7 of 7

Write now Article Tools

Terrorism is defined by states and enshrined in law by states. This article therefore addresses the way states define and respond to terrorism. This is particularly relevant in light of the US response to the September 11 attacks on New York's Twin Towers, and US anti-terrorist policy in action today.

*

A definition of terrorism can be used in one of two ways: (a) as a propaganda tool to justify state action in pursuit of the state's own interests; or (b) to develop effective counter-terrorism strategies.

...
The first scenario requires a definition that emphasises acts of violence and identifies with the victims of terrorist action. Paul Johnson's definition (quoted in Whittaker, ed 2001:3) is a good example:
...
"[Terrorism is] the deliberate, systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear in order to gain political ends"
...
Emotive definitions such as this one may not be officially recognised or enshrined in law, but they are wielded by politicians to motivate support for retaliatory action.
...
The U.S. response to the September 11 attacks on New York's Twin Towers arguably falls within this context, as evidenced by their inappropriate action in Afghanistan. Instead of bringing the perpetrators to justice, the U.S. visited an undeclared war on the people of Afghanistan, none of whom was involved in September 11 (Ransom 2002).
...
Defining terrorism should have but one purpose, and that is to form a basis for the development of effective counter-terrorism strategies. To this end, a definition of terrorism requires an emphasis on the motives behind the act (and to an extent must identify with the perpetrators of terrorist acts). As Ron Smith (2002) reminds us, terrorism cannot be fought where the deed takes place, but must be countered at the point of organization. This point is reinforced by Noam Chomsky (cited in Smother et al 1990) who argues that it is the source of terrorism that is under our influence and control.
...
Here it is important to note that emphasising the root causes of terrorism in no way serves to justify the use of terrorist tactics. Smith (2002) puts forward the case for absolute prohibition of terrorism, regardless of its motives:
...
It is morally unacceptable to deliberately target civilians;
It has no respect for human rights; and
It cannot be justified on consequential grounds: history shows the inefficiency off terrorism as a political tactic.
...
With this in mind,

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Re-defining terrorism: The first crucial step in resolving terrorist conflict?
We want to hear your view. Write now!