by Christyl Rivers

Created on: August 16, 2011

The world has always had terrorists. What is new is that with daily world travel, mass transportation, media and instant coverage, allow terrorists to do damage and get focus on an almost daily basis. 

World attention can pin point an act of sabotage that very quickly is then spun to political advantage, and even used by terrorists to recruit to their twisted causes. People are concerned, and should be, about how to recognize a true terrorist. Does racial profiling stop terrorism? Are the recent UK riots acts of terrorism? Are lone gunmen terrorists when they go a shooting spree?

Most of us would argue that any person, who uses violence, or just the threat of it, to spread terror is a terrorist. If this definition is too simple, perhaps we should amend it to point out that entire government systems that spread terror, such as the regime of Hosni Mubarak, or Moamar Quaddafi, are not terrorists, but despots and tyrants. And perhaps when entire classes of people are “terrorized” because of their illegal immigrant status, or because they just happen to be under age sex slaves, are not victims of terrorism, but are victims of injustice, not terror. 

The recent shootings of a Christian extremist are rightfully decried by most Christians, but all too often these same Christians think of Islamic extremists as being typical Muslims. When a military veteran, such as the Ft Hood shooter, or Timothy McVeigh, goes on a killing “mission” we don’t identify him with his group of fellow servicemen, or even as males, we see them as terrorists because they killed innocent people to bring attention to their ideology. This is as close as we can approximate to the definition of “Who is a terrorist?” as we can get.

The category is still too broad. And we get ourselves into trouble when we try to define what terrorism really is. Too many people have too many justifiable complaints about what terrifies them. Any invasion of any army on earth, after all, could be determined by the people who bear the brunt of it as terrifying.  Even if the mission of the occupying army is to keep the peace, regular people who have their lives totally disrupted are going to think of the occupying presence as terrorists from their point of view.

Think of the people of Afghanistan. They have been invaded by varying armies for so long, most people living there have no idea what life without war is like. Prior, to that, some would argue, such regions have long been savaged by tribal alliances and petty terrorist acts for hundreds, even thousands of years.

The definition of terrorism should remain open. As soon as we think we know exactly and precisely what it is, the world turns again, and a new set of terrorist troubles see the light of a new day in the glare of explosions.

If we would remain alert, agile and not hand-wringing over what is terror, we shall remain vigilant to thwart all threats against us. We should always be aware, for instance, what principles of freedom we stand ready to defend against it. Tiny steps that erode our freedom and intrude upon our rights are not necessarily going to protect us from terror. We have a better chance to react appropriately with reason and deliberation when we calmly and coolly treat criminals with a justice system that is proven to be the best in the world, and to judge all people regardless of race, color, and creed by the same high standards worldwide.

Learn more about this author, Christyl Rivers.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.