When is terrorism used

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. Weinberg and Pedahzur, in their book Political Parties and Terrorist Groups , challenge the widely held belief that parties signify peaceful forms of democratic political activity while terrorist groups signify illegal and extranormal forms of violence. Furthermore, they argue that both political parties and terrorist groups use the power of persuasion to modify the behaviour of one audience or various audiences.

While it is not possible and ultimately not relevant to explore the full argument presented by Weinberg and Pedahzur in this paper, it is important to note that they tackle the question as to why the same socio-political protest movements that gives rise to a terrorist organisation can also, often almost simultaneously, produce a peaceful and independent political party; in doing so, they ask important questions about the definitions of terrorism, terrorists, political parties and political violence.

Political history over many decades has shown that those defined as terrorist groups can, over time, become legitimate political actors recognised by the states they have fought against. Each of these examples is that of an organisation once designated as terrorists by the international community, and the West in particular, but ones that have transformed into political parties that respect the rule of law and contest in elections — the hallmarks of participatory democracy and a philosophy championed by the West.

Many anti-colonial liberation movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America used violence and force to obtain their political goal of decolonisation but ironically, in present-day political discourse, many would have been denounced as terrorists by their own states and others the international community.

In each instance, these groups waged violence against the states they operated in — racist, illegitimate settler colonial administrations — however, in each instance, the solution was inevitably a political one such as the departure of the settler colonial administrators, power-sharing agreements, negotiated peace settlements etc.

Moran, In this manner, groups such as the Mozambican Liberation Front FRELIMO , ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe and Hamas in Palestine are all examples of those once labelled and condemned as terrorists who all eventually partook in transitions to democratic governance and have participated in multi-party elections in their countries, facilitated by political resolution. More recently, the Basque separatist group ETA in Spain dissolved as an organisation following a peace deal signed in Masters and Rebaza, and the former rebel group, FARC in Colombia agreed to disarm and disband following a peace deal, with some former leaders even contesting in Senate elections in that country earlier this year Taylor, Arguably the most poignant example in modern history of a group moving from terrorists to liberators to political leaders in the eyes of the West is South Africa, with the late Nelson Mandela personally embodying the paradigm shift that occurs when terrorists are considered rational, political actors with whom political solutions can be negotiated and achieved.

The examples listed in this section illustrate the truly complex and controversial nature of the definition of terrorism over time and in many contexts, and who is labelled as a terrorist by whom. To this end, in the next section, I will argue that the definition of terrorism and the designation of who perpetrates it is not only controversial, dynamic and ever-changing, but also heavily influenced by the prevailing political landscape.

A case study in the controversial, changing definitions of terrorism: The United States. The United States of America provides an interesting and layered case study into the complexity of defining terrorism; leaving definitions open to interpretation by those implementing anti- and counter-terrorism strategies; and the inherent vulnerability of those definitions to partisan politics. The United States as a government and society is not immune to the issues faced in academia and the world at large when it comes to attempts to define terrorism.

On a practical, pragmatic level, analysing terrorism in America is difficult to do because there is both widespread ambiguity as to what to should be considered terrorism, and reliable official statistics on terrorist incidents are difficult to track across 50 states and numerous federal agencies.

Christopher Hewitt in the book, Understanding Terrorism in America , underscores the enormous difficulty faced by law enforcement in attempts to identify, thwart and prevent terrorism, stemming from the lack of a consensus on a definition. The FBI relies on reports from local law enforcement to gather information for their data but without a way to apply the definition across the board, the agency has to rely on the discretion of those offices.

The true purpose of defining terrorism for law enforcement and those implementing anti- and counter-terrorism policies is to create frameworks within which violent attacks are understood, plans to execute them are thwarted and those planning them are caught and prosecuted.

I would argue that this stalemate is not something that has occurred by accident, rather that it is the result of policies influenced by politics which dictate the definition. The distinction between domestic and international terror is blurred in America because of a host of factors. The country has a long history of domestic terror ranging from those in the South who sought to prevent the racial desegregation of the region in the s and 60s, to protest action related to the Vietnam War in the s, to the debate around abortion in the s and 90s, and many other issues Hewitt, While it is not possible in this paper to explore all of the different variations of terrorist attacks that have occurred in America in recent decades, nor to examine the groups that have perpetrated them, it is important to note that America has faced many threats from many groups before and faces a multitude of threats now.

These conclusions were echoed in a June research study that found that between and , more than 70 attacks by right-wing, anti-government groups were recorded and 50 attempts were foiled by law enforcement, as opposed to 18 attacks by so-called Islamist extremists were recorded and 45 attacks foiled Neiwert, It should be noted that this research does not suggest nor claim that violence perpetrated by people aligned to so-called Islamist extremist groups is not a threat or that the threat has been eliminated, but rather that the threat from right-wing extremists is just as deadly and urgent, if not more.

Even though there has been a clear increase in the number of terrorist attacks carried out against Americans in America by right-wing, white supremacist and white nationalist individuals and groups in recent years, there is a slow reaction at best and wholesale reluctance at worst on the part of government and law enforcement to define the issue as terrorism. There are many examples of this in contemporary American history. A report by the National Bureau of Economic research showed that between and , abortion providers have been the targets of more than acts of violence, defined as arson, bombings, murders and acid attacks on personnel.

Hewitt describes anti-abortion terrorism as violence executed by people who hold strongly anti-abortion views, with fundamentalist Protestants and devout Catholics being the most opposed to abortion These groups and individuals fit virtually every definition of terrorism, including those of the FBI and US State Department; however, no perpetrator charged with a violent act attacking an abortion provider has ever simultaneously or independently been charged with terrorism CBS News, This is not the only variant of right-wing extremism largely left out of the definition of terrorism.

Debates around violence perpetrated by male white supremacists almost all invariably centre around gun control or the need for gun reform or connections between mental illness and a propensity for violence, but rarely do they ever involve discussion over whether the perpetrators had terrorist intent and political motivation.

This has changed in recent years following several prominent attacks. However, prosecutors in that state and in that case, did not charge the assailant with terrorism. Conversely, James Harris Jackson, a white man, who fatally stabbed a black man in March in New York City was charged with terrorism for an attack motivated by similar intention.

While it is not possible to detail each of them in this paper, there have been dozens of other attacks perpetrated by white men, under the age of 30, who have affiliations with white nationalist and white supremacist groups that have not been treated as cases of domestic terrorism. This purposeful pivot away from the evidence that suggests a growing problem of violence spreading in one particular community represents a political decision not to act with the same vigour against that group as other groups, such as Muslim men.

The contemporary political landscape in America suggests that the definition of terrorism will continue to be controversial and that in fact, the controversy will not be resolved without the political will that would stop the urge to bend the definition of terrorism to suit a narrow partisan agenda or to ignore evidence of a growing terrorist threat.

In the broader context of American society and politics, there is now an urgent need to question the previously-held definitions of terrorism and to question if these definitions are truly helpful in tackling terrorism. Where they are not — either because they are unfairly applied to different groups seen as threats or not applied at all — it must be asked if the US government and law enforcement sectors are standing by while domestic terrorism is perpetrated on their watch and why.

The concept of terrorism is difficult to define because the politics involved in doing so are difficult to manage. In this paper, I have attempted to traverse the difficult terrain that is the concept of a definition of terrorism. A section of this paper illustrated how a change in perspective has brought resolutions to various countries over modern political history, with the key determinant for the success of that process being political will.

In attempting to understand if those kinds of resolutions are at all possible in present-day global politics, the case study of the United States of America was examined.

The conclusion in this paper is that where political influence trumps facts-based evidence, the definition of terrorism and who constitutes a terrorist threat becomes even more complex and controversial with little possibility of that controversy being resolved because of a disagreement on the basic facts. Ultimately this irregular application of definitions harms work that can and should be done in terms of anti- and counter-terrorism initiatives and only leaves governments and populations more exposed than protected from harm in the long-run.

Canetti, D. Carver, A. Chailand, G. Ganor, B. Hankes, K. The Alt-Right is Killing People. Masters, J and Rebaza, C. Moran, M. Neiwert, D. Nixon, R. Peled, S. Sanchez, R. Shanahan, T. Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies. 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? Suspicious Persons—Are you aware of anyone who does not appear to belong in the workplace, neighborhood, business establishment or near a key facility?

This does not mean that we should profile individuals, but does mean that we should profile behavior. What Should You Do? Dry Runs—Have you observed any behavior that appears to be preparation for terrorist activity, such as mapping out routes, playing out scenarios with other people, monitoring key facilities, timing traffic lights or traffic flow, or other suspicious activities?