations are commonly linked to terrorism (71 of 109 terrorism definitions cite political motivations⁵), terrorism is inspired by other less acknowledged ideologies. Indeed, their inspiration derives from their adherence to cultural, political, or religious ideologies. Osama bin Laden, for example, distinctly condemns three enemies: the West and its culture, Middle Eastern political regimes, and the “crusader” religions.⁶ Religion is not even mentioned as a potential component of terrorism in an examination of 109 terrorism definitions, but its role should not be ignored.⁷ Crenshaw accounts for religion and categorizes terrorist motivations as “political, religious, or ideological.”⁸ This paper, however, argues that one’s religious and political beliefs are themselves ideologies,⁹ thus making Crenshaw’s characterization redundant.

 

Terrorists, depending on their aims and their capabilities, direct their attacks against one of the following target types: societies, governments, or non-combatants. These attacks are designed to intimidate, coerce, or kill using dramatic and visible means. The U.S. State Department’s definition of terrorism only specifies that terrorists perpetrate their acts against “noncombatant targets.”¹⁰ This definition is too limited in scope as terrorists also directly attack governments – and their combatants – as is evident by the recent al Qaeda-linked attacks in Iraq targeting the U.S. provisional government and the Iraqi security forces.¹¹ Additional examples of government targets of terrorism include the Irgun’s campaign in Palestine against the British and the anti-colonial struggles in Cyprus and Algeria. These anti-colonial struggles also extended to civilian populations as a means to further dramatize the conflict and increase international visibility.¹²

 

Terrorists not only target governments and specific civilian populations, but also whole societies. Al Qaeda, for example, conducts attacks across the globe against a variety of highly visible Western targets. Although the United States and Israel are its most commonly claimed enemies, al Qaeda more broadly attacks Western society as a whole. Its targeting of civilians is not entirely indiscriminant, but aimed at Western audiences. The 2002 bombing in Bali, for example, did not target Americans or Israelis and killed 88 Australians.¹³ Bin Laden’s stated objective is to broadly intimidate Western populations, sometimes referred to as “the United States and it allies,” and coerce “the infidel armies [to] leave the land of Muhammad.”¹⁴ To achieve this aim requires a wide-ranging set of targets.

 

Perpetrators of Terrorism

 

An important aspect of defining terrorism is developing an understanding of those who commit terrorist acts. Persons or groups committing or threatening violent acts are often pejoratively labeled terrorists by the targets of these acts. Governments use this tag – rightly or wrongly – to foster support for their campaigns to defeat these offending persons or groups. The media uses this tag for its convenient, all-inclusive quality.¹⁵ Terrorism, like any other slur – whether justified or not – is applied at the discretion of the labeler. The perpetrators of terrorism describe themselves in nobler, often altruistic terms, like freedom fighters, liberators, and resistance movements.¹⁶ One’s definition of terrorism, therefore, depends largely on whether one associates themselves with the suffering of the victims or the cause of the perpetrators.¹⁷

 

International law, although not indisputably defined or universally accepted in whole, provides reasonably clear and widely accepted definitions for certain kinds of violent acts and the persons that commit them. Proper use of these definitions helps clarify the scope of terrorism and who might be considered a terrorist. Namely, terrorist organizations are not governments or national militaries. However, terrorists – and their sympathizers – regularly label as “terrorists” those national militaries engaged in armed conflict against them. For example, the Palestinian Internet-based publication Jerusalemites referred to the “Israeli terrorist invaders of Palestine.”¹⁸ Despite such characterizations, members of these legitimate militaries are not terrorists. Terrorists are unlawful combatants not affiliated with any recognized military organization. The Geneva Convention (III) of 1949 defines lawful combatants to be:

 

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.¹⁹

 

Terrorists throughout modern history do not meet these requirements and are, therefore, unlawful combatants. Similarly, practitioners of guerrilla warfare typically do not meet these requirements, yet they are not terrorists. Unlike terrorists, guerrilla fighters usually seek to control territories and populations, operate in large numbers, and behave like military units.²⁰ The objectives and tactics of Guerrillas differentiate them from terrorists.

 

Similarly, war crimes are not terrorism. War crimes were defined by the Constitution of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945 as:

 

Violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.²¹

 

Perpetrators of these acts, who are members of an organized military engaged in armed conflict, are war criminals and not terrorists. Therefore, the labeling of the U.S. military or its leadership as terrorists for invading Iraq is inaccurate, despite potential judgments by the international community about the legality of the U.S. action.

 

Conclusion

 

Despite a near certainty that the definition of terrorism will continue to evolve, its meaning will likely remain pejorative in context and closely associated with dramatic and visible acts or threats of violence. However, these elements alone do not fully form a definition of terrorism. A plausible future for terrorism will also include dramatic acts of sabotage committed against the instruments of the globalizing world. These acts should not be ignored when defining terrorism. Further, the definition of terrorism need not be limited to a single target set. Societies, governments, and non-combatants alike are now, and will likely remain, viable targets of terrorists. Finally, the ideological inspirations of terrorism should not be neglected, whether they are religious, political, or otherwise.

 

The emotional aspects of terrorism, felt by the perpetrators and the victims alike, tend to incite usage of the terrorism label beyond its true meaning. War crimes and terrorist acts are dissimilar, as are terrorists, criminals, lawful combatants, and guerrilla fighters.

 

This analysis of what terrorism is and what terrorism is not reveals a sufficiently, but not overly broad definition of terrorism: A pejorative term used to label ideologically inspired, premeditated acts or threats of violence or sabotage by unlawful combatants against societies, governments, or non-combatants designed to intimidate, coerce, or kill its targets using dramatic and visible means.

 

---

 

Biliography

¹ The ideological inspiration may be religious, political, or any other means of characterizing the sociopolitical inclination of terrorist(s).

² Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (NY: Columbia Univ. Press, 1998), p. 40.

³ Hoffman, “Why is Terrorism so Difficult to Define?” in The Terrorism Reader. Second Ed. (David J. Whittaker, Ed. NY: Routledge, 2003), p. 9.

⁴ Hoffman, “Why is Terrorism so Difficult to Define?”, p. 9.

⁵ Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, p. 40.

⁶ Bin Laden refers to both the U.S. and its allies as “crusaders.” Anonymous, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes (Washington: Brassey’s, 2002), p.47.

⁷ Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, p. 40.

⁸ David J. Whittaker, The Terrorism Reader Second Ed. (David J. Whittaker, Ed. NY: Routledge, 2003), p. 17.

⁹ “Ideology: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.” Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Ed.

¹⁰ Whittaker, The Terrorism Reader, p. 3.

¹¹ Ariana Eunjung Cha and William Branigin, “Insurgents Attempting to Ferment 'Civil War' in Iraq Sought Al Qaeda Help,” Washington Post, February 9, 2004.

¹² Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, p. 58.

¹³ Charles E. Morrison, Ed. Asia Pacific Security Outlook 2003 (Japan: JCIE, 2003), p. 21.

¹⁴ Anonymous, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes (Washington: Brassey’s, 2002), p.ix.

¹⁵ Hoffman, “Why is Terrorism so Difficult to Define?”, p. 5.

¹⁶ Hoffman, “Why is Terrorism so Difficult to Define?”, p. 7.

¹⁷ Hoffman, “Why is Terrorism so Difficult to Define?”, p. 8.

¹⁸ “More Martyrs and Abducted Citizens by the Israeli Invaders”, found at http://www.jerusalemites.org/news/english/2003/feb2003/18.htm

¹⁹ Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949. Article 4(2), found at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art4.

²⁰ Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, p. 41.

²¹ Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1. Charter of the International Military Tribunal. Article 6(b), found at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm#art6.

---

 

Additional Links

 

Defining terrorism

Boaz Ganor

 

Exactly what is terrorism?

Christian Science Monitor

 

How do you define terrorism?

CIA

 

What is terrorism?

BBC

 

Definition of terrorism

Wikipedia

 

What is terrorism

About.com