Defining Terrorism: A Thought Experiment
By Dennis Chapman

Why Define Terrorism?

The definition of terrorism this paper formulates is the committing of violence against civilians and civilian infrastructure as a proxy for resistance against political authority. This definition is based on an analysis of state terrorism as well as a thought experiment concerning the variables which determine whether an act can be considered terrorist. Whilst the question of what causes terrorism is the most examined question in what could broadly be called "terrorism studies", a common definition of terrorism, which one would expect before considering what causes terrorism, is much more elusive. The reason for this is that one side accuses the other of terrorism so that any means, including the means used by "the terrorists," can be used in hunting down the proclaimed enemy. This is a problem because if one definition of terrorism, e.g. targeting civilians, is taken for granted, then state and non-state political groups would be equally guilty of committing terrorist acts regardless of the noble end used to justify the odious, but necessary means. However, this essay will argue that the act of terrorism itself, i.e. violence against civilians and civilian infrastructure, has effects such that it does not matter whether one side takes control of the meaning of the event. In other words, the moral high ground may favour one side, but it does not control the reaction of the other side in their first-hand interpretation of events and subsequent reactions among actors capable of organising transnational violence in pursuit of a political voice.

The following essay criticises the lack of accountability of militarily dominant states when they are shown to have been wrong in their justification for the use of violence, i.e. war, for regime change or revenge and leading to a large proportion of civilian casualties. Russia, the US and Israel all currently occupy areas in and around the Middle East using superior conventional military to sustain regional hegemony in Chechnya, Iraq and Palestine respectively. Moreover, all of these countries have accepted a high civilian casualty rate in the occupied region due to the nature of the enemy to "blend in" with the population. The argument "they are no better" becomes the apologetic of the invading forces as everyone in the population represents a possible target, as represented by t-shirts worn by Israeli soldiers depicting pregnant women as two for one targets.

The Chechens, Iraqis and Palestinians have all experienced independence movements led by what are locally perceived as revolutionaries. The terrorist distinction here is that these local revolutionaries, e.g. Hamas, do not have the conventional military capability to defend themselves against a state such as Israel which has the unconditional support of the US. Qassam rockets have been a continued nuisance to Israel, but have only resulted in a handful of casualties, whilst Israel's recent revenge attack, fought over a period of weeks, resulted in 280 deaths of children alone. Israel even attacked a UN school during the Gaza incursion, killing two boys. The material result of Israel's one sided war in Gaza will, as suggested no doubt result in further justifying Hamas in their pursuit of the destruction of Israel; however, the moral justification that the elected leadership in Gaza are terrorists takes precedence over the material consequence of attacking a population seeking to elevate itself above the label of terrorism, at least in terms of the building of civilian infrastructure. The question remains: is the legitimate versus terrorist distinction decided solely on the variable of which side can decidedly obliterate the other with conventional, as opposed to unconventional, warfare?

The answer to the above question is that might is still right both in terms of military outcomes and the way in which a conflict is framed politically, i.e. "history is written by the victors":

The transnational elite seems not to be satisfied just with eliminating its opponents (Arafat yesterday, Milosevic today, Saddam tomorrow — the ‘war criminals’ and terrorists, as characterised by this elite whose kangaroo courts are, naturally, unable to perceive the massive war crimes and state terrorism of its own members!) The transnational elite is even more interested – as every totalitarian regime has been – in rewriting History, so that the submission of future generations can also be secured.

Speaking from a purely consequentialist viewpoint, the political justification for war is not enough to prevent Middle Eastern terrorism from emerging from populations living in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Gaza which are seemingly at the whim and mercy of the occupying military. This is a consequentialist view insofar as the war in Iraq may have paradoxically caused religious terrorism to take greater hold in the country, with the democratically-elected regime being decided on the grounds of the religious majority; moreover, Al Qaeda are able to recruit new members from the pool of family and friends of unintended civilian casualties looking for revenge and/or having nothing else perceivably to live for after losing their home and family.

In short, whilst Saddam Hussein was a secularist in the running of Iraq before 2003, the war in Iraq and lack of recognition of Palestine has fulfilled the academic prophecy of the democratic election of a religious radical, Muqtada Al-Sadr, who is more likely to support religious terrorism over any transcendent secular rule of law. In Iraq, the shift in power to the religious majority, i.e. Shia Islam, means that Iran has a moral and political foothold in Iraq, not unlike the Roman Catholic Church in Europe until Joseph Stalin famously remarked "How many divisions does the pope have?" The difference is that the religious support in Iran has divisions, whereas the Pope did not. The election of religious extremists happens because democracy has the potential to elect leaders who violently oppress and suppress the minority, as in the case of Germany and the rise to power of Hitler, who took advantage of the civic culture of Germany to gain prominence.

This essay will continue with a description of state causes of terrorism. It is true that terrorists are irrational, seeking the means and ends of violence, unable to control their claimed populations and willing to murder for the sake of revenge; however, less examined are the consequences of states engaging in such acts. As this subject has been explored in the literature, this section will consist of a summary of past arguments. Following this section, however, this essay will conduct a thought experiment concerning the (im)practicality of defining terrorism as simply a violent attack on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Click here to read the complete article

Back to Top

Where applicable, articles, essays, images and other work published remain under their author's copyright protection.
All other images, text and logos on this site:
Copyright © 2004-2009 State of Nature.
All rights reserved.
Copying, duplication or reproduction of the content of this website constitutes an infringement of copyright,
and should not be done without expressed permission from the editors/appropriate author(s).