Politicization of the term

Because there is no single accepted definition of "terrorism," there is a tendency to use the term only when politically convenient. Hence, the term "terrorist" is heavily politicized, especially since the September 11th attacks. The actual definition of terrorism is not as much debated as which parties and which acts of violence are to be labeled "terrorist."

Noam Chomsky, a prominent historian and linguist at MIT, states that "the term 'terrorism' is used, standardly, to refer to the terrorism that they carry out against us, whoever 'we' happen to be. Even the worst mass murderers—the Nazis for example—adopted this practice." "Since the rich and powerful set the terms for discussion, the term 'terrorism' is restricted, in practice, to the terror that affects the US and its clients and allies."

In his polemic 9-11, Chomsky says "[the] wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism." In reference to the violence by the United States, called "counter-terrorism" or the "War on Terrorism," he refers to the fact that state powers use the same methods—torture, bombings, etc—which are also "terrorism".

Chomsky and others argue that "terrorism" is used not to describe a type of behavior, but as a label to demonize a perceived enemy in terms that promote and moral repulsion and outrage. In post-9/11 Western society, the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" are used so frequently as to lose any distinction with other political terms. They may even be used (within contexts) as 'polite' or 'acceptable' racial or political euphemisms for "Arabs" or "Muslims," and any violence associated with them. Accurate or not, the label of 'terrorism' is a powerful political weapon for marginalizing or invalidating various political factions, even extending to non-violent groups, or related groups detached from violent factions. Because it is impossible to define the term "terrorism" in any neutral or objective way, the term "terrorism" is inherently and inescapably political in nature —always defined and used politically. Just as "history is written by the victors," it is the dominant society who dictates to history which particular acts of violence will or will not be labeled as "terrorism."

Jason Burke, an expert in radical Islamic activity, has this to say on the word "terrorism”:

"There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way.”

Other arguments include that:

· There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.

· Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries.

· Almost every serious attempt to define the term have been sponsored by governments who instinctively attempt to draw a definition which excludes bodies like themselves.

· Most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations. Virtually no organisation openly calls itself terrorist.

· Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist”.

· The word is very loosely applied and very difficult to challenge when it is being used inappropriately, for example in war situations or against non-violent persons.

· It allows governments to apply a different standard of law to that of ordinary criminal law on the basis of a unilateral decision.

· There is no hope that people will ever all agree who is "terrorist" and who is not.

· The term as widely used in the West reflects a bias towards the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as "defence", even when that claim is considered dubious by some; any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labelled "terrorism".

· If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents perceive them, such labels would be very controversial, for example:

· State of Israel, USA, but also the states of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban

· The Contemporary Palestine Liberation Organization

· Groups conducting revolution, such as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), are routinely denigrated as “ terrorist”

· Almost all guerrilla groups (like Tamil Tigers or Chechen rebels) are accused of being "terrorist", but almost all guerrilla groups accuse countries they fight against of likewise being“ terrorist”

· Resistance movements during World War II. For instance, French revolting against Nazi occupation of France (see also Vichy Government).

Notwithstanding the fact that more than 100 definitions exist in the practice of studing terrorism we are able to define the main principal ingredients that are common to all forms of contemporary terrorism.

1. terrorism involves philosophy of coordinated violence which tends to have a high degree of social impact on the target society and the threat of violence.

2. the central item that distinguishes terrorism from other kinds of coordinated violence is the often-random choice of targets, giving the appearance of senselessness and chaos.

3. terrorism is the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals to attain not only political ob­jective, but economic and social.

Поиск по сайту: