EDMG340 Week 1 Forum – Definition and Scope of Consequence Management

Just because it is a terrible act, is it an act of terrorism? State and support your position.

[NOTE: I’d began to write this response the morning prior to the actual submission; unfortunately family matters arose, leaving me no choice but to turn away from the task. Since that time more events and responses have unfolded on the news—including a threat against a nearby community’s mosque.]

As noted in the course materials and other forum responses, terrorism can be a difficult term to define; throughout most definitions, however, a basic concept evolves as terrorism being an act in which fear is employed at the start or reveals itself as an end result. Frequently, the terrorist acts are taken in resistance to or against some law, practice or ideology; conversely, the element of fear may very well be the trigger of a terroristic act.

In a prior response to this question, I’d suggested that the American Revolutionary War—or certain events taking place prior to and during the period—could easily be seen as terroristic acts on either side of the pond. In particular, I presented a view where I played the role of devil’s advocate, and became a British sympathizer. This view works well the notion that, “One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist.”

As I sat down to think of a new response to this prompt, I couldn’t help but think of some of our recent events in the states, and the response and attention given to them. One could easily argue that what transpired in San Bernardino was a terrorist act, regardless to whether the couple was acting alone or as free-agents to some radical Islamist group. The couple committed an act which was “terrible” and egregious—one that cost a decent number of lives—and an act which was easily seen as being religiously motivated—practitioners of the Muslim faith waging an attack against persons at a Christmas party. Instead of focusing on the couple and what transpired, however, my thoughts went in a different direction; instead, I have decided to declare Donald J. Trump a terrorist.

As I sat briefly on my couch this morning waiting for the children to finish readying themselves for school, I heard Matt and Savannah discuss Trump’s latest statements, and how he believes that the nation should disallow any and all persons of Muslim faith entry—regardless of whether they are Syrian, or have ties to any IS-variant state. Trump’s comments—as “innocent” as they may be for the time being—do have the potential of being viewed as being terroristic in some nature or fashion, inasmuch as they might be seen as a form of fear-mongering for the purposes of political gain.

Might one be able to say that these loose words are a terrible act? As a matter of opinion, yes, they can, and as was reported in this morning’s news, they are already being seen as such. At this point, we may only be observing a citizen voicing their opinion on a matter; movements have started this way—and have resulted in true terroristic acts in the name of varied gods, countries and political revolutions. Could Trump’s words potentially create an upheaval in American society and spark some sort of movement where homegrown terrorism thrives? Potentially; and if that remark sounds a bit far-fetched, wouldn’t that be something that President Obama did attempt to address when he spoke to the nation this past Sunday evening?

The point I am trying to make in this post—as it may not yet be clear to many—is that an act of terrorism does not even need to be a “terrible act,” but can be as simple as someone putting forth an idea—part of the conclusion Lutz & Lutz drew at the end of the chapter that terrorism is merely a form of psychological warfare. So, to that effect—and to answer the prompt—no, a terrible act isn’t necessarily an act of terrorism, per se. In my original response to the very question, I’d shown that our terrible acts against what had been our mother country turned into what we regard as one of the greatest moments in our history. In this response, I’ve gone off on a siderail, stating how a simple man’s comments can be interpreted as terroristic, and could potentially lead to truer acts of terrorism.

[…and to clarify, yes, I understand that Trump’s response is a reaction to a terroristic event; however, one would be foolish to deny the off-chance that some uneducated zealot may take his words as a call to action and start a movement.]