Second Terrorism Essay

Drew Nelson

Professor Shirk

POL357: Global Politics of Terrorism

3 May 2018

Terrorism Essay

            In my first essay, I agreed with Phillip Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism. He recognized that terrorism is violence used against a constitutional order. This definition implies that terrorism is only used by those attempting to take down a government or change a specific part of it whether it be a change in leadership or to change what the government stands for. I agreed with Bobbitt’s argument that those who commit terror can be state or non-state actors, meaning that terrorism can come from within the current regime. I still agree with Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism. Through readings and discussions, I have seen how terrorism can come from government-sanctioned actors and those who are not part of the state. His definition does not include who the victims are, but I would argue that they would be nonmilitary personnel. Examples of this definition include pirates, Anarchists, and the right-wing extremist movement. Pirates of the eighteenth century used violence like attacking ships to accomplish an economic goal which how political ramifications. They were also non-state actors, but sometimes ignored by the state to further their goal. Anarchists used violence to take down the government and were fundamentally opposed to the state, so they were not state actors. The right-wing extremist movement grew frustrated with the government’s response to specific events which led them to commit terror like the Oklahoma City Bombing.

            Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism is: “not simply tied to the use of violence to achieve political goals – that is, strategy – but is also linked to law.”[1]He also states that what constitutes a terrorist is “their attacks on civilians and their adversarial relationship to states.”[2]So, according to Bobbitt terrorism is political violence used on civilians or government-sanctioned actors against the state. Bobbitt, then, discusses the different waves of terrorism taking place in the princely states of the sixteenth century to the modern day market-states.

            One example of terrorism that fits Bobbitt’s definition is the acts committed by the pirates in the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century. Pirates of this time were outcasts who were looking to make money. They would attack ships with cargo on it and steal the goods, so that they could profit off of it. Their goal was to use terror “to obtain money, to punish those who resisted them, to take vengeance against those they considered their enemies, and instill fear in sailors.”[3]Although they may not have thought their goal was political and only perceived it as economic, it had political effects, thus making it so. The rulers of the countries had to take drastic measures to prevent the pirates from plundering the economy.[4]So here, one can see that pirates are using violence as a goal to work in opposition to a constitutional order. The pirates were seen as outcasts to the government and state as a whole, but it is also noted that if they were furthering the state’s interest, the government would not do anything to stop them.[5]This could include negatively affecting the economy of a state that they were at war with. So, pirates fit Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism as non-state actors like they are usually portrayed. However, if one were to make the argument that they were state supported when they furthered their interest, then they would still fall under Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism. 

            Another example of Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism is the Anarchists of the nineteenth century. Their goal was to take down the political structures and attempted this by using violence. In “Anarchism and Outrage,” it is noted that an Anarchist “is not the enemy of any man or set of men, but of every system and way of acting which presses cruelly upon any human being.”[6]This group is using violence to accomplish a political goal of taking down the government which oppresses the people. The group were also seen as non-state actors, which makes sense as they were fundamentally opposed to the state. 

Another example of terrorism would be the domestic terrorism carried out by white men in the United States. Specifically, right-wing extremists carried out these acts and one of their major attacks was the Oklahoma City bombing. This extremist movement became strongly after perceived attacks from the government on white, Christian men. These two events included the government’s attempted arrest of Randy Weaver, a white supremacist, which resulted in his death. The other event was the Branch Davidians religious cult fighting back against the government which came to a conclusion of 80 deaths.[7]This emboldened the right-wing extremist movement and led to the Oklahoma City Bombing. One of the terrorists was seen giving out antigovernment literature at the site of the Branch Davidians conflict.[8]So, these attacks fit into Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism. They used violence, the bombing, as a goal to work in opposition to the state. They were doing so because they loathed the government for their perceived attacks on white, Christian men. The two were also non-state actors. 

In the beginning of the course, I agreed with Phillip Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism that it is violence to accomplish a political goal and used by state or non-state actors. Through my study and research, I still agree with this definition and use the pirates, Anarchists, and right-wing extremist movement to support this. 

Works Cited

Anonymous, “Anarchism and Outrage.” Freedom Pamphlets – No. 8. London: C. W. Wilson, 1893.

Bialuschewski, Arne. “Pirates, markets and imperial authority: economic aspects of maritime depredations in the Atlantic World, 1716-1726.” Global Crime. Peterborough: Trent University, 2008.

Bobbitt, Phillip. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008. 

Kellner, Douglas. “Constructing Male Identities and the Spectacle of Terror.” Guys and Guns Amok: Domestic Terrorism and School Shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2008.

Rediker, Marcus. “A Tale of Two Terrors.” Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.

---

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

[2]Bobbitt, Terror and Consent, 27. 

[3]Marcus Rediker, “A Tale of Two Terrors,” Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2004), 5. 

[4]Rediker, “Two Terrors,” 5. 

[5]Arne Bialuschewski, “Pirates, markets and imperial authority: economic aspects of maritime depredations in the Atlantic World, 1716-1726,” Global Crime, (Peterborough: Trent University, 2008), 53.

[6]Anonymous, “Anarchism and Outrage,” Freedom Pamphlets – No. 8, (London: C. W. Wilson, 1893), 4. 

[7]Douglas Kellner, “Constructing Male Identities and the Spectacle of Terror,” Guys and Guns Amok: Domestic Terrorism and School Shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre, (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2008), 101.

[8]Kellner, “Male Identities,” 103.