EDMG340 Week 2 Forum

Does the fact that there is no universal definition allow for confusion, shifting definition resultant of political expedience and /or opportunities for terrorists to exploit?

In my own opinion, about the only thing that “terrorists” of various walks, communities, organizations, etc., are capable of exploiting are the laws of whatever governing body reigns over the land in which the terrorist act occurs; this being made possible by the wide range of definitions for terrorism, and the difficulties associated with trying to create a singular definition. Further complications may also arise when the threat is one of an international body—i.e. al-Queda, or the “Islamic State”—as opposed to a country.

With regard to persons or groups committing acts of terrorism and their ability to exploit local laws, we might easily make example of “hate-groups” in the United States, such as the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and even the Woodsboro Baptist Church—okay, the latter may be a stretch, but is it, really? A number of groups in the states have been dubbed terrorist organizations due to their methods of garnering attention to their cause; prosecuting individuals for committing any offenses, however, becomes a sticky issue—is it a “normal” criminal act, a “hate-crime”, or an act of terrorism? What rights do the perpetrators of the act then have in defense to their actions, and what limits are then placed upon sentencing—if a trial were to get that far?

And what about groups like WBC? Sure, the church has not made any violent protests—though it’s surprising that they haven’t managed to incite one worth mentioning—and it’s doubtful that they will, where that level of commitment does outstretch even their radical fundamentalist views; but one cannot deny that they border on terrorism—or would, if anyone took their threats and demonstrations seriously. Still, organizations such as WBC achieve a different level of treatment and protection as a religious organization.  [Threats, you ask? Sure—psychological and ideological threats, mainly; of course, if we decide to tackle the notions of psychological terrorism we can then get into even more sticky topics of bullying, emotional abuse, etc.—but, then, you start to delve into a completely different kettle of fish… But, in our reading, we’ve uncovered that sometimes the psychology of things–that whole “looking for a purpose” thing, leading to a religious convert or rebirth–helps to establish greater causes that beget the definitions of terrorism that we’re trying to discuss here…]

But, to come more to the main point of this discussion, “true” terrorists—those the majority of us think of since the occurrence of 9/11—are fully capable of exploiting legal loopholes in order to continue their battle against whatever society they are waging war against. Laqueur noted that many of those that have been detained in the America and Europe have been released due to the rules of due process, and the greater society’s beliefs in human rights (Laqueur, 2004). How do we combat this?—and do we really want to? Outside of the debates of strengthening controls and a certain population responding by channeling Heston’s “cold, dead hand,” what more is there for us to do? Internment camps—ala WWII-era?—or worse yet; how about mass-murder in the name of national security, like that of Syria in 1980 (Laqueur, 2004)?

Perhaps, it’s not necessarily the lack of a definition of terrorism and the ability to exploit the laws that are a problem, or the exploitation itself. Maybe it’s the issues surrounding the questions that I am raising that are the true exploitation—the fact that the nation is currently questioning what to do next, and so many are in disagreement. The point of terrorism—other than to cause fear or panic to instill a change—is to cause just enough turmoil to start or make way for a revolution.

As for the definitions of terrorism, the only common thread throughout any entity or agency’s definition is violence against a civilian population or government, with intent to further an agenda (AZDEM, 2009). Still, this allows for a very open and varied interpretation by the persons on the giving and receiving end; like Lutz & Lutz pointed out in the beginning of our text: “One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist” (2011).

Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. (2009) Various Definitions of Terrorism. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2015 from http://www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf

Laqueur, W. (Aug. 1, 2004). Historical The Terrorism to Come. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2015 from http://www.hoover.org/research/terrorism-come

Lutz, J & Lutz, B. (2011). Terrorism the Basics. London: Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/apus/reader.action?docID=10462767#