Terrorism Revisit

Andrew Gillis

Professor Shirk

Terrorism Revisit

5/5/2017

            At the beginning of the semester I believed that terrorism was 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. What I believed was the most important piece of my definition was that it included state actors into the definition, recognizing that a country such as the United States can also commit terrorism. After studying many different cases over the past semester, my definition of terrorism would stay that same and I would still include the state in my definition. Using the cases of the French Revolution and the US War on Terror I will explain why I still believe that states can commit terrorism.

            The first case that will be examined to show that state can commit terrorism, and should be included in the definition, is the French Revolution and especially the Reign of Terror. The early part of the revolution began with non-state actors taking up arms against the government, it was a revolution. The reign of terror begins after the beheading of King Louis, and the ascension to power by the Committee on Public Safety on April 6,1973 (Class notes). During this time fear of beheading and jail was used to legitimize the power of the government. In total, the reign of terror resulted in 16,594 death sentences in France. The use of terror was even recognized as a strategy by the Committee on Public Safety, stating “Terror was the means of waging that struggle: there could be no middle ground in the combat between ‘liberty’ and ‘despotism.’ ‘Social protection,’ argued Robespierre, ‘is due only to peaceful citizens,’ adding that ‘there are no citizens in the Republic but the republicans.’21 Such arguments were one of the French Revolution's dark gifts to later revolutionary terrorism, which denies the legitimacy of opposition and punishes it accordingly” (Rapport, 67).  

            The French Revolution was when the term terrorism was first used. It is indisputable that the actions of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror are terrorism. Fear and terror was used to suppress opposition and legitimize power, resulting in the use of fear being used to fulfill political goals. The Reign of Terror was carried out by a state actor who was largely responsible for most of the killings. Therefore, the French Revolution and Reign of Terror is a case of a state committing terrorism.

            The second case that can be examined to show state terrorism is the U.S. War on Terror. The War on Terror had four major components: rendition and black sites, torture, targeted killings/signature strikes, and SIGNT. While not these will be explored, these all contributed to generating an atmosphere of fear. One portion of signature strikes and targeted killings that can be considered terroristic are drone strikes. These are terroristic because they strike fear into people and the strikes also have civilian casualties. The aim of the strikes is to further an agenda, which is ending terrorism. However, the heavy civilian casualties end up causing fear in among innocent civilians. Torture is also a tactic that can be considered terroristic because of the nature of it and again how it strikes fear into people. The U.S. uses, or at least used, torture to gain information out of people that they suspected were terrorists. This used the fear or torture and certain interrogation techniques to gain information from people. These actions of the united states strike fear into many innocent civilians, and even those who are not innocent, so therefore they it is terrorism.

            The cases of The French Revolution and the U.S. War on Terror are both reasons as to why my definition of terrorism has continued to include states as a group who can commit terrorism. I believe that a state’s duty is to protect and to serve its people and when it does not do that, in fact it can cause them harm, it should be called out as such. If a state engages in terroristic activities, whether against its own people or people somewhere else, if fear is used as a strategy to further a political goal or agenda it is terrorism regardless of who is committing it.