Terrorism Essay

What is Terrorism?

Terrorism can be defined as “the premeditated act of violence to instill fear in order to promote or advance one’s own political agenda”. Terrorists can be state and non-state actors. The purpose of committing a terrorist act is to endorse a self-interested belief. That belief revolves around religion or politics and its purpose is to send a message and stimulate conversation and action by the target audience. Terrorists will choose the “proper” environment to create a perfect relationship between their motives, the context, and the effects to emphasize their own political ideologies. Acts of terrorism are calculated and planned down to every detail because terrorists realize that without the proper audience or environment, their actions are futile and misinterpreted. There are many definitions of terrorism but there are common themes that exist in every definition.

Mike Rappoport describes terrorism as “political violence against civilian targets by non-state actors”. He categorizes terrorism into four “waves”. The waves are as follows: The Anarchists, Anti-Colonial, New Left, and Religious Wave. In his opinion, the acts of violence that happen in each one of these waves are only performed by non-state actors. Terrorists use violence to get their message across. One can deduct from this that there are many countries that are guilty of terrorism because acts of violence can include wars and battles. Recall the major wars and battles that have existed; not all of those acts of violence were born from non-state combatants. After the attack in New York City on September 11, 2001 by Al-Qaeda, President George W. Bush sent bombs into Baghdad during a “shock and awe campaign” on March 20, 2003.[1] Rappoport would agree that President Bush’s reaction to 9/11 by bombing a section of Baghdad is common. He writes that “Terrorist tactics invariably produce rage and frustration, often driving governments to respond in unanticipated, extraordinary, illegal, and destructive ways”.[2] Rappoport would not label President Bush’s orders as terrorism but that would be incorrect. By the definition given in the first paragraph, President Bush’s orders to attack Baghdad could be categorized as a terrorism. One may argue that this act was justified because of the heinous violence that occurred previously in New York City. This may be true, however, that single bombing in Baghdad damaged civilian buildings in the area and could have claimed the lives of innocent civilians. It was a failed attempt at killing Saddam Hussein; one could even say it was a failed terrorist attack by the United States.

Another definition of terrorism is given by Phillip Bobbit. He believes that terrorism is violence against the constitutional order. He thinks that terror is not always a tactic used by terrorists because their means of terrorism evolve as the constitutional order evolves. Bobbit writes, “In each era, terrorism derives its ideology in reaction to the raison d’être of the dominant constitutional order”.[3] This relates to one of the previous points of this paper; terrorists are so articulate that plan every detail to obtain optimal results. To achieve their goal they may have to evolve their tactics. Terrorists know that nations change over time. Terrorists cannot necessarily use tactics effective in the 19^th century in the 21^st century. Not to mention, the definition of terrorism has changed over time. Hijacking planes in the 1970s was not considered terrorism at the time. But if a person or group hijacked a plain today, it would be considered a terrorist act. Without violence, however, how will terrorists create a shocking display of their beliefs? Violence against the country changes over time, it is not substituted for something else.

Charles Tilly believes that terror is a tactic and those who use terror as a tactic are terrorists. Tilly says that there are different types of terrorists such as Militias, Conspirators, Autonomists, and Zealots. Each category has different distinctions and characteristics that use different techniques, therefore, there is no exact equation that equals “terrorism”. There is no set of coherent factors that contribute to this phenomenon.[4] This is an interesting concept because it explains how terror is the only common denominator of terrorists, otherwise, terrorism spans over a broad spectrum, going unexplained.

Tilly also disagrees with the point that motivations and intentions are important to terrorism. He writes that any definition of terrorism “has the disadvantage of requiring information on motivations and intentions; in, fact, solid evidence on motivations and intentions rarely become available for collective violence”.[5] It would be hard to disregard the motivations of terrorists. It is important to understand what drives terrorists to do what they do in order to prevent it in the future. Lisa Stampnitzky writes that rational actors once would study terrorists and analyze what motivated them but by the late 1970s, the art of studying terrorism became so “highly contentious” that “a focus on ‘understanding’ terrorism could expose experts to charges of ‘sympathy’ with terrorists”.[6] Study of terrorism moved from universities to national defense organizations. This transition made terrorism a greater threat. Hijackings in the 1970s would be turned into terrorist acts and every ounce of violence occurring in the public eye would be aggressively scrutinized.

Referring back to terrorists using the right tactics and context to achieve optimal results; consider the acts of piracy beginning in the 18^th century. Pirates began has buccaneers or privateers that were utilized by empires like Spain or Britain to attack enemy ships. As time went on, privateers were useless to countries thus creating pirates that would steal for their own benefit. As a result, pirates disrupted economies and trade deals. The self-interested stealing, looting, and violence by pirates had political effects. It is highly unlikely, due to the lack of intelligence that pirates had, that their motives were political. Pirates did not have political motivations, therefore, it would seem far-fetched to label them as terrorists.

Another example of  thieves creating unintentional political change is Bernie Madoff. Bernie Madoff stole billions of dollars from people and corporations for his own self-interested goals. He wanted to steal money to make himself richer. In turn, countless businesses were forced to shut down because they had nothing left. He changed the world of investment banking and turned Wall Street upside down. Madoff is not considered to be a terrorist. He is called many things but terrorist is not one of them. His intentions were not to inflict political change; in fact, he probably would have preferred if his system would quietly continue as he got richer and richer. Terrorists want a reaction. They align their political motivations and goals and place them in the right context in order to create the perfect attack. Acts of terrorism are politically motivated and have political repercussions.

Terrorism is not a foreign concept anymore. Terrorism is actually a familiar phenomenon in the 21^st century, yet, nations know so little about it. There are so many definitions, concepts, and strategies to terrorism. There is one thing, however, that people can agree upon: it is a horrendous act of self-interested violence that causes devastation and pain. Hopefully, someday, a world without terrorism will exist but that seems unlikely anytime soon. There will always be anarchists, zealots, and malicious humans in the world, but if humans learn to understand the motivations better to defeat their causes, pain may be lessened.

Bibliography

Bobbit, Phillip. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Alfred

A. Knopf, 2008.

Rappoport, Michael. “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11”. Anthropoetics: The

Journal of Generative Anthropology. UCLA. Accessed February 3, 2018. http://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0801/terror/

Stampnitzky, Lisa. Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism” Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, Charles.  “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of

Terrorism: A Symposium. (2004): p. 12, https://elearn.stonehill.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-

337290-dt-content-rid-1556936_1/courses/40451201840/Tilly%202004%20terrorism.pdf

“Timeline Iraq War”. BBC News. BBC. Accessed February 3, 2018.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36702957

---

[1] “Timeline Iraq War”. BBC News. BBC. Accessed February 3, 2018. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36702957

[2] Michael Rappoport. “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11”. Anthropoetics: The Journal of Generative Anthropology. UCLA. Accessed February 3, 2018. http://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0801/terror/

[3] Phillip Bobbit, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), pp. 26

[4] Charles Tilly, “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium. (2004): p. 12, https://elearn.stonehill.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-337290-dt-content-rid-1556936_1/courses/40451-201840/Tilly%202004%20terrorism.pdf

[5] Charles Tilly

[6] Lisa Stampnitzky, Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 54.