Terror continued definition:
]
Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to
create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to
a lone attack), and deliberately target or utterly disregard the safety of
non-combatants. Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.
As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes
used when attempting to force political change by convincing a government or
population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm,
Official definitions
The word "terrorism" was first[citation
needed] used in reference to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.
A 1988 study by the
Terrorism is a crime in all countries where such acts occur[citation needed], and is defined by statute
Key criteria
Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy and
are often developed to serve it. Most government definitions outline the
following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy
or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following
statement from the perpetrators.
Violence – According to
Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, "the only general characteristic of terrorism
generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".
However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition,
as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized
crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger
life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described
property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front
as terrorism.
Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize
the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a
“performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many
large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power
and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This
may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasing the
legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a
terrorist act.[7]
Perpetrated for a Political Goal – Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their
perpetration for a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, not
unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by activists when they
believe no other means will effect the kind of change
they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure is seen as a worse
outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the interrelationship
between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated
into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[8] struggle, such as
over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and
Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with
spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own
death or the deaths of innocent civilians.
Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of
terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct
targets. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because
they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals
or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the
terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling
fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their
political end.[9]
Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a
criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness[10] to distinguish
between actions authorized by a "legitimate" government (and thus
"lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small
groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism
would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For
example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a
cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a
"legitimate" government. This criterion is inherently problematic and
is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state
terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on
whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government;
"legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on
the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the
historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[11][12][13][14] For these
reasons this criterion is not universally accepted. Most dictionary definitions
of the term do not include this criterion.
Pejorative use
The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist"
(someone who engages in terrorism) carry a strong negative connotation. These
terms are often used as political labels to condemn
violence or threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, or
unjustified. Those labeled "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as
such, and typically use other euphemistic terms or terms specific to their
situation, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary,
vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi
or mujaheddin, or fedayeen,
or any similar-meaning word in other languages.