This week, you read about historical terrorism, and you've read about several different international terrorist organizations. I spent some time discussing the working definition of terrorism; now it's your turn to think about it.
For this week's discussion post, I want you to try to answer the following question: How do we categorize an organization as terrorist? (Note: please think from a GLOBAL perspective, and not just from the persepctive of a US citizen.) Is there a set group of characteristics? What separates terrorist from a revolutionary or freedom fighter? Who should make this determination? Should an organizations' philanthropic or political activity be taken into account?
For this week's discussion post, I want you to try to answer the following question: How do we categorize an organization as terrorist? (Note: please think from a GLOBAL perspective, and not just from the persepctive of a US citizen.) Is there a set group of characteristics? What separates terrorist from a revolutionary or freedom fighter? Who should make this determination? Should an organizations' philanthropic or political activity be taken into account?
As we discussed in class, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I believe that what constitutes a terrorist and what constitutes a freedom fighter is a thin line that is hard to pin down, but I do also believe that there are a few set characteristics that distinguish the two groups. I believe that the groups in question have to be committing criminal acts that are meant to induce fear, panic, or terror, in the general public. I believe that the people being targeted have to be “innocent” in order for the acts taken against them to be considered terrorism. Another aspect of what distinguishes a terrorist from a freedom fighter has to come from the fact is the action being carried out is justifiable in any way. If the action being carried out cannot be justified as so, it is terrorism. Lastly, for a group to be considered a terrorist group, I believe that the group in question has to be one that is not directly tied to the state. In other words, it must be a non-state entity. Obviously, as it very hard to pin down a universally accepted definition of what constitutes terrorism, I believe that everyone has their own opinion as to what terrorism entails, but I believe the points I have made above highlight some of the major components of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI love this question, and I believe it is extremely important to understand that our environment and our thoughts are based on biases. However, looking at it from a global perspective, I think it should be said that a terrorist or terrorist organization is one which affects or hinders the lives of innocent civilians who are irrelevant to a certain conflict or misunderstanding. Of course, terrorism cannot and should not be identified by certain physical characteristics, as terrorism comes in all shapes and sizes. However it is unfortunate that in the world we live in and in the media we watch, only Muslim terrorism is highlighted at all times. We also see that the term "terrorist" is only used to describe a Muslim terror suspect, but when we see someone of another race or religion committing an act of terror, it is considered a crime or offense, rather than terror. So there is definitely a double standard in the discussion. The International Criminal Court is a great organization that can decipher between acts of terror and acts of crime.
ReplyDeleteI personally categorize an organization as terrorists if they use violence against civilians or the government in order to pursue political or religious goals. However, I think there should be no set group of characteristics because organizations have different ways of doing things. Also, many countries see some organizations as terrorist groups while others do not. I think what separates terrorists from freedom fighters are the reasons for doing what they did. If a group is living under a dictatorship or a harmful government, and they plan to use violence, I could see them as freedom fighters. However, groups who are killing others just to kill them should be viewed as terrorists. It is difficult to decide who determines this, but I would say the UN or even neutral countries should have a say. The only bad thing about having other countries decide is it could lead to more violence with the “terrorist group” or “freedom fighters.” I think the organizations’ political and philanthropic activity should be taken into account, as well as, the country’s political and philanthropic activity. If an organization is doing something politically harmful, then they should be stopped as soon as possible, so nothing worse happens. Also, if a country has a harmful government or a government that the citizens do not agree with, then I would take that into consideration as well.
ReplyDeleteMatt Brighton
I personally think that a terrorist group is one which does not regard civilians in their attempts to make a point. Often, revolutionaries target leaders, such as the French Revolution. However, terrorists often partake in mass murders of civilians through methods such as bombings. I also think that a well-informed group and not a single country should determine whether or not a group is a terrorist group or not. A group such as the United Nations, which includes countries from all over the world, should really look into the terrorist group and their motives and actions before a determination is made. I do not think that philanthropic actions should be taken into consideration for whether or not a group is considered terrorist. A philanthropic action does not outweigh killing of civilians, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteMina Kim
Defining who qualifies as a terrorist or terrorist organization is a difficult task. As we discussed in class, this all depends of perspective. Some call themselves freedom fighters, while others view these same people as terrorists. Freedom fighters and terrorists have the same ideas and motives, yet go about seeking changes in different forms. Because of this, there can be no distinct set of characteristics to determine which is which. It is my opinion that terrorism does show qualities that “freedom fighters” do not. A terrorist’s goal is usually to instill fear into the population in order to catalyze change. I believe they hold a more psychological approach than freedom fighters. Terrorists also target civilians and innocent people, which is not a common occurrence for freedom fighters. Generally, freedom fighters are fighting for independence from an oppressive government or leader and are connected to a specific nation. Terrorists I think the major may to determine if an organization falls into a certain category depends on the way the action is carried out.
ReplyDeleteI think that an international organization, such as the World Court, or another impartial court should be the ones to determine if acts are terrorist attacks. This is an extremely daunting task to ask of an organization. It is my opinion that an organization’s political actions should be taken into account if the organization is using political means to conduct terrorism. Again, deciding if a person or organization is in fact a terrorist always depends on who is deciding.
Alexis Lilly
To define a group as terrorist I would have to say that certain qualities are a necessity. I would have to say that it is a group with radical, political aims who attempts to get those views across by using violence and instilling fear against civilians. These regular citizens often fall victim, fatally, to the group trying to make a statement to the world regarding their radical views. I would say that the defining of these groups should be done by the United Nations, who can typically distinguish between terrorist versus freedom fighters, often a very clear cut distinction. I do not believe that a groups philanthropic activity should impact their determination, but if they are a legitimized political organization, with effectiveness in their policymaking agendas, then they may contribute to them not being a terrorist organization. It can be a tough distinction, but often terrorists can be easily distinguished based on their activities.
ReplyDeleteCharlie Derr
ReplyDeleteWhen speaking of terrorism I love the notion of “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. It displays the objectiveness of the term. However I feel as though there is a concrete way to identify a group as a terrorist organization. We should not consider the political or philosophical ideology of a group as everyone has a right to believe what they will. Instead we ought to shift our focus towards the tactics used. The label “terrorist” has been used very often recently, and personally I feel as though it’s meaning has been watered down because of it. Terrorists can be easily identified if we keep the definition closely related to the term. Many people wish to say terrorist are factions that cause terror. Many people and things can cause terror, so I believe this leads to its objectivity. Instead I argue that terrorists are groups that use terror, and use it as their main weapon. For example, a terrorist group might begin to use suicide bombings at random targets. I believe the objective of this is not solely to kill a number of people, or destroy a bus station or anything along those lines as that would not gain any sort of tactical advantage. Instead, terrorist groups would do this in hopes to strike fear into the surviving population, in hopes that they would pressure their political leaders into a specific policy change.