Tag: thoughts and stuff

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#

 

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.]