What do terrorism mean

Lastly, I will draw on the contemporary debates about terrorist violence and who perpetrates it in the United States of America to shed light on the fact that controversy around these issues cannot be resolved where there is no will to reach resolution. Scholars have long written about the complex issues involved in attempting to find a universal definition of terrorism. Giving in to the temptation to leave the definition of the concept this open-ended and broad is not a viable option or solution to the complexity of the problem.

There are multiple definitions that have been established over the years which are useful in both answering the over-arching question of this essay and establishing a workable definition for the purposes of this essay. To this end, a good point of departure may be the origins of the word itself. Beginning with citations from the s, terrorism was quite literally defined as 1 government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of and 2 policy intended to strike terror in those against whom it is adopted Tilly, 8.

Along with terror and intimidation, there are other factors often considered crucial to delineating when actions taken by a group or an individual constitute terrorism or not. These factors include but are not limited to violence, harm, and threats; randomness or indiscriminate violence; political motivation; the targeting of civilians, non-combatants and so-called innocents; and deliberate attempts to publicise the acts of terror.

There is a myriad of different definitions that include some of these factors, that exclude some and that incorporate a number of factors into one but in this essay, it will not be possible to cover all of these possible definitions or to discuss the merits and shortcomings of each.

Taking into account the aforementioned definitions, and for the purposes of this paper, I think it is necessary to assert that the foundation of any definition of terrorism is that it is an act or set of actions involving the threat of or the use of force and violence with the aim of achieving pre-determined outcomes.

In the same that way that a singular definition of the concept of terrorism is very difficult to articulate, it is clear that any definition is also problematised when considering who decides what it is or is not.

Previously, Western governments were reluctant to weigh in on the difficult debates around attempts to define terrorism. Instead, many states deferred to the United Nations conventions that list terrorist threats and prohibit activities associated with terrorism, which include but are not limited to hijacking, hostage-taking and assassination Carver, In the years following that attack, many countries have sought to modernise or create anti-terrorism legislation, with specific legal definitions of terrorism being drafted.

The definition goes on to include causing intentional death, bodily harm, damage to public and private property, and causing interference with or serious disruption to essential services, amongst others, as incidents defined as terrorism.

This represents a slight difference in the legal and political definitions of terror in Canada but points to an intentional effort to maintain the utility of a structured legal definition and a broader, more loosely defined political one. The definition goes on to list against whom or what actions may cause harm and thus be defined as terrorism; it specifically includes the use of firearms or explosives as falling within the ambit of terrorism; and it includes actions occurring outside of the United Kingdom as ones that could fall within the definition.

It is clear that while the definition of terrorism is broad and the debates around it are contentious and will remain that way for some time to come, it is also clear that any attempt at definition is even more complicated when states and governments endeavour to do so. Chailand and Blin 2 argue that the phenomenon of terrorism is even more complex than a singular conceptualisation because the concept tends to be confused by ideological interpretations and the desire to frame the concept in a specific, subjective light.

Scholars argue that in America inserting itself into this global leadership position, it sees itself as both being destined and entitled to play a distinct and positive role on the world stage Walt, Their similarity to those adopted and codified by the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom are also noticeable and whilst not possible to do given the parameters of this assignment, a comparison of legal and political definitions of terrorism by other Western liberal democratic governments would likely reveal even more similarities.

Scholars like Noam Chomsky and Timothy Shanahan rightfully point out that governmental agencies often characterise the concept of terrorism as unlawful activity committed by non-state actors, thus precluding the possibility of a concept such as state or state-sponsored terrorism and that this is intentionally meant to legitimate the prevailing power relationships and institutions of various governments Shanahan, Chomsky is even more pointed in his views on how and why the American government purposefully defines and constructs the definition of terrorism the way that it does.

He states that. All of this is evidence underlines just how important it is for scholars and the public to be circumspect of what the definitions of terror and terrorism are, as much as who is doing the defining and for what purpose.

Furthermore, all of these considerations compound the controversy surrounding any attempts to define terrorism as they prove that there are ideological, political and ultimately ulterior motives behind the way different parties conceptualise terrorism and which actions they include and exclude. This logic is the basis for theories surrounding state terrorism and its purposeful exclusion from the public discourse around terrorism, however, for the purposes of this assignment, those theories are acknowledged but cannot be explored further.

Another important aspect to consider in the definition of terrorism is how those labelled as terrorists define their actions. The distinction between terrorist, freedom fighter, liberation movement activist and other terms has been as controversial to debate and define as the definition of terrorism itself.

The same scholars whose arguments define these terms as subjectivist in nature and almost impossible to define, concede that the same could be said of the definition of terrorism. Ganor goes on to state there is no validity to the claim that a freedom fighter cannot be involved in terrorism, murder and indiscriminate killing, and further, that a terrorist organisation cannot also be a movement of national liberation.

It stands to reason that those who define groups as terrorists or not, as freedom fighters or not, as liberation movements or not, have the power to resolve the controversy around these terms and in so doing, reveal that political will is the key to that resolution. Later in this paper, I will explore how political will to find resolution and solutions, or the lack thereof, determines whether these terms and their meanings stay controversial or whether consensus can ever be reached.

Those designated as terrorists by others typically do not identify that way and instead describe themselves as national liberation movements or fighters against social, economic and religious, or imperialistic oppression, or any combination of the above. Politicians however have always been quick to counter these assertions by declaring the differences between terrorists and freedom fighters as stark, fundamental and irreconcilable. Somewhere in the middle of these viewpoints is the closest, most nuanced answer we have to the truth.

I think it is important to state that attempts to present the terms terrorist and freedom fighter as being mutually exclusive are unhelpful; instead I would say that the two terms describe different aspects of human and political behaviour. This is because one could describe terrorism as the means and method of fighting, whilst describing freedom fighters as those fighting for a cause.

In this way, groups implementing terrorism as a method of fighting should rightfully be viewed as having a wide array of interests, aspirations and causes they are fighting for.

Chailand and Blin 27 articulate the issues surrounding this constructed dichotomy between the two terms by asserting that. On the other hand, not all national liberation movements resort to terrorism to advance their cause. The debate around who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter and from whose perspective is important as it again emphasises the controversial nature of any definitions of terrorism.

It is also important as it highlights the shifting nature of those definitions in the hands of those making them. Having established that the definition of terrorism is controversial and the subject of divergent views, in the next part of this paper, I will argue that the controversy can be resolved but only through political will. Taking into consideration the foundational definition of terrorism as articulated in the early part of this paper, a link is observed between the threat of or the use of force and violence with the aim of achieving pre-determined outcomes, and another similar phenomenon: political violence.

Various authors see political violence as a form of mass, collectivist political struggle which manifests in many forms, such as revolutions, civil war, riots and strikes but can also manifest in more peaceful protest movements. The key factor distinguishing terrorism and political violence is that it is agreed that there is typically a political solution in the case of the latter Canetti et al , This means that states — as the institutions against which the violence is meted — have the means, legitimacy and authority to end the violence at hand through a host of different mechanisms like negotiation, peace talks or power-sharing agreements, amongst others whilst those using violence to achieve pre-determined outcomes may employ terrorism, guerrilla warfare, civil war, insurgency or other similar methods.

Some political scientists argue that even political parties have more in common with terrorism than one might expect. It does not profile individuals who look, act, dress, or live differently than us. It strictly profiles behavior that may be linked to terrorism. Home What is Terrorism? How You Can Help Austin citizens can play a role in preventing terrorist attacks. Examples of suspicious activity include: Surveillance—Are you aware of anyone recording or monitoring activities, taking notes, using cameras, maps, binoculars, etc.

Suspicious Questioning—Are you aware of anyone attempting to gain information in person, by phone, mail, e-mail, etc. Tests of Security—Are you aware of any attempts to penetrate or test physical security or procedures at a key facility? Acquiring Supplies—Are you aware of anyone attempting to improperly acquire explosives, weapons, ammunition, dangerous chemicals, uniforms, badges, flight manuals, access cards or identification for a key facility or to legally obtain items under suspicious circumstances that could be used in a terrorist attack?

Britannica English: Translation of terrorism for Arabic Speakers. Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free! Log in Sign Up. Save Word. Definition of terrorism. Examples of terrorism in a Sentence They have been arrested for acts of terrorism.

Recent Examples on the Web Bazzi served globally, helping allies and countering terrorism. Khan time and opportunity to cooperate with federal and military prosecutors, so far behind the scenes, in federal and military terrorism cases.

First Known Use of terrorism , in the meaning defined above. Learn More About terrorism. Time Traveler for terrorism The first known use of terrorism was in See more words from the same year.

From the Editors at Merriam-Webster. Trending: Sanders: Bombings Have No