Forms of Terrorism - 2 - 3 Page Paper

1. The Definition of Terrorism

Anti-terrorist police

Terrorism has appeared throughout history. White (2013) poses the idea that, “Defining terrorism,

conflict, and war is not an academic exercise” (p. 3). Definitions of terrorism are based on the past

events of history. Terrorism does not develop in a vacuum. It developed as a response to many different

aspects of social and political forces. Looking closer at the American Revolution, colonists believed that

their basic rights were violated and took up arms to change their destiny. They were seen as terrorist by

the British government who were in control of the colonies. To begin an exploration of terrorism, it is

necessary to define the term. We cannot study something without first understanding it. The initial

attempt at a definition can only be provisional, because the purposes of study may change as we begin

to appreciate the historical, cultural, political, and tactical diversity of the subject.

More than 2,500 years ago, the famous Chinese military historian, Sun Tzu, in his work The Art of War,

counseled his students:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you

know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know

neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. (GoodReads, 2013, para. 1)

This is easier said than done. "Knowing" one's enemy is not a simple task. It requires empathy with the

other side and an attempt to understand what motivates them. There are many forces at work that

makes knowing difficult. It is necessary to remain morally neutral and to empathize without losing sight

of one’s own position. Constant media coverage of terrorist acts colors our judgment.

Mischaracterization and oversimplification about the nature and struggle of the enemy abound. This is

not unique to the study of terrorism. It applies to any form of warfare or political struggle. This leads to

the first cardinal point: Terrorism is a form of warfare. All warfare is a continuation of politics by other

means. Terrorism is one element within the broader spectrum of political violence.

World War II bomb damage

http://www.friendsreunited

.com/second-world-war-bomb-damage/Memory

/dfd5d733-84ca-44e0-b405-a00a013c582e

The element of terror plays a role in all forms of warfare. Terror, rather than definite accuracy or

efficacy, is what underlies the use of V-1 and V-2 weapons by the German High Command against

London during the Second World War. Terror, rather than the actual strategic importance of the targets,

was what motivated the allied firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, and Tokyo. Terror lay at the

root of the strategy to bring the war in the Pacific to an earlier close by the use of atomic bombs against

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Consider what underlies the notion of the "Shock and Awe" campaign in the opening hours of Operation

Iraqi Freedom. These are strategies employed by duly constituted nation states. They are directed by

their governments in the context of open warfare. The purpose is to show an overwhelming use of force

to intimidate and confuse the enemy.

2. Typologies of Terrorism

Guerilla commander

http://isyan.hubpages.com/hub/Guerilla

-Warfare-Tactics-Weapons-and-Strategy

Let’s take a moment to distinguish terrorism from other forms of low-level political conflict, both violent

and nonviolent—including legal demonstration, strike, civil disobedience, or guerrilla warfare, with

which terrorism shares many common characteristics.

There are many competing definitions of terrorism because different scholars and different agencies of

government have different purposes or missions in mind. The U.S. State Department has a vital interest

in distinguishing between acts of state-sponsored terrorism and acts committed by non-nation-state

players. Therefore, it includes in its definition the notion of "sub-national or clandestine groups."

Read this article: Defining Terrorism: Is One Man's Terrorist another Man's Freedom Fighter ?

The U.S. Department of Defense does not want to exclude from its definition attacks against contractors

and rear echelons, so it specifies that terrorism involves attacks against "non-combatant targets" rather

than just "civilians". The FBI's task is law enforcement, so it specifies that terrorism consists of "unlawful

use of force" and includes in its definition groups such as the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal

Liberation Front. Accordingly, it specifically leaves room for acts of violence directed principally against

"property." Many of the differences in the definitions published by U.S. government agencies arise

because of the specialized legislative mandates handed down to these agencies by the U.S. Congress.

The term terrorist carries a negative connotation, but the definition is entirely one of perspective.

Terrorists are also patriots, freedom fighters, and the unwavering faithful. The definition depends on

your point of view.

3. The Changing Meaning of War

Photo of Mikhail Bakunin

http://commons.wikimedia

.org/wiki/File:Bakunin_Nadar.jpg

The left-wing anarchist writers of the latter 19th century, such as Nechayev, Bakunin, Kropotkin and

Johann Most, were shameless about their use of the term terrorism and called themselves "terrorists."

The same was true for many of the theorists and practitioners of terrorism in the many struggles of

national liberation during the first half of the 20th century.

State Sponsored Terrorism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzH0ePo6fBg

Michael Collins was one of the pioneer leaders of the Irish Republican Army; Menachim Begin founded

the Irgun Zvai Leumi during the early days of the Israeli struggle for independence, and Larbi ben M'hidi

was the top leader of the Algerian FLN. Each man considered himself to be aterrorist and was quite

deliberate in the rationalization of his methods. In the words of Robespierre, they all considered "terror

to be nothing but justice—prompt, severe, and inflexible” and therefore virtuous." All of these early

theorists and practitioners viewed terrorism as a means to an end, a means legitimized by its desired

end, the overthrow of a monarchy, the defeat of colonial oppression, the birth of a new nation. Al

Qaeda, Hamas, the Basque separatist ETA, and the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are no different in this

respect.