Defining Terrorism Part 2 Divine Mugunga

Divine Mugunga

Global Terrorism

Prof. Shirk

April 27, 2017

Defining Terrorism: Part 2

At the beginning of this class, I argued that terror does not have defining features but is merely a tactic that can be used by anyone to achieve a political goal. A terrorist is an individual who uses terror as a tactic, and finally, terrorism is the use of that tactic (Tilly 2004 11-12). Although I formed this opinion at the beginning of the semester, I still stand by this definition. Throughout the semester, we discussed numerous controversial definitions of the term terrorism. For example, according to the state Department, Terrorism is politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (class notes 1/19). This definition allows states to commit terrorist acts but because they state actors they are not considered terrorist. In this essay I will use two cases, John Brown and the US War On Terror, to demonstrate that individuals or groups and state actors are both capable of committing terrorism, therefore making them terrorists.

In today’s modern context John brown’s tactics to free slaves would be considered terrorism. His strategies involved carefully choosing a target, which included individuals that upheld slavery even if they alone did not own slaves. He did not necessarily target people as much as he did their property. Brown also chose his target for shock value and symbolic impact. For example, he would attack popular landmarks or very well known individuals, which not only instilled fear in the target but also in the people that witnessed it. Because of his noble cause, many people do not want to label him as a terrorist. For instance, a decade after John Brown, the Ku Klux Klan, an extremist group who wanted to restore white supremacy in the South, used the same methods as John Brown used in Kansas. These methods include assaults, murder, robbery, arson, and other forms of intimidation to bring about change. People were quick to label the KKK as a terrorist group, not because their tactics instilled fear in people, but because their cause was merely evil. This is because we have fostered the false notion that terrorists are irrational and evil, which is not always true.

What seems to be a noble cause in one man's eyes might be considered terrorism in another’s. After 9/11 the United States waged war on terror to protect its citizens from further attacks, but instead, they committed terrorist acts as means of counterterrorism. First, the National Security used complex analysis of electronic surveillance as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes. This proved to be a very unreliable method because the agency used metadata analysis and cell phones to identify targets, and order strikes based on the activity and location of the cell phone that belong to the suspect. They were targeting phones and not actual people, which resulted in many deaths of innocent or unidentified people. Second, they tortured suspected people for information by a process of suffocation by water, which involves strapping the individual to a tilted board, with legs above their head, placing a cloth over their face, covering their nose and mouth. Water is then poured continuously over the cloth to prevent breathing, simulate drowning and induce panic. Third, they captured and transported suspects to other countries with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners.  Last, the presence of drones 24/7 alone terrorized the people, which gave rise to

Psychological trauma among civilian communities. They felt a constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment; they were powerless in protecting themselves. It is important to mention that these suspect were not yet proven guilty, and there was a chance they were innocent.

Throughout the semester I came across many controversial cases that could have impacted my definition of terrorism, but I still stand by my original definition of terrorism, which is the use of terror as a tactic by an individual or a group (including state or non-state actors) to gain a political goal. Terrorism is then the use of terror, and a terrorist is an individual or group that uses terror as a tactic. Most terrorists we studied in this course had numerous reasons to justify their actions, some included of these include, religion, in the case of John Brown and most of the Muslim groups. The United States, on the other hand, used their definition of the term terrorism, which excludes state actors from being considered terrorist (for their terroristic actions), to justify the war on terror. Regardless of the intent, the noble cause, the religious reasons, anyone who uses terror as a tactic to gain political achievements is a terrorist. 

References: 

•   Tilly, C. (2004). Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists. Sociological Theory, 22(1), 5-13. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3648955 
• Stanford/NYU Report, Exec Summary, p.v-x.
• Scahill, Jeremy, and Glenn Greenwald. “The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program.” https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

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. 

Would the use of Torture in U.S. War on Terror Be Considered as Terrorism

Post by: Chirusha de Mel

April 23, 2017

Would the use of Torture in U.S. War on Terror Be Considered as Terrorism?

Over the past several years many individuals have spoken about the failure and the ineffectiveness on the U.S. War on Terror. Surrounding the War on Terror the tactics which were used in order to defeat terrorism infringed upon human rights.  After the September 11^th attacks, the use of torture became a debatable global issue on whether it is justifiable on suspected terrorists. The term torture became an ambiguous definition, while turning the blind eye when it is convenient. Most Americans believe that the form of torture helps extract information from suspected terrorists in order to save millions of lives. However, I believe that the U.S. War on Terror used terroristic tactics which were/are morally wrong, impractical, and ineffective. Therefore, the torture used in the U.S. War on Terror should be viewed as terrorism.

Experts have said when people are tortured, the information is often falsified, usually the person undergoing torture does not have an ultimate goal in order to supply information. According to the Senate Report on CIA Torture the report studies shows time and time again that the use of torture was not effective in gaining useful information. The most useful information was found when non-CIA agencies asked detainees with non-coercive techniques. The CIA Report indicates that,

“Hassan Ghul provided extensive information on Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda operatives when questioned without coercive techniques by the CIA and did not provide more information after he was subjected to torture and cruel treatment. Others, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, provided false information after interrogation. After the program had ended, CIA Director John Brennan admitted, “We have not concluded that it was the use of EITs within that program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them,” saying that whether "enhanced interrogation" was effective is “unknowable (Torture Was Ineffective).” 
        Using torture as a tactic to gain useful information for the national security could be considered as an option in specific circumstances. On the other hand, it is important to note that it will have an impact on the creditability of the U.S. in their promotion of law and order and human rights around the world. In addition, according to Terrorism and Civil Liberty, Michael Ignatieff argues, “may be that it is at times motivated not so much by a desire to extract vital information but by something baser, such as an urge to inflict pain, exact revenge, or even just for fun. That seems to have been part of the motivation of the Americans who abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib (Is Torture Ever Justified)”

         The danger of torturing suspected terrorists would be that American victims who are in the hands of other hostile countries could justify torturing Americans. It would be a moral dilemma to justify the actions of USA in torturing suspected terrorists while condemning other countries for committing the same acts.

Many Americans do not understand what it would be like for other hostile nations to take our people and use torture as a tactic in order to gain information. I understand that people see torture as reasonable because of the potential lives that can be saved. Evidently, however these tactics are ineffective and are simply inhumane. The U.S. War Terror should be conducted without using illegal and terroristic methods.

                                                      Work Cited

"Is Torture Ever Justified?" The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 22 Sept. 2007. Web. 23 Apr. 2017

"Torture Was Ineffective." Human Rights First. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2017.

Is the use of drones terrorism?

Christopher Bouchard

Professor Shirk

POL:357

4/23/2017

Is the use of drone’s terrorism?

            The use of drones has been a controversial topic the last couple of years.  Drones have been used increasingly in the past couple of years due to their tactical ability in the battlefield.  But many have scrutinized the use of drones by the United States calling them no better than the terrorists that they aim to combat with these drone strikes.  I argue that the use of drones by the United States is not terrorism though.

            The United States’ use of drones in combat is not terrorism.  For starters, we have discussed in class if it is possible for a state to commit terrorism.  And in most aspects, I believe that a state engaging in a war cannot commit terrorism.  The argument here by opposing countries and nations is that the use of drones is terrorism by the United States for several different reasons.  There is the reversal argument by nations and people alike that say that if America had drones constantly flying around the area either doing recon or surveillance or striking down enemies of the opposing state then we would classify it as terrorism and immediate demand the removal of them.  The very idea of this is thought provoking to make those in the United States consider themselves in other people’s shoes and to imagine what it’s like to see a drone in the air and not know what is going to happen next.  The very image of these drones in the air can cause fear and terror on those that see them.  Some would ask how is this not terrorism when the very sight of something can instill fear and terror into a population.  Another argument that opposition brings up is that these drone strikes kill hundreds of innocent civilians.  More than even regular air craft have in fact.  Now this is where the gray area of these drones comes into place.  When the operators of the drones try to track done the specific sim card of an individual than sometimes they end up killing who they think is their target but in realty their target has lent their phone to a friend of theirs or has swapped sim cards with another person.  And when you combine these two things how can it not be considered terrorism?

            That I argue is depends on the reason of use for force and the intentions of the use of these drones.  America would not even be in the middle east using these drones if it were not for the terrorist attacks that take place around the world and where these terrorists train their new recruits as well as carry out attacks.  So, in this aspect I do not see America as the aggressor in this war.  And this war on terror is exactly what needs to be combated to prevent even further innocent casualties.  I also would like to look at the intended use of the drones.  The intend use of these drones is not to instill fear and terror into hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.  But rather to eliminate enemy combatants on the battlefield from a strategic and tactical advantage.  Sometimes these operations go array for various reasons but terror and fear is not what the purpose of these attacks are supposed to cause, like the main purpose of terrorist attacks around the globe.  They also do not specifically target civilians.  Sometimes in these air strikes civilians do get caught in the crossfire and are unfortunately killed.  But the same could be said about airstrikes and artillery strikes through the ages. 

            While the use of these drones is a hot topic and they are, controversial I believe that America’s use of these drones cannot be considered terrorism in the traditional sense.  They might spread fear and terror but only to those in which the United States deems as their aggressors.