What Is Terrorism?What one group or organisation calls terrorism, another group will claim to be a legitimate strike for independence (or whatever cause they claim). Are they freedom fighters or terrorists? Your view of terrorism will be coloured by a number of factors. For example:
- What the ‘terrorist’ group claims to represent.
- What damage they cause in pursuing their demands.
- Whether they kill or injure innocent parties or don’t care if they do.
- Whether they restrict their activities to their own country.
- Whether the actions they use are warranted and proportional to furthering their cause.
- Whether they have real, or idealistic and unreal demands and aims.
What The People Think
The real question is what do members of the general public
perceive to be a definition of terrorism? The root of the word terrorism is ‘terror’ which is a good indication of the apparent aim of these groups. That is, to induce terror in the general population, with an aim of forcing it to submit to their demands.
Terrorist acts can range from making radio broadcasts denouncing the government, through throwing raw eggs at a politician, to planting explosives in a public area. The range of activities is huge, but I suspect that the general public would define ‘terrorism’ something like this:
Terrorism is any indiscriminate act, whether violent or not, that kills, injures, harms or adversely affects members of the public who have no control over whatever activity a ‘terrorist’ group may oppose.
Broadly speaking – don’t attack the small guys because we don’t run the country, control the army or define the laws, and whatever you do keep it inside your own country.
Any group that uses indiscriminate violence against innocent people, or uses indiscriminate violence outside their own geographic or political borders must be branded as terrorists. Any group or individual participating in pure terrorist activities, plus any government, company or organisation found to be promoting, funding or supporting terrorist activities, should be vigorously prosecuted by the international community.
Who Are Terrorists?
An even harder question to answer. For a start the list will change depending on how you define terrorists. As an example of how interpretation can affect your view, allow me to describe one group.
An organised group operating in England. They operate in clandestine ways and are run along military lines. Members often wear a uniform for operations, but wear civilian clothes to merge in with the population when not actively engaged in their group activities. The legitimate wing operates quietly in conjunction with a significant commercial organisation with international links. The ‘operational’ wing of the group allegedly receives no funding or support from the commercial organisation, though indications are that this is not strictly true.
The group actively recruits fit young men, aiming to convert them to their cause. Even children participate in planned operations in mainland UK. Group and regional leaders occasionally send active cells to targets in Europe. These cells travel incognito, and meet up at a predefined location to complete their
mission. UK security services are actively investigating this group. UK police forces are investigating the group, and have arrested several of its leaders and many of its members, charging them with a variety of offences including assault, riot, and possession of offensive weapons.
Would you define that group as being a terrorist organisation? Would you say that they have terrorist objectives under my definition or by your own understanding of what makes a terrorist organisation?
Would you think differently if I told you that the group I am describing is the fictional Bradfield County Football Supporters Club? Yes, they are organised and ‘uniformed’, they travel to away matches, they are not really funded by the football club, they do fight with rival supporters and there have been arrests here and abroad, and the police and security services are investigating them ahead of a European cup final match. A few of them are known criminals.
Now you know that, has it changed your opinion of the group? Did you decide they were terrorists based on my first description of them? The first description was true even if the language used was somewhat misleading on occasion. Remember that I had already primed you to think ‘terrorist’ by the title of the chapter, earlier discussions and even the question I asked. Now that you know that the organisation is just a football supporters club, which has a few members who pick fights with rival supporters, does it change your mind about their classification as a terrorist organisation?