In Laymen´s Terms…this is Terrorism

Before 9/11, few Americans knew much about Terrorism. Since that day, defining terrorism precisely has been a serious problem. If you agree with the cause, you don´t call them terrorists.

By most legal and political definitions, terrorism involves: a) the use or threat of extraordinary violence; b) goal-directed or rational behavior; c) the intent to have a psychological impact broader than the immediate victims; and d) the choice of victims for their symbolic, rather than their instrumental, value.

In essence, terrorism involves the use or threat of violence that is beyond what is "usual" or common in a society. That being said, who is going to define "usual"?

Having studying the terrorism phenomenon for several years, I'm not optimistic the world will ever settle on a collective definition. Even the United States Government cannot seem to whittle it down into one standard for all to follow. The Feds, United Nations, Intelligence Agencies, Department of Defense, scholars, and the guy next door struggle with defining terrorism and the inherent difficulties in attempting to define something that remains so obscure.

With over 200 plus official definitions of terrorism out there, it can be somewhat of a challenge to figure if one common understanding of the phenomenon even exists. Taking out many of the deviations, extra words and multiple contexts, simply stated, terrorism is the act of committing acts of violence or threatening the act of violence against targets - individuals or objects - used in pursuit of a political aim. As renowned terrorism scholar Bruce Hoffman suggests with his reference to the Old Oxford Dictionary definition, a terrorist is anyone who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation. Further defining characteristics of terrorism is that it is planned, calculated, and systematic.

To further muddy the definition conundrum, keep in mind that terrorists target government, military and civilian targets. Equally so, freedom fighters do the same thing. So who decides which group you are in? It's about who you ask. It's a loaded term.

To illustrate this simple point take Iranian backed Hizbollah for example. Hizbollah is viewed as a terrorist group by the United States and Israel. At the same time they are seen as a resistance movement throughout major parts of the Muslim and Arab world. In 1994 they attacked a Jewish center in Argentina. Most of their supporters viewed this as a legitimate target because it was tied to the Jewish state of Israel. In 2006, Hizbollah took on the Israeli´s inside Lebanon and in their minds it was a great victory - they fought the Israeli military and were not defeated. The Muslim world saw their actions as a military vs. military conflict. We saw it as a terrorist group targeting civilians with short-range rockets and suicide bombers. They saw it as targeting Israeli infrastructure and the Jewish infidel.

By now, most Americans have heard of Al Qaeda. In a very real sense they also see themselves as freedom fighters opposed to the regimes of many Muslim countries. They are trying to rid Muslim holy lands of "apostate" rulers and governments that are ostensibly oppressing Islam. Secondarily, they seek to establish a new caliphate. One might consider that the freedom fighter idea is purely based on perspective. One man's freedom fighter is often referred to as another man's terrorist. Of course, there is no basis to claim that a freedom fighter cannot perpetrate acts of terrorism. The old argument that the concepts of terrorists and freedom fighters contradict one another are actually false assumptions. The difference between the two is not subjective based on perspective, rather it is an essential difference related to the goals and means used by the perpetrator of the attack itself. Point being, Al Qaeda is not a national liberation movement trying to liberate their homeland from a foreign occupier. They are clearly a radical Islamic terrorist group whose ultimate goal is to change the religious and governing landscape of the free world.

So how should we define terrorism? The Department of Defense defines terrorism as, "The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." If it´s good enough for the guys charged with the lion´s share of capturing or killing terrorists across the globe, it´s good enough for me.