Second Terrorist Essay

What is Terrorism?

Part 2

In my essay I defined terrorism as “the premeditated act of violence to instill fear in order to promote or advance one’s own political agenda”. I continued to say that terrorists can be state and non-state actors who commit these acts of violence to endorse a self-interested belief that revolves around religion or politics. I also mentioned that terrorists are very calculated when they act because they will choose the environment that is the most effective in emphasizing their beliefs. Originally, I was most persuaded by Charles Tilly and Lisa Stampnitzky. After going through this semester studying the various examples of terrorism,  I have modified my opinion of what terrorism is.

            I remain firm in my original definition other than the fact that acts of terrorism always revolve around politics and religion. I think that terrorism can be motivated by other factors like the environment. One could say that matters involving the environment can be put under the politics category but I think that if we are not better about being more specific on terrorists’ motivations then we will make no progress in defining terrorism or stopping it. In addition I think that there terror has different levels. I was swayed by Tilly’s definition that anyone who uses terror is a terrorist but now I believe that there are different levels to terror that contribute to the severity of those actions and whether everyone who uses terror really is a terrorist. In addition, I would like to add that the transition of the study of terrorism from universities to national defense only further legitimized terrorist actions. Originally, when I mentioned that the study of terrorism has shifted, I only thought about how terrorism and its tactics have evolved but I think it is much more serious than that.

            One example of terrorists actions revolving around other subjects than religion and politics is the actions by the Earth Liberation Front. Their motivations were centered around the dismissal of environmental awareness and protecting American forests. The targets of the ELF were not against the constitutional order in America and they were not based on religious beliefs. I think that Tilly’s blanket definition of terrorism as anyone who uses terror as a tactic is a terrorist is naïve. In addition, I think he is wrong to think that intentions and motivations are not important in determining terrorist acts. If society only takes terrorists actions based on face value, there will be no progress in determining how to stop terrorism. Treating the ELF as a violent terrorist group in the beginning and dismissing their intentions only escalated their actions into violence. Not to mention, there are different levels of terror: there are threats, there is larceny when no human is harmed, then there is violence that harms humans. The ELF began using peaceful protests then transitioned to larceny. This goes on to my next point, the transition from studying terrorism in universities to studying it in national defense bases has furthered legitimized terrorist groups and their tactics.

            During the ELF’s beginning stages, their protests were peaceful yet they were met with violence. No one seemed to care about their intentions or reach out to them to negotiate. In fact, they were dismissed from official meetings because no one wanted to listen to them. They grew frustrated by this and turned to larceny to get attention from the government. The idea that intentions do not matter is preposterous. Stampnitzky is right to say that the study of terrorism is crucial to stopping it. The act of understanding it is not an act of sympathy but simply an act to try to stop it. Same with the FARC, Colombia tried negotiations but ended up giving everything to the FARC without trying to understand their intentions. This only perpetuated the violence of the FARC because when they did not get what they wanted, they backed out of the deals and violently reacted. Treating the FARC as a national defense concern from the beginning rather than studying their tactics and their motivations only legitimized their impact and the violence used. I am not saying that the government should be gentle when dealing with violent groups but I think that the lack of understanding is making terrorism as an option to people who disagree with something in society. If one has a belief that is not being represented, the easy option is to create violence because they know that countries will react.  

            Terrorism is not an easy thing to define or to handle but I think that there is room for improvement in society. The violence is getting out of hand and terror has become a relevant headline all over the globe, especially in America. Understanding this complicated subject is a good start to understanding how to stop it and I think my definition and many other definitions did not scratch the surface of terrorism’s magnitude.