Terrorism
What is terrorism and how is it different from acts of violence? What role does identity play in titling events as terrorist acts? Acts of terror are complex because they can be described as “living between crime and war”. Definitions of terrorism also complicate the issue because they vary so much. It can be argued that terrorism is not an ideology but rather a tactic used to achieve a certain end-goal. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulation defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”. Doesn’t arguing that it is solely a tactic leave out the fundamental basis of many reasons terrorists commit these acts- to spread the knowledge of their ideology and “prove” that their’s is the best choice? The dictionary defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”. But why? To do what? To what end?
Terrorism has no face, no standardized policy. Terrorists can be anyone. They can be committing these crimes for political, economic, religious, or other reasons. Violent crackdowns on terrorism often leads to a cycle of violence that encourages more terrorist acts. Nations even support terrorist groups to secure their own national interest.
The events of September 11th changed the way we define terrorism and normalized the discourse in the public domain. People are much more interested in knowing about terrorism and studying it; there is also much more information on the subject. This is not to say this is a new phenomenon. Terrorism occurred before 9/11. Hijackings were rampant before 9/11. The difference is the scale and the fact that the homeland was greatly affected. One other thing to think about relating to change is globalization. Governments and economies are so interconnected now that the stakes are bigger and the threat appears more imposing. Because knowledge and studies of terrorism has opened up so much the problem has become more complex. People (like citizens who need assurances or policymakers who need make these assurances) want terrorism to be easy: it is the work of evil fanatics or experimental youth. We can’t paint terrorists as one profile. Those in Ireland have different backgrounds, ideologies, and critical understandings of the world than jihadists do, than people like Timothy McVeigh.
Are we safer after 9/11? It doesn’t appear so. Not only is Al-Qaeda still in operation, but now ISIS is the major threat. Not to mention the individuals who reside in Peaceful democracies who can wreak havoc (like the bombings in the UK and shootings in France). Again though, these are all but commonplace. Terrorism isn’t some rare event. It actually has become normalized. Think about the last time there was a bombing, or shooting, or act of terror (which now includes knifing attacks in a supermarket and cars ramming into people). It doesn’t even really shock us as a society anymore. Yes it is sad. Yes we need to prevent it. But it doesn’t come as a surprise anymore. Terrorist attacks keep occurring and people are becoming numb to it. This indicates that acts of terror have become normalized in society. Not necessarily expected, but not quite surprising either. Another think to comprehend is the fact that “terrorism doesn’t just threaten American lives- it threatens our way of life” (airport security, anyone?). Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff provides an analysis of the U.S. and terrorism from the perspectives of pre-9/11 and post-9/11 worlds. Prior to 9/11, the U.S. never really saw terrorism on the homeland (the biggest terrorist threat were hijackings and those usually did not end is mass murder). Post-9/11, the U.S. has revamped every aspect of life to account for deficiencies in our security (intelligence gathering, information integration, incapacitation).
After 9/11, the focus on terrorism specifically looks towards Islam. There’s a difference between non-religious regions for causing terrorism and religious reasons. Non-religious reasons to create terror acts include: political causes (bombings within the Arab-Israeli conflict and Palestine), cultural causes (East wanting to reject the West), and social causes (alienation). One of the most prominent religious reasons for focusing on terrorism includes jihad. Jihad actually translates roughly in “to strive” or “to struggle” (some construe jihad as “holy war” but “al-harb” is the Arabic word for war). In the religious sense, jihad has many meanings and definitions. There’s often an emphasis on the internal versus external struggle (respectively, trying to struggle to be a better Muslim and remembering that Allah/God is dominant over you versus working on sharing the faith of Islam). Military jihad is used to protect those of the faith, but doesn’t have to be violent, it can use diplomacy or economic or political means.
The point of these last sections is to open up discussion and provoke questions that may be hard to acknowledge as having validity. With that, they are my opinions and perspectives.
Some argue that in the U.S. it is easy to dismiss white (or at least, non-Arab/Muslim looking) attackers as lone wolves, while is is too easy to call Arab/Muslim looking attackers as terrorists. But why? Personally, I believe this goes back to the fact that nothing had ever happened like 9/11 and so the associations of the attack and the goals of the war on terror (looking at specifically Muslim countries) encourages this.
There’s also the discussion that lone wolves have histories of mental illness and thus their violent acts cannot be considered terrorist threats, even though they can fit the textbook definition of terror attacks. There are a few problematic thoughts in reference to the lone wolf argument. First, I think it undermines the definition and connotation of terrorism by arguing that people who shoot up schools shouldn’t be considered terrorists (when in fact all they are doing is causing terror in a group to evoke some kind of message and get attention to that message. On the other hand, why are Americans who are radicalized instantly called terrorists? Part of my issue with radicalization is that in some cases it almost comes off as Stockholm Syndrome-y or mind control like. I’m not trying to say that all convicted terrorists aren’t terrorists (because that’s not true, some people do use their power to take advantage of people and radicalize them) but I am concerned about the people who are easily targeted for radicalization. Another related argument is that a majority of these incidents create a gun control v. gun’s rights argument. The fact is: people who want to harm people will find a way to do it (noted by vehicular attacks and machete attacks, for example). While gun control would help the flow of weapons away from wrong hands (like those with a history of violent and/or mental health issues), it doesn’t address the deep down problem that there are people out there looking for violence.
Fundamentalist groups (no matter the religion, if they’re even associated with one) are typically willing to go to extremes to get their point across and to protect their ideals. And this can often end in violence. But does that mean we should try to restrict fundamentalists? How would we define and classify fundamentalism? How could we even regulate that? Arguing to get rid of fundamentalism reveals a common fear and uncertainty, but at the end of the day it doesn’t do anything about the problem and may even exacerbate it by reifying the fundamentalists’ thoughts that people are out to get them and that their plight is legitimized. Instead we should ask: how do people start fundamentalist groups? why do people choose fundamentalism? what can we do to prevent radicalization?
