Defining Terrorism Essay

“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para

The word ‘terrorism’ can be traced back to the French Revolution and the reign of terror committed against the population of France in the 1790s. During this time, thousands of people were killed and the general population was severely oppressed. Also, some of the first instances of terrorist tactics, such as assassination and intimidation, were witnessed in the killing of prominent officials and other opponents of the Revolution. In general, terrorists aim to incite fear in the population through pre-meditated violent acts and gain publicity as a medium in achieving their goals. Such acts include taking hostages, bombings and assassinations, all of which create fear and compliance in a victim or audience. Terrorism can be distinguished from other types of political violence through its disregard for and intentional harming of innocent civilians. Also, terrorists usually adopt a state of mind where one side is always good and any opposition is bad and deserves to be punished. As a result, terrorists will always have some supporters who share the same radical thoughts as them and thus terrorism, as a whole, will always be accepted as a legitimate use of violence. This is the reasoning behind the famous phrase by Gerald Seymour, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”(QUOTE

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Terrorism is referred by a criminal act which influences someone beyond the immediate victim, and commits an act of violence that draws the attention of the population, government, and the world (Terrorism research). Goodman explains that Terrorists explode the values they claim to fight. Their victims’ blood blurs and blots whatever ends were meant to justify the carnage (Goodman, 2010, p. 89) We all remember September 11, 2001 and how many innocent lives and people where effected, and that that is what they aim for. The more devastating the damage, the more inhumane, the more avidly is it sought by the strategist, ideologues, and theologians of terror (Goodman, 2010, p. 90).

Terrorism can be defined different ways by different people. “Terrorism is violence- or the threat of violence used to achieve a political goal” (Terrorism 1), that was Opposing Viewpoint’s definition of terrorism. Opposing Viewpoints says that [Terrorism] “differs

For these reasons, historians of terrorism normally work with a wide definition, and social scientists do so much of the time. But philosophers may well prefer a narrow definition. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of (what one considers) an unjust and oppressive government, and planting a bomb in a tea shop and killing a random collection of common citizens, including children. While both acts raise serious moral issues, these issues are not identical, and running them together under the same heading of “terrorism” will likely hamper, rather than help,

The main issue with coming to an agreement on the definition of ‘terrorism’ is the argument that the definition should include “States’ use of armed forces against civilians” (UN GA no. 59, 2004). Essentially, the definition should somehow include the illegality of attacks targeted toward civilians and non-combatants (UN GA no. 59, 2004). If the UN is unable to come to a consensus on a globally accepted definition of terrorism, there are going to be issues when trying to come up with counterterrorism operations (Sudha,7). The main issue with not having a definitive definition of terrorism or terroristic acts is that each State deals with these issues very differently.

Terrorism is a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a

Terrorism is currently a major challenge that confronts the world. Terrorism is a frightening and horrifying event; It has the ability to take away your sense of security and leave us feeling vulnerable, causing the individuals and nations unease. This decade has witnessed some of the most notorious terrorist acts. In recent memory many can easily recall the attacks of 9/11, The day two 767 Boeing jets took down the world-trade centers. Despite, world-wide agreement that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, there remains much dispute on the specifics of what defines terrorism. The definitions provided in one dictionary differ in another. Lets take into example Merriam-Webster's definition, which states that terrorism is “the systematic use of

Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.

Think of the word terrorism. What is the first thing that comes to mind? One might think of kidnapping, assassination, bombing, or even genocide and guerrilla warfare. Because it is such a broad and complex issue, an all-encompassing definition is hard to formulate. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as…

confines, important as they are to the field. Rather, the issue of definition is central to the way

Is there really such a concept as a “typical terrorist,”? Our society has many ideas and stereotypical descriptions of a terrorist. Some people presume that terrorists are either Muslim or Islamic, and they reside in the Middle East. However, it is not true and fair to label people who live a certain area of the world as a terrorist. After the tragic events on 9/11, the “pejorative use of ‘terrorism’ can be seen everywhere.” (Jackson and Sinclair, p. 18) Millions of dollars were poured into attempts to control and research terrorism. The current term of terrorism often makes assumptions about the act of violence and response of those involved including the observers and the society. Furthermore, terrorism has also become a term that is difficult to articulate in academic research. Therefore, the argument I pose is the term terrorism should be abandoned because it is not an useful analytical tool, especially for academic research, which should focus on the meaning, motivation and relationships regarding the acts of violence.