Defining Terrorism

Jon Rockwood

Professor Shirk

What Is Terrorism? Essay

February 6, 2017

Defining Terrorism

            Throughout history, wherever there has been a ruler, there have been those who disapprove of that ruler. Those who rebel against authority in pursuit of a certain goal are quickly labeled after displaying their extreme anger and disapproval of those who are in power. From one perspective, these rebels are called freedom fighters – pushing the agenda of a certain group, who are supported by likeminded individuals. From another perspective, those radicals are labeled as terrorists from those who were harmed or effected from the rebellious act. A third perspective, perhaps from a passive bystander, may be unable to categorize the group or the act they committed as one term or another because of a lack of clear definition of terrorism or freedom fighting, but wants those responsible to be punished or positively recognized for their acts. The lack of a widely accepted definition of terrorism is what allows individuals to go unprosecuted after committing acts that some individuals and nations would deem as terrorism. Authors such as Charles Tilly, Philip Bobbitt, Marcus Rediker, and Lisa Stampnitzky aim to create a universally accepted definition of what terrorism is in their respective works, Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists; Terror and Consent; Villains of all Nations; Disciplining Terror. After analyzing the aforementioned texts, I believe a clearly defined definition of terrorism is: the use of unconventional violence and terror, deployed by non-state actors against an enemy government or civilian non-combatants, in pursuit of a political goal or agenda. My definition of terrorism, as stated above, outlines all the necessary characteristics for one act to be labeled as terrorism or not.

            Peeling back each layer of my definition of what terrorism is is crucial to understanding the complexity of the subject at hand. First, defining unconventional violence and terror as a strategy that is employed by non-state actors (terrorists) is a key concept to understand. Unconventional violence, I believe, are tactics that Tilly states: “kidnapping, murder, and mutilation;” tactics that almost always outside of the norms of current war tactics during a given era.[1] Unconventional violence is so closely tied to terror because neither tactic follows common Rules of Engagement practiced by westernized militaries. As Tilly states in his work, terror sends signals, “signals that the target is vulnerable, that the perpetrators exist, and that the perpetrators have the capacity to strike again.”[2] I believe that using terror is about intimidating ones ideological enemies and attempting to establish the legitimacy of ones cause by demonstrating ones possible power. Tilly’s definition of terror aids my claim when he states, “terror works best when it alters or inhibits the target’s disapproved behavior,” and affects “third parties that might cooperate with [the target] or [the perpetrator].”[3] Where unconventional violence and terror differs from random acts of violence is with the intent to intimidate opponents on a large scale by using irrationally violent tactics.

            A vital detail in discerning acts of terrorism from acts of war is analyzing the perpetrators; whether they are state governments or non-state groups. Though largely undefined, terrorism has been a reoccurring problem throughout history. According to Rediker in his piece, pirates of the 18^th century, “did not consider themselves ‘common Robbers, Opposers and Violators of all Laws humane and divine,’ but the did think of themselves as people without a nation.”[4] 18^th century pirates renounced their citizenships to embrace a life of piracy and pursue their political goals without any ties to a nation. Rediker provides more examples of no nation pirates conducting terror onto combatant and non-combatant targets when he describes, “the pirates’ penchant for terror even seems to have had an intimidating effect on the officers and sailors of the British Royal Navy,” and in “171, after Boston’s rulers hanged eight members of Black Sam Bellamy’s crew, pirates who were still at sea vowed to ‘kill every body they took belonging to New England,” regardless of societal status.[5] I believe that legitimate governments who conduct acts of war may unintentionally hurt or kill civilian non-combatants, yet that is not considered terrorism because those civilian deaths were not intended, whereas terrorists who commit acts of terrorism aim to harm both civilians and institutions, in my opinion. Rediker goes on to argue “a portion of pirate terror was the standard issue of war making, which pirates undertook without the approval of any nation-state,” which further supports my assertion that non-state actors who conduct violent acts that may be war-like tactics at that time, is a characteristic of terrorism because of their lack of tie to a nation.[6] Recognizing non-state entities that conduct terror onto an enemy government or civilian non-combatants is an important characteristic to highlight when defining what terrorism is.

            A final characteristic to define what terrorism is must involve a political goal or agenda. Arguably the most infamous terrorist of the 20^th and 21^st century, Osama bin Laden, clearly stated his political and ideological reasoning behind orchestrating the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Bobbitt illustrates bin Laden’s agenda in his passage, “in May 1998, bin Laden issued a statement entitled ‘The Nuclear Bomb of Islam,’ under the banner of the ‘International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and Crusaders,’ in which stated that ‘it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God.’”[7] Clearly articulating his goals to push Islam onto all those who do not follow his religion, bin Laden exemplifies what terrorism is – by inflicting terror onto all non-Muslim peoples, through his own right as a non-state actor, in order to achieve his goal. Stampnitzky goes on to add, “Counterinsurgency experts generally assumed that insurgents had rational, intelligible, political motives,” further exemplifying that terrorism includes political motives.[8] Without political motives intended to challenge the ideology of another group of people, any act of terror would just be categorized as a random act of violence.

            Terrorism and the ways to combat it will always continue to change for the rest of history. With the changing of terror tactics deployed by those seeking to intimidate others, the definition of what terrorism is will also have to continue to change. Charles Tilly, Philip Bobbitt, Marcus Rediker, and Lisa Stampnitzky provide expert examples of the many layers of how one can define what terrorism is. In my opinion, terrorism is the use of unconventional violence and terror, deployed by non-state actors against an enemy government or civilian non-combatants, in pursuit of a political goal or agenda. By outlining concrete characteristics of what terrorism is, I believe those who commit it will be held responsible for their actions, and the global war on terror will continue to succeed.

Works Cited

Tilly, Charles. "Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists." Sociological Theory 22, no. 1 (2004): 5-13.

Rediker, Marcus. Villains of All Nations; Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age (Beacon Press, Boston, 2004), 7-8.

Bobbitt, Philip. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 2008), 26-63.

Stampnitzky, Lisa. Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism” (Cambridge University Press: New York, 2013). 1-82.

---

[1] Tilly, Charles. "Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists." Sociological Theory 22, no. 1 (2004): 10.

[2] Tilly, "Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists,” 9.

[3] Tilly, "Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists,” 9.

[4] Rediker, Marcus. Villains of All Nations; Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age (Beacon Press, Boston, 2004), 7-8.

[5] Rediker, Villains of All Nations, 13.

[6] Rediker, Villains of All Nations, 15.

[7] Bobbitt, Philip. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 2008), 59.

[8] Stampnitzky, Lisa. Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism” (Cambridge University Press: New York, 2013). 53.

The Classification of John Brown

Jon Rockwood

February 26, 2017

The Classification of John Brown

            John Brown, the pre-Civil War abolitionist, has been viewed from a variety of perspectives for his actions that he conducted within the Kansas Territory and Virginia. Due to his violent actions towards pro-slavery groups Brown has been categorized as a terrorist by some analysts and a guerilla fighter by others. His attacks on properties, killings of groups of peoples, and the raid at Harpers Ferry have been analyzed in opposing manners. Scholars Brenda Lutz, James Lutz, and Nicole Etcheson propose different opinions on how what terminology best fits John Brown. Etcheson saw Brown “as he saw himself, as the guerrilla leader,” while Lutz and Lutz saw Brown “primarily as a terrorist” (Etcheson) (Lutz and Lutz). Strictly assessing Brown based on his actions alone, I believe he was a terrorist.

John Brown has a specific target audience he wanted to influence when he conducted his violent tactics. As noted by Lutz and Lutz, “Etecheson has suggested that terrorist practice indiscriminate violence, and that John Brown was not a terrorist because his violence was more targeted,” however, “it is extremely rare that terrorism is actually indiscriminate” (Lutz and Lutz). For a specific group of people to feel terrorized, there must be some use of indiscriminate violence, within that target group, to make them believe the somewhat random actions could be done onto them. For example, the “IRA set off car bombs in Protestant neighborhoods, not Catholic ones; Shia militants in Iraq have attacked Sunni neighborhoods, not neighborhoods at random” (Lutz and Lutz). John Brown’s killings “at Pottawamie Creek, were a classic example of terrorist techniques” because those “who were killed were chosen because they were Southerners who supported slavery” (Lutz and Lutz). Furthermore, the victims “‘were well chosen by Brown not because they were guilty but because they were innocent… [grasping] the essence of maximum terror’” (Lutz and Lutz). The Southerners were the general group at large, but because they supported slavery they became the targeted focus group – sending a message that any supporters of slavery in Kansas were in danger.

            Though John Brown fought for a moral cause, the tactics he used are similar to tactics used by groups with immoral ambitions. As Lutz and Lutz acknowledge, “the violent tactics used by Brown in Kansas in a good cause were exactly the same as the violent tactics used by some of the pro-slavery bands in a bad cause” (Lutz and Lutz). After the Civil War, the KKK used tactics such as assaults, robbery, murder and arson in a less than virtuous cause. Somewhat ironically, “the same techniques that helped to keep Kansas a free territory were ultimately quite successful in permitting the old white elite power structures to regain control of state political institutions,” yet reestablishing the point that based off of his tactics, John Brown was a terrorist (Lutz and Lutz).

            The strategies used by John Brown are to be considered as terroristic in nature, even though he was fighting for a moral cause. Analysts struggle to categorize terrorists as terrorists because of their personal bias and perspective. “Brown’s actions were carefully considered ones, and they were anything but indiscriminate; they were, therefore, still terrorism” (Lutz and Lutz).  

Blog Post #1 A military brat's perspective

Better mechanisms, fewer bombs? 

Hattie Pipes
Professor Shirk
Global Politics of Terror 
February 26, 2017 

     Growing up with a father in the military terrorists were always portrayed as radical and evil, no exceptions. They were the bad guys who chained drivers to trucks and then detonated bombs strapped to the driver remotely. They threw their own children into the line of fire so they could claim U.S. soldiers intentionally killed them. My father doesn't speak often about his two tours in Afghanistan or his most recent deployment to Iraq but when he did the stories often emphasized the cruelty which Al Qaeda and ISIS employed to achieve their goals. My father was shocked by the violence of terror organizations, the violent acts they engaged in made them appear inhuman and alien.

     It is no wonder that taking the course Global Politics of Terror challenged my fundamental belief that terror and evil are synonyms. After 9/11, the United States response to terror was relatively unsuccessful at best and destructive at worst. This may be because the mechanisms through which the nation combats terror are ineffective. Instead of deploying military personnel perhaps the "war on terror" should deter schools which promote radical Islam. The non-state Quomi Madrassas schools in Bangladesh do not adhere to the precepts established by Bangladesh or the standards created during the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Twenty eight years after the Convention many Bangla children are still enrolled in institutions which demonize Western values and encourage radicalism. At times it is necessary to use hard power, but violence aimed at deterring violence is hardly a long term solution. Today terrorist groups rally around divisive cultural differences; it has yet to be seen if those cultures can be reconciled. 

     My father always reminds me that it's hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone who wants to kill you. The question then remains: How does one reconcile the East and the West and effectively change or display the value of different cultural values? The simple answer is that one does not. A foreigner, especially one from the West, will only spur on hostility if they attempt to persuade or advise. However, this was not always the case. When the United States first entered Iraq the Iraqi people at least passively supported the United States involvement. Perhaps winning over the common person could halt the growth of radical groups. The issue then becomes assuring stability and securing a better life for those who might otherwise fall prey to joining terrorist organizations. Terrorist organizations and gangs attract young members by promising perks like food security, status, and purpose. There must be a compelling reason behind societal change if it is to be effective. Einstein noted that an object in motion stays in motion, the key in this situation is to ensure that people are moving in the right direction. It is difficult to stop a large object or organization with momentum, let alone change the direction or mission of it. However, individuals are more easily swayed. 

     Those who engage in terror, are different from those who engage in crime despite potentially similar economic situations. A terrorist is thrust into a world larger than himself which often targets civilians. While a criminal who robs a house tends to avoid the owner of the house. Thus a criminal who isn't involved in gang activity cannot be considered a terrorist as they do not strategize the demise of others. A criminal gang may be compared to a terrorist organization, as there is an emphasis on the group violently acting in solidarity to achieve a common goal. 

     The mechanisms used thus far to combat terror have quelled the flames but have not put out the spark which ignites the fire of radicalism in the Middle East. For peace to occur in the Middle East there must be a solution which promotes reconciliation and understanding by ensuring security for those surrounded by terrorist organizations. Maslow's hierarchy of needs should be given more attention by the military as well as international organizations like the UN to prevent young people from aligning with terrorist groups like ISIS. 

Citations:

"Aims and Objective of Jamia." Jamia Hosainia Islamia Arjabad. http://www.jamiaarjabad.com/en/?page_id=82, 23 Feb 2017. 

"Bangladesh Secondary School Madrasas." The World Bank. 10 August 2010. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2010/08/10/bangladesh-secondary-school-madrasas, 24 Feb 2017. 

"An education: Inside Bangladesh Madrasas." The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/21/inside-madrasa-for-girls-bangladesh-tahmima-anam 23 Feb 2017.

Reign of Terror

Grace Picariello
February 25, 2017

Why the Reign of Terror cannot be Terrorism

It is hard to make an argument that an event with the term 'terror' in its name does not actually fit into our understanding of terrorism today. In 1792, after the functions of the monarchy are suspended by the legislature and the royal family is caught fleeing to Paris, King Louis the 16th is put on trial and convicted of conspiracy against the people. He is beheaded in 1793. Thus, begins the period in time known as the Reign of Terror. This time period between 1793 and 1870 was one ridden with mass executions and an overwhelming fear of government. The newly formed Committee on Public Safety was the group in charge of quick trials, and extensive killings of any suspected enemies of the French Revolution. While this was a horrible time for France that was traumatizing and morally wrong, it cannot be considered terrorism due to the fact that the actions were taken by the state and furthermore, the executions were technically legal. 

One of the most common quotes that has been discussed in class is the idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This is a typical case of that. While the Committee on Public Safety was completing horrific tasks, they also might have very well thought that they were helping France in the long run by taking the country closer to democracy and further from monarchy, which they thought to be oppressive. Under these circumstances, the mass executions that they were overseeing were a positive thing for them and many of the revolutionaries. In this sense, while it is easy to say that any type of mass murder is terrorism, it is important that we look at it from all angles and try to understand where the other side was coming from. It could definitely be claimed that they were trying to achieve a goal, not simply just attempting to inflict as much violence and terror as possible. Their goal could also be considered one of good intentions as they were trying to form a less oppressive democracy for the people of France. 

The most important thing to remember when assessing if the Reign of Terror was terrorism or not, is that all of the actions that were taken were happening within the power of the state/government of the time. While the acts were not necessarily right, they were also not illegal. In the United States State Department definition of terrorism, in order for attacks to be considered acts of terror they must be taken against civilian targets by non-state groups or subnational groups/clandestine agents. It could reasonably be argued that the mass killings were against people who were openly against the revolution, and therefore not completely innocent and separated from the situation. Furthermore, the executions were being committed by the state itself, not a subnational group. 

In the end, the Reign of Terror did lead to France's construction of a functioning democratic government. They were able to overthrow the monarchy and form a much more inclusive governing body. However, this is not to say that the government in place in the mean time was one of morality and liberty. It was quite the opposite, actually. Nevertheless, since the violence was committed by the governing body and not a subnational group, within the limits of the law, and not completely against innocent civilians, the period cannot be considered one of terror. Furthermore, the intentions of the state were good and their goal was not to simply commit mass violence, separating them from other terrorist groups that we see today. 

Anarchy

The way the police and media responded to the anarchists of Europe and the way they respond to today’s racial conflicts are very similar. The anarchists and today’s groups look for social justice and to vocalize their issues. The police interpret it as a threat to a peaceful social order and feel the need to squash it immediately and the media looks to sensationalize it for their own personal gains.

            During the time of the anarchist movement the police, specifically in Europe, were not properly trained to combat the anarchists, and often made the situation worst. The police used brutal tactics but, this was counter productive, as it only helped spread the anarchists influence. One of the last countries in Europe to understand how to deal with such attacks was Spain. “…the Spanish government’s policy of brutally and arbitrarily repressing dissent and strike activity and its failure to develop an effective policing apparatus, explain the continued incidence in the Iberian Peninsula of extreme forms of political violence,” (Jensen, 2009, p. 100).

            This is very similar to the way modern day police tactics are used. In the United States there is an increase in use of force. One of the aspects of the force is the militarization of the police. This creates more of an “us versus them” mentality. Maria Haberfeld, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice said, “[m]ilitary equipment is used against an enemy. So if you give the same equipment to local police, by default you create an environment in which the public is perceived as an enemy,” (Doherty, 2017, pp. 39). This does not solve the issue of the violence, and instead pushes the two groups further apart.

            During the Anarchist movement, there were many isolated attacks by people who may not have been directly affiliated with the anarchist movement. The anarchists were a confusing organization due to their belief that everyone was equal and there was no one person who was more powerful than another. This made it difficult to keep track of all members and orchestrate well planned attacks. The media also played a role in the terror by spreading the news of attacks making it sound like the anarchists were much more powerful than they actually were, “…misperceptions and sensationalism of the popular media once again collaborated to reinforce the picture of a mighty international conspiracy undermining the entire established order,” (Jensen, 2004, pp.125). This was not accurate and created more fear than was necessary.

            The same is also true for the Black Lives Matter movement. Although some see them as a violent group, as a whole, the group condemns the use of violence. An instance of this was the shooting in Dallas, Texas, where five police officers were killed during a Black Lives Matter rally. The ambush was done by only one man, and was condemned by organizers of the rally. Jeff Hood, a Black Lives matter organizer in Dallas, was at the rally during the shooting. After the shooting he said, “This is a devastating time for us as activists and organizers. We cannot bring about justice through violence,” (Reeves & Whack, 2016). This shows that the violence committed by one hurts the rest of the group because of the negative connotations. The media spreads this false view and others start to view the whole group as violent.

            Although the ideology of the two movements is very different, how they were dealt with by the police and how they were portrayed by the media was very similar. This shows that although there will always be opposing groups in society, the problem with how violence is reduced still stands, as well as how the media causes problems by spreading aggregated fear. This just increases violence and increases the misunderstanding and miscommunication between different social groups.

Work Cited

DOHERTY, J. B. (2016). US VS. THEM: THE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN LAW

ENFORCEMENT AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT ON POLICE OFFICERS & CIVILIANS. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 25(2), 1-51.

REEVES, J., & Whack, E. Black lives matter condemns Dallas shootings, plans

protests. Retrieved February 25, 2017, from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dae6c38b396f400b93d0ccf0c4289b10/leaders-black-lives-matter-condemn-violence-dallas

Jensen, R. (2004): DAGGERS, RIFLES AND DYNAMITE: ANARCHIST TERRORISM IN NINETEENTH

CENTURY EUROPE, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16:1, 116-153

Jensen, R. (2004): DAGGERS, RIFLES AND DYNAMITE: ANARCHIST

TERRORISM IN NINETEENTH CENTURY EUROPE, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16:1, 116-153

Blog Post #1 2/25

David Solomon

Professor Shirk

POL 357B

25 February 2017

Piracy and Terrorism

Our society has mistakenly romanticized the pirates of the eighteenth century. With movies such as Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean producing fan favorite characters such as Captain Jack Sparrow, we see pirates more as heroes than the more appropriate label of being villains. Marcus Rediker makes the same point in his perfectly titled article, Villains of All Nations. He states, “They [pirates] have become, over the years, cultural heroes, perhaps antiheroes, and at the very least romantic and powerful figures in an American and increasingly global popular culture” (Rediker 6). Our culture has taken their brutality and turned it into heroic feats. However, if we were to take the acts these men committed, (murder, kidnapping, rape, pillaging, extortion, stealing, etc…) as a collective whole and put it into a modern context, these men would be labeled terrorists.

Many would argue that pirates were not terrorists because up until the eighteenth century privateering was a legal practice. However, the only reason the practice was legal was because of the sovereign state’s reliance on privateers to protect and enforce their commercial enterprise. Once this reliance was surpassed with self-sufficiency, privateers were no longer needed and their very presence became a hindrance rather than a benefit. This is what inevitably led to privateering being outlawed, thus providing the basis for why pirates during the Golden Age of Piracy should be considered terrorists.

For logistical reasons, my own definition of terrorism is the natural progression throughout time of non-state groups using terror as a tactic against states in an attempt to achieve their own agenda. Using this interpretation now allows us to see more clearly the discrepancy between the pirates of seventeenth century and the pirates during the Golden Age of Piracy. Although in both time periods the acts of terror employed by pirates were relatively the same, the difference lays in the fact that the pirates during the Golden Age were not state sponsored. They were strictly acting on their own accord for the sole purpose of benefiting for themselves. Rediker does a good job summing this point, “They consciously used terror to accomplish their aims: to obtain money, to punish those who resisted them, to take vengeance against those they considered their enemies, and to instill fear in sailors, captains, merchants and officials who might wish to attack or resist pirates” (Rediker 5).

In a world “dominated by the nation-state system” (Rediker 7) pirates systematically took advantage of it by utilizing the tactic of terror. Through this they directly challenged the social order of the time and disrupted the commercial enterprises of the sovereign states in power. As a result, many will argue that pirates committed acts of terror in spite of these sovereign states and to liberate the sailors under their authority. However, this does not serve to explain their seemingly indiscriminate use of terror against civilians and noncombatants. Although they were anti establishment, they did not commit acts of terror in an attempt to give a voice to those oppressed by this system. They were terrorists who were against the “constitutional order” of the period and thus attacked this ideal for their own self-interests. They wanted to satisfy their greedy and sadistic desires and they had no regard for who they hurt in the process of accomplishing their self-interested agendas.

Bibliography

Rediker, Marcus. Villains of all nations: Atlantic pirates in the golden age. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2008.