The Eligious Perspectives on Defining Terrorism - Essay Example

April 4, Terrorism: Many Definitions Due to Many Forms of Self-Interests “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” With this saying, it becomes clear that terrorism’s definition is unclear because any individual, group, or organization who has power and means of implementing a definition can define it. I find “terrorism” controversial because states can define it to categorize their enemies through a black-and-white category. “Terrorism” is also ambiguous because there is no one definition of terrorism, since diverse states, organizations, and groups define it differently. Terrorism must have clear criteria in order for people to critically assess reports about terrorism and to understand its causes and proper sanctions. Terrorism must be defined in concrete terms enough to understand when it happens and to ensure that the public, media, and governments are not excluding states and organizations that accept, promote, support, and conduct some forms of terrorism. Terrorism and insurgency are not the same. Insurgency may refer to acts where groups or organizations are resisting occupying forces, colonizers, and usurpers, as well as constituted authority (Taskhiri). Insurgents can also claim that they are fighting a “lawful war” through tactics that international law will consider as acceptable and not related to terrorism (Libaw). An example would be a local insurgency group that attacks or defends itself from military operations. Terrorism, on the opposite, does not play by international rules. Yonah Alexander, director of the Institute for Studies in International Terrorism at the State University of New York, differentiates terrorism from insurgency and guerilla warfare. He states: “Terrorists are not insurgents, not guerrillas…Terrorists are beyond all norms. They dont recognize any laws” (Libaw). Terrorism does not have legitimacy that insurgency may have. Both could have political motivations, but terrorism does not respect international laws and norms regarding warfare. Not all militant organizations are involved in terrorism too, especially those that conduct social works or have legal national organizations fronts. Zohar Kampf explores the media’s use of terrorism. It notes that the Washington Post differentiates militants with a social cause from terrorists without one. It calls “Palestinian Hamas group ‘militants’ and members of al Qaeda ‘terrorists’” (Kampf 6). The Washington Post defends that Hamas performs social work and is driven by territorial and national sentiments, while “al Qaeda exists only as a terrorist network” (qtd. in Kampf 6). This definition defends that some terrorist acts are acceptable if balanced with social and nationalistic goals. Besides excluding militant organizations with social and nationalistic intentions, the government of the United States does not include states as terrorists. The U.S. State Department defines terrorism as an act of individuals or organizations and groups, but not an act of states. This definition focuses on political motives too. It says that terrorism is: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (asterisk in the original definition of Whitaker). Non-combatant targets may include military personnel who are off duty or unarmed, or against military bases where hostilities are not present (Whitaker). This definition excludes acts of governments against other governments or groups, even when they may include civilian targets or unintended civilian casualties (Whitaker). Brian Whitaker criticizes this definition because, though it may be self-serving because it justifies the violent acts of the U.S. government and other governments against certain people on foreign soil, it also does not identify hostile states that are terrorists by virtue of their financial or other clandestine kinds of support for terrorist organizations. Because of these consequences, Whitaker notes that terrorism is politically motivated indeed, but also from the government or society’s point of view. He believes that “terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of.” Violent acts against self-interests are acts of terrorism. Terrorism should not be as simple and self-serving as this definition, nevertheless. Another definition of terrorism is general enough to include all inhuman acts, include that from states. Ayatullah Shaykh Muhammad Ali Taskhiri does not want to exclude religious perspectives on defining terrorism. He says: “Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid) objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind.” He includes acts of piracy wherever they may occur, “colonialist operations,” and “dictatorial acts” against the populace (Taskhiri). Though his definition considers that states must be held accountable for their terrorist acts, it is too broad from an international law perspective. An international law perspective is something that many states can agree on when defining terrorism. To define terrorism, focusing on the targets of terrorists and their goals, which may be political or social, is essential to providing clear, specific criteria. Eric Reitan offers a group-target definition that can encompass many inhuman acts that Taskhiri also notes as terroristic. Reitan states that: ‘Terrorism’ is any act or pattern of violence such that (a) the primary or ultimate target is a group conceived of as a whole; (b) the immediate targets are members of the targeted group; (c) membership in the targeted group is regarded as sufficient to render one a legitimate target; (d) the violence against targeted group members is instrumental to producing some effect on the group conceived of as a whole (which may mean influencing the group’s perceived leadership). (Reitan 265). The strengths of this definition are that it includes different motives and different people who may conduct terrorism, thereby eliminating discrimination according to what one group disapproves of and it also highlights the intended effects on a specific group. It does not matter if the act results to public fear or not because the public may not even care for the target people because they are minorities, for instance. The definition, thus, treats all people who fit the definition as potential terrorists and any group as potential targets with no bias whatsoever. Terrorism may have many definitions, but for me, it is flat out wrong. Whether it is done to hurt a dictator or even what many people may consider as violent radical groups, it is wrong because we are killing our fellow human beings. A piece of our humanity gets torn away every time we kill a human being. Terrorism should also not be used to justify even insurgency that also kills soldiers who have human lives and families too. In essence, terrorism is merely a cycle of violent acts that are done through different scales and forms of warfare, all because of perceived human differences. Works Cited Kampf, Zohar. “News-Media and Terrorism: Changing Relationship, Changing Definitions.” Sociology Compass 8.1 (2014): 1-9. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. Libaw, Oliver. “How Do You Define Terrorism?” ABCNews.com, Oct. 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. Reitan, Eric. “Defining Terrorism for Public Policy Purposes: The Group-Target Definition.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 7.2 (2010): 253-278. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. Taskhiri, Ayatullah Shaykh Muhammad Ali. “Towards a Definition of Terrorism.” Al-Islam.org, no date. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. Whitaker, Brian. “The Definition of Terrorism.” The Guardian, 7 May 2001. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. Read More