The following post was originally submitted in response to a classroom forum:
| Week 2 Forum Post your response to the week 2 forum question here. Does it matter that there is no common or universally developed definition for terrorism? State your position. Remember to respond to the posts of at least two of your classmates for full credit. |
Obviously, there is no complete agreement about the definition of terrorism. In preparing to write his “consensus definition” as adopted by the United Nations in 1988, Schmid examined over 100 definitions and found that they could be ranked according to emphasis by frequency in this order:
Most acts of terrorism are, in fact, crimes as defined by most nations (murder, destruction of property, etc.), particularly when the immediate victims are noncombatants and the violent act is not committed within the “traditional” conventions of warfare. In the latter case, the violent act may be “legitimate combat”, or it may still be a war crime, depending upon the circumstances. The incident at My Lai during the Vietnam War was certainly not “legitimate combat”, for instance, although it occurred during the prosecution of a war. What makes an act Terrorism? Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the U.S. Army (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB207.pdf) counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laquer in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the “only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence”. Other definitions of terrorist are; the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political ends, the killing and maiming of innocent people, and the act of scaring people for a social or political reason using violence. Nevertheless, one thing they all have in common; is that terrorist believe that if others are afraid of them, they will have more power over other people. There is a long-standing legal code called Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 which is entitled “Terrorism” and attempts to define it, but it is essentially all about international terrorism and represents America’s version of outlawing internecine conflict on its soil. Internecine conflict is when someone else’s battle spills over on your land, which might not seem important, but terrorists often disregard any respected areas of combat or demarcated battlefields. |
Does it matter that there isn’t a globally accepted, clear-cut definition for the term terrorism? Yes; but will there ever be?
For the most-part, man-kind can agree that an act of terrorism is one in which one entity acts against another in such a manner that one by-product—if not the main goal—is the creation of fear; the reason or aim of the act and creation of terror may vary greatly. The trouble is, as varying collectives and societies have differing cultures and practices, we extend the definition further and impose a larger degree of differing responses to said acts; as such any one person may be considered a terrorist—even within our own societies—and may be persecuted in manners seen unjust by others.
In the U.S., terrorism has been defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” This definition works fairly well—and applies to foreign and domestic perpetrators. Unfortunately, this definition allows room for interpretation and application to any number of individuals and acts, depending upon how one chooses to define force and violence, and whether the act in question had the purpose of gaining a political or social objective.
Due to the differences in people in general—let alone societies—I doubt that there will ever be a globally accepted definition of terrorism unless there comes a point at which the entire world comes to terms with all her inhabitants; according to Star Trek mythology, this won’t occur for another 50-60 years, following World War III. After this—once Zefrem Cochrane has discovered “warp” and the Vulcans have accepted us into the Federation of Planets—we will then be working on drafting a universal definition of terrorism.
