Defining Terrorism by Andrew Gillis

Andrew Gillis

Professor Shirk

POL 357

2/5/17

Terrorism Defined

            I believe that terrorism is the use of terror by a group (state or non-state) as a tactic to further a political goal or agenda and strike fear into people. This is a very broad definition of terrorism, but I think that it is important to have a wide scope when examining terrorism. So many acts of violence can be considered terrorism by one simple question: did the act strike fear into people? Terrorism is a very tricky subject and some of the tactics used are always changing, so it is important to have a definition that can change with the times. The most important part of this definition of terrorism is the use of terror as a tactic to strike fear into people. It is also important to understand that terrorism is not tied to a specific ideology. This is extremely relevant to our society today, that often groups Islam and terrorism together and does not brand other groups as terrorists. This paper will show why understanding terror as a tactic of terrorism is so important to achieving their goals, as well as how terrorists do not belong to a specific ideology.

            Perhaps the most important part of defining terrorism and beginning to understand it is to know that terror is a tactic that is used to achieve a political goal or agenda. Terrorist groups often engage in acts of terror because they want something to change, “when they did voice demands, attackers described in the reports most often called for autonomy or independence for some subnational population or region, replacement of existing governments, or redress of wrongs done to some organization” (Tilly, 8). The use of terror is not something that is blindly used for no apparent reason. Robespierre used terror to enforce his will on the people of France, Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center with hopes to topple the west, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated with the hopes that the Southern Slavic provinces could become independent. While these are only some of the larger known cases of terrorism, these as well as many of the others were used in the hopes of furthering a political agenda.

While the reasons for a terrorist attack are often political, the use of terror sends out another message not only to the victim but to the world. “In addition to whatever harm it inflicts directly, it sends signals - signals that the target is vulnerable, that the perpetrators exist, and that the perpetrators have the capacity to strike again” (Tilly, 9). This is how terrorists can push their agenda, by showing they have the power to attack even the largest of countries. This furthers the use of terror as a tactic, because now the civilian populations are seriously worried about their well-being and will often call upon their government to make changes.

However, some tend to disagree with this definition of terrorism. One such critique is that the actions of terrorists change over time, therefore terror is not a tactic. Philip Bobbitt states “In each era, terrorism derives its ideology in reaction to the raison d' etre of the dominant constitutional order, at the same time negating and rejecting that form's unique ideology but mimicking the form's structural characteristics” (Bobbitt, 26). Bobbitt believes that as constitutional orders over time change so do the terrorist’s reasons for their actions. Thus, they change how they fight the government, so terror is not a tactic. But I find fault in Bobbitt’s reasoning. He is correct when he explains how the constitutional orders change over time, and groups that oppose those orders have evolved with it. But I believe that through these societal changes, those counters to the constitutional order of the day still use terror and terrorism to counter it. Whether it is the 17^th century or today, terror is an effective way to get to the core of a society and show opposition to it. By targeting civilians through brutal uses of force, it is the best way for terrorists to show opposition to the way of a society. While Bobbitt is correct in the evolution of society and terrorists, he is wrong in believing that terror is not a tactic because the actions of these groups change.

It is important to include that terrorism not tied to a single group of people, and terror can be used by individuals of all different ideological backgrounds. Today, terrorism is often tied strictly to Islam and usually the term terrorism is not used unless it is linked to Muslims. This bias towards Muslims is perpetuated by all parts of society whether it is in movies, in the news, or by political leaders. But this is simply not true, and many other groups other than Muslims have committed terrorist acts well before 9/11 and even afterwards. In fact, terrorists can be largely grouped into four waves: Anarchists, anti-colonial, new left, and the religious wave (Rapport). The most relevant wave to our society today is the religious wave, because many of the terrorist attacks involve religion. One of the more notable religious terrorist attacks in recent history is the Planned Parenthood shooting, where several were killed and more injured. This act of terrorism was planned and executed because the man was extremely Christian and he believed that Planned Parenthood was breeding sin. His goal was to strike fear into those that might think about going to Planned Parenthood. This shows that terrorism stretches well beyond just one group of people, and that we should not identify one specific group with terrorist acts.

To expand on this, another key factor of defining terrorism is that it is not exclusive to non-governmental actors and can be used by governments also. As explained earlier, terror is a tactic that individuals or groups use to achieve a political agenda. Thus, this means that governments can also commit acts of terrorism. Many times, terrorist organizations commit acts of terrorism in the name of their government and do so to further the political agenda of their empire. This can be seen by examining the buccaneers of the 17^th century. These buccaneers were hired by kings and queens to attack rival empire’s fleets of ships for plunder. Because of their cruelty “This marked them as terrorists of the kingly state not simply because they served that constitutional order as mercenaries and preyed on civilians, but because they, like the kingly states that employed them, relied upon a nonsectarian ethos and claimed that the use of armed violence was lawful when authorized by a ‘sovereign’” (Bobbitt, 31). It is important to keep in mind when thinking about terrorism that it is not solely related to non-governmental groups. Terror is a tactic that can be used by anyone, including your own government.