I have a hard time pinning down a real definition of the term "terrorism" in its contemporary usage. It seems to be a controversial term to say the least, with many different groups and individuals defining it in many different ways. Is it possible to know the nature or essence of this phenomenon that we call terrorism? Or is it too nebulous a term to map onto a strict definition? I am unsure.

It certainly seems to have certain characteristics common to many if not most acts referred to as terrorist acts. For example, some of these characteristics would probably include acts that are:

* Violent or Destructive
* Targeting civilians or non-combatants
* Intended to strike fear into a population
* For the sake of a political, ideological, religious, or otherwise social cause

Would you include any or all of these in your definition of terrorism? What might you add or subtract? — Brian

Terrorism is a tactic.

That is how I would define it.

Terrorism is a tactic.

That is how I would define it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

So if I have a tactic I use in chess, you'd say that was terrorism?

So if I have a tactic I use in chess, you'd say that was terrorism? — Hanover

Terrorism is a particular kind of tactic.

Well if it is a tactic it is scare tactics. But, if it it' s a tactic then it is a means to an end.

And that end is forced social change or accommodation, accomplished by terrorizing of the populations involved. Terrorists can create ideological space, by causing the extreme polarization of a minority population from the dominant population. The terrorists can appeal to a minority it claims as its own, in an effort to bring it over to its side by displaying the vulnerability of the dominant population to its actions and emphasizing the gross injustice or moral decrepitude it sees in the dominant population, as reason for the violence of its actions. It involves radical adherence to a faith or various ideological ideals which are opposed to dominant systems, which it aspires to dominate. It abstracts and sees its targets and its actions as symbolic.

I have a hard time pinning down a real definition of the term "terrorism" in its contemporary usage. It seems to be a controversial term to say the least, with many different groups and individuals defining it in many different ways. Is it possible to know the nature or essence of this phenomenon that we call terrorism? Or is it too nebulous a term to map onto a strict definition? I am unsure. — Brian

One very important point is the ideological root of terrorism (Islamist terrorism in particular. Basque, tamil, irish and other forms of terror, are essentially in pursuit of territory or sovereignty.) However Islamist terrorism is, I think, grounded in the conviction that Western culture is truly evil. You might recall many instances of placards being waved in Tehran, declaring the US is 'the Great Satan'. That is not polemic or bluster - it is the belief that Western culture is utterly opposed to the religious principles of Islam. In this view, there can be no co-existence between Islam and the West, because 'the West' is essentially satanic. That is the 'battle of civilizations' view of Islamist terrorism, it's highly controversial, of course, but I'm sure that Bin Laden and his followers wanted nothing less than the destruction of Western-style liberalism.

There is an essay called Violence in the God-Shaped Hole, by David Loy, which I think explains a lot about these dynamics. (PDF, a long and very confronting essay.)

There's a chart of terrorist acts here:

Are terrorists insane? If they are not, then maybe one should reduce the motivating factors, is there a terrorism triangle similar to the 'fraud triangle'? In fact the fraud triangle is a good analog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_deterrence#/media/File:Fraud_Triangle.png

Terrorism is the basilisk. It renders you frozen, deeply inhibited, with restricted movement and speech. Its to challenge your freedom with extreme retribution and consequence.

It cant be reasoned with, or easily fought, and has elements of randomness, and unpredictability. Making you afraid to gather in groups where one is normally safest. Afraid to speak out against injustice, which is the cornerstone of civilization, and afraid to act and move freely in the world without the appearance of submission.

Its to be treated as a natural disaster. To be reasonably fortified against, and then shrugged off. Nor virgins need to be thrown into vulcanos... as reasoning and bargaining doesnt work on the unreasonable.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273131802_Life_-_Death_-_Secret_-_Terrorism

* Violent or Destructive
* Targeting civilians or non-combatants
* Intended to strike fear into a population
* For the sake of a political, ideological, religious, or otherwise social cause — Brian

I'm skeptical of the last two, at least as something that would necessarily be the case. The first two are probably sufficient.

It seems unclear in many cases just why the perpetrators are taking the actions they're taking. It's often unclear what their motivations are. There are likely many different motivations for different individuals. That's one reason it's so difficult to systematically combat. Terrorism is basically organized or at least assisted mass murder/spree killing, and there are lots of different motivations for mass murderers/spree killers.

One thing to note is that terrorism is largely born of failure. It is the resort of those who, lacking access to official mechanisms of power or legitimacy, exercise what little they have in the most 'accessible' and spectacular (as in 'spectacle') way possible. Terrorism for the most part is a sign not of strength, but of weakness. In some way, it's precisely as a 'compensation' for this weakness that acts of terrorism are generally so public and so 'spectacular' (they are made for 'spectators' - terrorism does not happen 'in private' or 'behind closed doors').

The idea is to make, as it were, ten armed men feel like a hundred armed men, to inflate strength by means of overloading the airwaves with a short, sharp, shock (which is all that can be sustained - terrorism is what happens when you cannot sustain protracted conflict for lack of resources). This birth-from-failure also explains why terrorists are often so willing to die for their causes - they simply don't have much else to lose: there is generally no community, society or polity to defend or return to in the aftermath of the terrorist act.

Another thing to note is that terrorism relies on countervailing power in order to be effective. Terrorism is designed to mock power, to show that despite whatever security apparatus might be in place, terror can nonetheless still strike. It's effects are meant to be extended in time - 'this' one terrorist act stands for a line of ever-possible terrorist attacks that can happen at any time in it's wake, because for all the strength that the 'enemy' has, he can not/did not stop this one attack. This is what lends it it's 'terrifying' dimension.

For a recentish take on some of this re: ISIS, see: http://time.com/4393398/isis-terror-attacks-turkey-iraq-bangladesh/

Wosret, your post above has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

I agree with you. "One thing to note is that terrorism is largely born of failure". In a sense, all violence is born of failure, it's not hard to understand the motivation once you understand the frustration and how it can lead to a justification. I am willing to bet that any terrorist would prefer that their demands are met than to carry out their terrorist act. While this may seem like blackmail, what I mean is that it's not a comfortable situation for the perpetrator not the victim.

See this article: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-causes-of-terrorism-3209053 I would add, that terrorist is an act of violent protest. Perhaps the reverse is also true.

It's best not to define terrorism because we may, god forbid, include ourselves in its extension.

Yeah, suicide bombers are frustrated, but not politically, or religiously, the ones that are frustrated in that sense are sending out the suicide bombers. The frustrated bombers are frustrated by a homoromatic polygamist society that turns people into drones -- created by a fucking pedophile that's experiences of God were seizure like, and painful.

I'm not saying lets be violent to them, but also recognize that they kind of suck, and it's because they suck that they're doing that.

I mean, our culture really has better values, and not just our culture, but most. Not blaming the victim, but Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, they all knew that violence doesn't actually work for creating, or negotiating anything -- just give the opposition justification, give them a reason and they'll totally use violence against you. It's difficult to do, and look justified when they're peaceful though. When you maintain non-violent, honest strategies, then they can't kill you without just making you stronger.

When you're violent though, it's easy to justify violence right back at you. They aren't dumb, they're unreasonable, and won't negotiate, nor maintain strategies that do anything other than perpetuate violence.

Since we're so doubly awesome and better, we even want to turn the other cheek. Why is that? Probably because we don't suck nearly as much over here maybe?

They aren't dumb, they're unreasonable, and won't negotiate — Wosret

If they were not dumb, not unreasonable and did negotiate I guess they would be in politics?

I'm not sure about much right now for some reason. I think I'd rather just remain silent for awhile, and do some studying.

I tried it at chess club, and now they won't let me back in.

I am a freedom fighter. You are a rebel. They are terrorists.

Terrorists are always the Other.

There are only certain groups labelled terrorists and they do not like it. Ever heard a terrorist admit being a terrorist?

I am willing to bet that any terrorist would prefer that their demands are met than to carry out their terrorist act. — FreeEmotion

I'd take that bet. Or in other words, I don't agree with that. I'd bet instead that there are some terrorists who are simply psychopaths.

I have a hard time pinning down a real definition of the term "terrorism" in its contemporary usage. It seems to be a controversial term to say the least, with many different groups and individuals defining it in many different ways. Is it possible to know the nature or essence of this phenomenon that we call terrorism? Or is it too nebulous a term to map onto a strict definition? I am unsure.

It certainly seems to have certain characteristics common to many if not most acts referred to as terrorist acts. For example, some of these characteristics would probably include acts that are:

* Violent or Destructive
* Targeting civilians or non-combatants
* Intended to strike fear into a population
* For the sake of a political, ideological, religious, or otherwise social cause

Would you include any or all of these in your definition of terrorism? What might you add or subtract? — Brian

There is something I remember a pro-Bush supporter said when I told them I was more scared of people working against us from within our society and our government then the "terrorist" that we hunt all over the globe to which she joking remarked "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter as well as one person's freedom fighter is somebody else's terrorist" which is kind of interesting when you think about it.

There is no real standard for "terrorist" since anything can be considered an act of "terror" in the eye's of the beholder much like anything can be 'art' to someone who appreciates the aesthetics of any particular object whether it is made by man,nature or machine or whatever went into making it.

However if you know a little about history and/or military doctrines you realize there are terms available for activities in the past that are similar to but often called that or anything similar that might cause a "knee-jerk" reaction as terrorism. The two that first come to mind is unconventional warfare and asymmetric warfare. Part of the reasons most countries don't say that an opposing army are terrorist is that many armies are restricted in their actions on what they are allowed to do and what they are not (ie mostly it is about not allowing them to engage in murderous and/or criminal behavior on enemy soldiers or local population, although certain things are allowed during times of war) and when either an occupying force doesn't obey such rules or the partisan militias who oppose them are too ruthless themselves, then one of them can be thought of as 'terrorist" (even if that is not the word used) although the usual tradition is to call them any derogatory word that they hate being called the most (such as "Daesh" for ISIS). In any case, the term used in historical context is "unconventional warfare" which includes spies, saboteurs, black ops,etc as well as direct attacks on civilians on either side who may not be directly supporting either group.

Another term similar to unconventional warfare is unrestricted warfare. Unrestricted warfare is when neither side may have enough resources to easily overtake another side's conventional forces and in in the hopes of reducing losses and collateral damage on both sides from a very long and protracted engagement (such as was experienced in World War I) either or both sides (ie when one usually does this the other quickly follows suit in retaliation) to ignore some of actions they forbid in normal and engage in what is considered unrestricted/total warfare. Where the lines are in unconventional, unrestricted/total warfare, and terrorism I don't known but I imagine in unconventional and unrestricted warfare, commanders are still hoping to win the "hearts and minds" of some of the people who happen to part of the population opposing them so they have to be careful not to appear too much like a big bully, however opposing partisan forces are often more interesting in enough fear/respect in their enemy that are willing to do things that would not be acceptable otherwise.

In the medieval ages such as the hundred year war ,the term "Chevauchée" was used to describe the act where an army would raid peasant settlements (which where often lot less protected than one housing an enemy army) to demoralize the peasants who might be supporting them and to deny any potential resources that the enemy might be able to use themselves. While it may not be considered the same thing as terrorism as it is today, any well armed militia or army doing the same thing in a developed country would be labeled as either criminals perhaps if their end goal was merely robbing or terrorist if their end goal is really military or political in nature.

It might also be worth noting that during the Civil War, in order to compensate for his lack of supplies General Grant would commandeer/raid any southern building they could find which could be used by themselves or the southern army, destroy rail road tracks, cut telegraph lines, and nearly anything else they could think of that would hurt the southern army and the economy that supported them. Although it may not be the same thing I believe the term "scorched earth" applies to similar tactics used to day when an army commandeers more resources than they usually do when overtaking an area and/or when they destroy resources that are not directly used by an enemy. Another tactic although much more sever was during WWII on the eastern front, Russians and Germans would seek out any enemy soldiers and any civilians who might be loyal to them, kill them outright instead of taking them prisoner, and display their corpses in a manner that would have the greatest effect of upsetting/demoralizing their comrades and/or anyone else walking by and seeing the bodies on display. I think the Germans where the one who first started using these kinds of tactics but the Russians immediately followed along with allowing additional actions that are normally forbidden by the rules of conventional warfare. Again I'm unaware of where the line is drawn but I think it is something that one's common sense might be able to tell the two apart.

Anyways with "asymmetric warfare", there is usually a great imbalance of resources and tactics between two opposing forces where it is pretty much a given where one side will lose if they try to engage in what is considered conventional warfare of the time. Guerrilla warfare. While it is hard to describe what make asymmetric warfare different than unconventional warfare (since they often seem the same thing), I think asymmetrical warfare is used to describe technology used in a way that an conventional army is unfamiliar with or not use to (such as hacking into a computer system), or using new tactics which may give a partisan militia or smaller army an upper hand on a larger one such as the tactics Hannibal used while invading Rome.

Also I forgot to mention that it is almost a given that any use of a weapon that is part of NBC (nuclear/ biological/ chemical) warfare is usually consider as bad as an act of terrorism or something even worse when used populated areas. In a nutshell nearly any NBC that is powerful enough powerful a large area and/or a lot of people is consider to be a weapon that is used only as a last resort and even then only under the right conditions by conventional forces. By forces employing unconventional and/or asymmetric warfare or smaller armies, NBC are potentially something that might level the playing field for them ( think something along the lines between the friction between North Korea and their nuke/ long range missle program and the US) but also something that can create additional problems for themselves as well.

Hopefully this answer some of your question. :D

Terrorism is a term created during our era of globalism to define those rebelling or violently opposing the legitimacy of a nation state (from what I gather). Terrorists represent a group, not a state and therefore are deemed illegitimate-- terroristic in nature by a state. I believe labelling the rebellious group as "terrorists" is as much of a tact as terrorism is one, because it invalidates the terrorist's goal, voice, and actions rendering them powerless in our adhered to global political system.

I think labelling these groups is the reason why the definition is so elusive and hard to pin down as those who are considered terrorists not only have global goals but national ones that pertain to complex religious wars, and internal hate and violence, however it blankets the situation not allowing critical thinking to deal with this kind of adversity properly.

I think you're right in many ways, but I have no problem referring to someone as a terrorist when the negative association attached to that term is warranted by their (or their group's) actions. I'm thinking of things like state-sponsored violence specifically targeting civilians or non-combatants, the hideous behavior of drug cartels (even though lacking a larger political agenda), etc.

It does seem like the standard definition is one conveniently created by powerful nations in order to delimit and discredit those who stand in the way of their designs: from an imperialist power like the USA in its dealings with other recalcitrant nations to a brutal dictator of a smaller nation trying to expand or hold on to power against a resistant segment of his or her own population.

But I also feel like anyone who purposely targets children and other innocents is rightly described as a terrorist, no matter how worthy or just they (or others) feel their cause is.

So my amateur recommendation would be to expand the term to include any individuals or groups who employ horrific tactics against human beings to pursue their ends, rather than eschewing the term altogether because it's been appropriated and exploited by the powerful in the ways it has up to this point.

There's still much ambiguity here, but that's a start and IMO the proper direction to take the matter.