Defining terrorism: is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter?
What constitutes terrorism is a widely asked question
- most scholars say definition can not be agreed upon because - ‘‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s
freedom fighter’’
On the other hand, others say
- definition of terrorism is necessary but must serve political ends (states sponsor t. groups but
want them to not be defined as terrorists)
Both are wrong and will make fighting terrorism impossible - a definition is necessary in order to
achieve a well-set-up coordinated attack on int. terrorism
The definition can be based upon int. laws and principles
- “deliberate harming of soldiers during wartime is a necessary evil, and thus permissible,
whereas the deliberate targeting of civilians is absolutely forbidden”
extension definition
- conflict between nongovernmental organization and state
- guerilla warfare/terrorism
- GW = ‘the deliberate use of violence against military and security personnel in order
to attain political, ideological and religious goals.’
- Terrorism = ‘the deliberate use or the threat to use violence against civilians in order
to attain political, ideological and religious aims’ (attack on gov personnel is
terrorism if target was not in decision making position counter-terrorism policy
No claim to be ‘freedom fighters’ - an organization that deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist
organization.
Terrorism must be forbidden to not turn all civilian populations in pawns of a struggle - regardless
legitimacy/justice goals. Ends don’t justify means
No external reason to make choice between terrorism/guerilla warfare
- but if organizations and sponsors know that terror is more harm than good - a focus will go to
guerilla warfare = great achievement counterterrorism
Can countries as well as organizations be held responsible for carrying out terrorist acts?
- deliberate attack on civilians wartime = war crime
- deliberate attack on civilians peace time = crime against humanity
- buuut - organizations not specifically prohibited from perpetrating these actions that are
illegal to sovereign states
Cannot expect terror organizations to only attack ready-to-fight militaries - they lost element of
surprise - must define terrorism as ‘deliberate attacks on civilians’ as this will cause a ‘fair fight’
between guerillas and state armies. = another reason to choose guerilla over terrorism
What constitutes terrorism is a widely asked question
- most scholars say definition can not be agreed upon because - ‘‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s
freedom fighter’’
On the other hand, others say
- definition of terrorism is necessary but must serve political ends (states sponsor t. groups but
want them to not be defined as terrorists)
Both are wrong and will make fighting terrorism impossible - a definition is necessary in order to
achieve a well-set-up coordinated attack on int. terrorism
The definition can be based upon int. laws and principles
- “deliberate harming of soldiers during wartime is a necessary evil, and thus permissible,
whereas the deliberate targeting of civilians is absolutely forbidden”
extension definition
- conflict between nongovernmental organization and state
- guerilla warfare/terrorism
- GW = ‘the deliberate use of violence against military and security personnel in order
to attain political, ideological and religious goals.’
- Terrorism = ‘the deliberate use or the threat to use violence against civilians in order
to attain political, ideological and religious aims’ (attack on gov personnel is
terrorism if target was not in decision making position counter-terrorism policy
No claim to be ‘freedom fighters’ - an organization that deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist
organization.
Terrorism must be forbidden to not turn all civilian populations in pawns of a struggle - regardless
legitimacy/justice goals. Ends don’t justify means
No external reason to make choice between terrorism/guerilla warfare
- but if organizations and sponsors know that terror is more harm than good - a focus will go to
guerilla warfare = great achievement counterterrorism
Can countries as well as organizations be held responsible for carrying out terrorist acts?
- deliberate attack on civilians wartime = war crime
- deliberate attack on civilians peace time = crime against humanity
- buuut - organizations not specifically prohibited from perpetrating these actions that are
illegal to sovereign states
Cannot expect terror organizations to only attack ready-to-fight militaries - they lost element of
surprise - must define terrorism as ‘deliberate attacks on civilians’ as this will cause a ‘fair fight’
between guerillas and state armies. = another reason to choose guerilla over terrorism
