The Definition and Complexity of Terrorism
The phrase “terrorism” is one that is widely used in ordinary conversation. It appears that many people throughout the world understand it, but in reality, its interpretation and definition are done in many ways (Weinberg, Pedahzur & Hirsch-Hoefler, 2004).
The Constantly Evolving Nature of Terrorism
Defining the notion of terrorism has been challenging because terrorist acts are constantly evolving. In fact, when all of the methods, motives, and targets are incorporated in the concept of terrorism, the definition becomes rather difficult. Some definitions and concepts are intrinsically too specific or too broad, which causes confusion when defining the concept of terrorism. The terrorism continues to happen around the world even though Osama Bin Laden died because of terrorism. Indeed, the death of Osama has not sent any signal to terrorists to stop participating in violent activities. Terrorism still continues, and many scholars believe that it will not stop to happen around the world. Consequently, with this type of development, the definition of terrorism commonly accepted should include motives, actions, fear, and targets (Neumann, 2013). The motives of the terrorists are religious or political, and their targets are assumed to be the innocent civilians. Terrorism continues to happen in different countries and executed by several groups of terrorists globally. As a result, I think there will be no such general definition of terrorism which will be acceptable to all scholars.
The Difficulty in Distinguishing Terrorism from Related Phenomena
The distinction of terrorism from some phenomena which are more or less related to terrorism such as guerilla warfare, national independence war, separatism, and irredentism have been so difficult (Gunning & Jackson, 2011). Frequently, the notion of terrorism is used to describe different behaviors and attitudes that range from revolutionary ones to the criminal acts. Besides, the same situation can be interpreted as the terrorist acts or just a struggle for national independence according to how it is viewed as one’s political stand, ethnic or religious option (Richards, 2014). For instance, the actions of the ETA and IRA: for a portion of Basque and Irish nationalists, respectively, they are used as a way of attaining independence while most people treat them as acts of terrorism. Other examples include the situation of Kurd, Tamil Tigers or Chechen extremists. Sometimes, it is difficult to distinguish between terrorism and the struggle for independence, as Alex Schmid emphasized by saying that “terrorist of a person, is a freedom fighter of another person (Schmid, 2004).
The Manipulation of the Notion of Terrorism
Centers for decision-making such as politicians or circles of opinion-forming such as media apply the notion of terrorism intentionally, to influence the opinion of the public and discredit some groups of individuals. In fact, it is done to justify some activities so as to win popularity. Hence, the notion of terrorism has been as a tool of manipulation to bring political or material advantages (Neumann, 2013). For instance, the authorities of many states that include Russia, Israel, and the United States have been using the terrorism rhetoric. They frequently use it particularly for important circumstances, for example during election campaigns.
The Complexity of Defining Terrorism
In conclusion, the term “terrorism” is unique since its definition is characterized by complexity and diverse nature hence making it difficult to define. It is impossible to get clear acts of terrorism because trying to describe terrorism and its components would result in the provision of a starting point for further debate thus making the case ambiguous.
References
Gunning, J., & Jackson, R. (2011). What’s so ‘religious’ about ‘religious terrorism’?. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 4(3), 369-388.
Neumann, P. R. (2013). The trouble with radicalization. International Affairs, 89(4), 873-893.
Richards, A. (2014). Conceptualizing terrorism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 37(3), 213-236.
Schmid, A. (2004). Terrorism: The Definitional Problem ‘(2004). Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 36, 375
Weinberg, L., Pedahzur, A., & Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2004). The challenges of conceptualizing terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 16(4), 777-794.
