What
Exactly Is Terrorism? Why Words Matter
by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
March 26, 2018
|
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the
first of your friends to like this.
 It is a concept and
a word that has shaped politics worldwide for decades, all the more since
September 11: terrorism. But what does "terrorism" really mean,
actually? And how well do most people understand it?
Not very, it seems. Over the past year, in the face of last August's
white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville and subsequent death
of Heather Heyer, the mass shooting in Las Vegas last October, and multiple
school shootings, people have increasingly taken to social media to demand
that such episodes be declared terrorism. And while the Charlottesville
killing has been treated as a terrorist incident, the others have not –
often to the frustration of far left activists, so-called
"millennials," and others.
Now the recent serial bombings in Austin, Texas, have raised the issue
once again. On Twitter, discussions have broken out questioning
descriptions of bomber Mark Anthony Conditt, who killed himself by
detonating an explosive while being pursued by police, as
"troubled" rather than as a "terrorist." This, the
argument goes, is because he was white. Muslims are never described as
"troubled"; they are immediately declared terrorists.
In fact, this has never been the case. When Army psychiatrist Nidal
Hassan went on a shooting rampage at the Fort Hood military base, killing
13 and injuring more than 30, the incident was long officially described as "workplace violence," even after it was revealed
that Hasan had ties to known terrorists, including American-born
al-Qaida ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki.
And although Pulse nightclub shooter
Omar Mateen pledged his allegiance to ISIS while killing 50 and
injuring more than 50 more, he was regularly described by law enforcement
and the press as being "mentally disturbed" or "bipolar."
The BBC reported
that "it was not clear whether the attack was a case of domestic or international
terrorism."
Yet while law enforcement has stated no evidence connects the Austin
bombings with terrorism, even media pundits have joined the outcry. Dean
Obeidallah, for instance, penned an op-ed for Mediaite asking "How Many Bombs Does A Non-Muslim Need To Set Off
Before Being Called A Terrorist?" And Joy Reid took to Twitter to
ask where the "terrorist," who was raised in a religious
Christian home, was "radicalized."
Similarly, following last month's Marjory Stoneman Douglas school shooting in Parkland,
Florida, social media filled with demands that the shooter, Nicholas Cruz, also be
charged with terrorism.
In both cases, the argument centered on the "terror" aspect of
"terrorism": both men had instilled fear in large groups of
people. Therefore, terrorists.
But "terrorism" involves more than just striking fear into the
hearts of men (and women). The CIA defines it:
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically
motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents.
The FBI offers this alternative :
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or
property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or
any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
And NATO advances a third:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments
or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives.
While these official definitions vary, they hold in common the element
of socio-political, ideological motives aimed at coercing or intimidating
governments or entire societies. No evidence has yet tied the Parkland or
Las Vegas shootings or the Austin bombings to ideology.
This did not stop Obeidallah from mangling the definition. To the
contrary, he claimed that the bombings "fulfill the definition under
the federal law since Conditt clearly used his bombings to 'intimidate or
coerce a civilian population'" – conveniently deleting the part about
"furtherance of political, religious, or ideological objectives."
What's more, just two days before Obeidallah published his accusatory
rant condemning the failure call non-Muslims terrorists, trials
began for three non-Muslim members of what NPR described as a
makeshift, anti-government, anti-Muslim militia in Kansas. The men were
arrested in 2016 for plotting to bomb an apartment complex and a mosque – a
plot that was never realized – and now face terrorism charges.
At least in this case, then, the answer to Obeidallah's question about
the number of bombs a non-Muslim must set off to be declared a terrorist
would be: "zero."
Law enforcement agencies have also been clear in the past year or two
that the white supremacist threat facing America is growing swiftly – an analysis that has received a good deal of media attention. Increasingly,
counter-terrorism focus has been explicitly on white men, not Muslims, a fact that challenges
Obedeillah's and others' claims.
Others would also prefer to expand the definition of
"terrorism" to include other crimes. If terrorism is about
violence aimed at coercing societies to achieve "ideological
objectives," they insist, then hate crimes are terrorism.
Not so, said Farhana Qazi, a former agent at the National
Counter-Terrorism Center in Washington, D.C. and author of the forthcoming
Invisible Martyrs: Inside The Secret World of Female
Islamic Radicals. "Terrorists identify with an ideology to
achieve a political goal. It's that simple," she wrote in an e-mail.
"If there is no political goal and no religious motive, then it's not
terrorism." While hate crimes can be terrorist-related, she
said, they are not inherently terrorism.
Indeed, hate crimes rarely have anything to do with coercing change.
They are the expression of an individual hatred (or group hatred), even a
desire to eradicate Jews or blacks or homosexuals from the earth. But they
do not seek to "intimidate governments or societies to achieve political,
religious or ideological objectives."
For the same reason, Qazi also maintains that school shootings are not
terrorism, and dismisses recent demands among some to declare the National Rifle Association a terrorist
group. "School shooters are psycho- or sociopaths, and there are
indicators for this behavior," she explained. "Many school
shooters exhibit these behaviors – when has a school shooter been a radical
Muslim? Or someone with a political goal? Or linked to ISIS or a foreign
terror group? We can't mix the terms and place all crimes and violent acts
into one category. That's a mistake."
Why the urge to label such crimes "terrorism" has become the
vogue in certain circles is hard to say. Is the notion of "mass
murder" not horrific enough? Do the words "hate crime" fail
to carry the same sense of dire urgency as "terrorism?" Or is it
a fear that these issues will not be taken seriously enough otherwise?
Or is it, perhaps, something else, a public need for a clear definition
of terrorism, more precise than those currently in place? In one recent
Twitter discussion, some pointed out that the United Nations hasn't even
established a formal definition of the term. "So if they can't, then
anything can be considered terrorism," the argument went: hate crimes,
say, or the Austin bombings.
But the UN confronts unique difficulties in defining
"terrorism" that are not relevant to school shootings and hate
crimes. Rather, the agency has faced disagreements among some member states as to
whether violence is acceptable against foreign occupation – which is to
say, whether Palestinian suicide bombers, for instance, are
"terrorists" or "freedom fighters" – and so, whether
their efforts to coerce a government in the furtherance of their objectives
does or does not constitute terrorism. By contrast, there is no indication
that Conditt or Cruz or Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock saw themselves as
freedom fighters, liberators, warriors for a greater good.
Still, these discussions may underscore a desire for a clearer
understanding of what terrorism is – and of what it isn't. And they may
indicate that a grieving, confused, and frightened public desperately needs
to know that their fears and grief are being taken seriously, that
"school shooting" and "mass shooting" and "hate
crime" are terms that carry as great an impact as
"terrorism."
Those needs should be addressed – because misusing the concept of
terrorism ultimately can be dangerous, Qazi believes. "Criminals –
petty theft, drug dealers – should not be treated as terrorists," she
said. "School shooters should not be treated like drug dealers. And so
on. There are different kinds of crime, so we should be careful not to
place every criminal act under the umbrella of terrorism. If you can't
define the term, you won't be able to offer sound solutions to the problem.
We can't counter the threat if we misplace it."
Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in
the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New
York and the Netherlands. Follow her at @radicalstates.
Related Topics: Abigail
R. Esman, terrorism
definition, mass
shootings, hate
crimes, Mark
Anthony Conditt, Austin
bombings, Heather
Heyer, Omar
Mateen, Nidal
Malik Hasan, Dean
Obeidallah, Farhana
Qazi
|
Print
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment