Final Terrorism Essay Revisited- Stephen Agnatovech

Stephen Agnatovech

5/4/17

POL Terrorism

Prof. Shirk

Terrorism Essay Revisited

In the first version of this essay I stated that terrorism was the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I also stated that terrorism was created by experts and has in fact been around before the construction of the word terrorism. After our discussion’s through the semester I still agree with these assertions, but now have the knowledge for the reason why. I would also add to the fact that the loser of a conflict is usually depicted as the terrorist group when in fact both parties had used the tactic of terrorism. In this essay I still am going to relate back to Stampnitzky article on “Discipling Terror,” along with looking at different case studies from class on Anti-Abortion terrorism, the FLN, and the world’s battle against ISIS.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation that can be against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Throughout the semester it is clear to see that terrorism can be committed in state, and state against state. In the case of instate, Anti-Abortion Terrorism is a great case to look at. Even in a well-developed nation like the United States Anti-Abortion Terrorism can be committed as we had seen in “Targets of Hatred.” Anti-abortionists were seen as domestic terrorists who threatened doctors and people responsible for carrying out abortions. These domestic terrorists were responsible for the arson of reproductive services, the threats given to doctors to stop operating, and the surrounding and harassment of people who worked at these abortion clinics. These domestic terrorists were responsible for the unlawful use of violence and intimidation against innocent civilians. The actions committed were also in the pursuit of political aims that were tied into religion. During this time period in the United States abortions were looked at as evil and against the Christian belief. Even now there is still prominence to this issue in how some highly religious people don’t believe in abortions.

Terrorism can also mean state against state as well. A particular case that sticks out to me is the French colony of Algeria fighting for their freedom from the French. The FLN were seen as terrorists because of their attacks and bombings against civilians in order to gain international attention. There goals can also be seen as political since they were trying to gain independence to be a free state. Both sides of this conflict used terrorism by killing a number of civilians. It wasn’t until the battle of Algiers that started to make this fight unpopular on the French’s side. Colonization started to become unpopular and the portrayal by the media of innocent civilian deaths resulted in the victory by the FLN. Both sides in this specific case used unlawful violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims. The FLN weren’t seen as the ‘bad guys’ in this case because of their victory becoming a free state. This is important to understand the second part of my argument that terrorism has been created by experts, and has in fact been around for an extensive amount of time.

The use of terrorism has been around long before the formation of the word. Along with this I would say that the loser, or unpopular agent, is usually depicted as the terrorist group even if both sides use a form of terrorism. The use of the word terrorism has changed over the years according to Stampnitzky. Stampnitzky suggests that “others have suggested that we view terrorism expertise as a product of political propaganda by governments seeking to demonize their enemies and draw attention away from their use of violence” (Stampnitzky p. 10). I agree with this statement and that the popular nation portrayed by the public and the media always comes out on top as the good guy. This is the reason for the United States justification of drones in the Middle East. Drones have been known to produce a number of civilian casualties, but the justification is that they help the United States take down enemies they wouldn’t be able to reach if it weren’t for the drones. Another example of this is the case of the YPG over in the Middle East. The United States labels the YPG as a terrorist organization, but since they’re helping against a common enemy ISIS (and have proven to be effective), the United States continues to fund them and send American troops over to help fight in the cause. This example sheds light on how the word terrorism exists through both sides along with how it is altered by political leaders. The word terrorism is also used to demonize the side the United States wants perished.

In conclusion, the way I viewed terrorism in the first version of this essay juxtaposed to this essay is the same. The difference is now I know how to look at terrorism through different case studies. Terrorism to me is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I also feel that terrorism has been around before the term was created, and that both sides of a conflict use terrorism. The loser of a conflict is labeled the terrorist group, and the winner remains innocent. The word terrorism is used as a propaganda technique to gain support for a country's actions against another as well. 

Works Cited

Baird Windle, P. Badger J. Eleanor. (2001). Targets of Hatred: Anti-Abortion Terrorism. St. Martin's Press. pp. 187-250.

Harris, M. (2015). ISIS’ Toughest Enemy Should Be Taken Off America’s Terrorist List. The New Inquiry. pp. 1-4.

Stampnitzky, L. (2004). Discipling Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism.” Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-82.

Thomas C. Martin. (2015), Violence in the Algerian War of Independence: Terror, Counter-Terror, and Compliance. The Routledge History of Terrorism. pp. 218-238.