Understanding Terrorism: A Semantic Conundrum

Security Dialogues /Безбедносни дијалози, 2015

Redefining Terror and Terrorism Concepts, 2025

Terror and terrorism have different definitions that are similar but complementary. Although terrorism is derived from the word terror, there are some differences between them. Terror is an act of violence created by the uncontrolled masses. Terrorism, on the other hand, is the conscious and deliberate use of methods of violence to achieve a political goal. There is a specific will and a purpose. With the influence of the modern age, the facilities provided by technology, communication, and transportation have helped spread terrorism quickly and reach global dimensions. This process reveals the changing dimensions and different approaches to terrorism at national, regional, and global levels. These different approaches emerge as a problem in understanding the concept of terrorism when used interchangeably. From this point of view, the study aims to create a new definition by explaining the concepts of terror and terrorism and other concepts derived from them. Thus, historical and descriptive research methods will be applied, as well as document-based analysis, and the result will be reached. The study's hypothesis is centred on the misuse of the concepts of terror and terrorism and their concepts.

2004

This analysis begins by exploring various reasons that the concept of terrorism has evaded a widely agreed upon definition for so long despite the efforts of so many writers. Emphasis is placed on the difficulties associated with all “essentially contested concepts.” In addition, the investigation calls attention to such problems as conceptual “stretching” and “traveling.” In an effort to solve the difficulties, the inquiry attempts to determine a consensus definition of terrorism by turning to an empirical analysis of how the term has been employed by academics over the years. Specifically, the well-known definition developed by Alex Schmid, based upon responses to a questionnaire he circulated in 1985, is compared with the way the concept has been employed by contributors to the major journals in the field: Terrorism, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, and Terrorism and Political Violence. The 22 “definitional elements” of which Schmid's definition is composed are compared to the frequency with which they appear in the professional journals. If these elements appear frequently in both the Schmid definition and those employed by the journal contributors, they are then used to form a consensus definition of the concept. The most striking feature of this academic consensus over the meaning of terrorism is the virtual absence of references to the psychological element, heretofore widely thought to be at the heart of the concept.

This article seeks to turn the debate about the definition of terrorism on its head by arguing: (1) that the definitional debate has served to obscure the substantial scholarly consensus that actually exists on what terrorism is; (2) that this consensus is, however, largely unnecessary and irrelevant to the effective use of the term in the heterogeneous contexts within which it is employed; and (3) that by focusing on the quest for a definition of terrorism, terrorism scholars have largely missed the really interesting question about the word, namely, why it is that, given the heterogeneous purposes and contexts for which the word is used, we nonetheless continue to use a single word for all. In other words, how is it that we continue to know terrorism when we see it?

Intellectual Discourse, 2010

Terrorism is an old phenomenon but its modern manifestation was first noted in the 19 th century with the anarchist group who assassinated Czar Alexander II in 1881. Since then it has continued unabated but its intensity and frequency increased in the 21 st century. This study examines the trends in international terrorism and, in particular, analyses its causes and consequences. Based upon extensive literature and documentary research, this study found at least three perspectives that explain terrorism either as a reaction to socioeconomic deprivation or as the product of religious fundamentalism or as a legitimate struggle to wipe out injustices perpetrated by the powerful against the powerless. Muslims condemn terrorism and suggest that the Western powers cease their policies of victimising the vulnerable populations, of sponsoring terrorists, of siding with Israel, and of denying others their right to liberty and sovereignty.

Terrorism takes many forms, differing seemingly on each continent in terms of the aims of the terrorist and their associates. This essay considers whether or not it is possible to accurately define terrorism, given these variables.

This article examines various problems in defining and building consensus on the most controversial term—terrorism—in contemporary politics. The objective is to clarify the relativist enmesh to be able to distinguish between what constitutes freedom fighting and what would fall under the category of terrorism. The article attempts to authenticate the legitimacy of freedom movements which the states against which these are launched dub as terrorism. It is, therefore, argued that liberation movements which are recognized by the UN should not be termed as terrorism. However, the use of violence against noncombatants puts the legitimacy of such movements in doubt. Moreover, in order to come out of the relativist confusion regarding the popular saying—“one man’s terrorist, another man’s freedom fighter”—it is necessary to evolve a clear definition to separate the two activities.

2016

Reaching an agreed definition of terrorism has proved problematic, with over 100 different working definitions counted. Consensus stumbles particularly on issues of legitimacy, assessing reasons behind the violence and whether a state can commit acts of terrorism - or whether they are to be excluded as they have the monopoly on legitimate violence. Greater empirical research and independence in terrorism scholarship is required to formulate an agreed definition. States should not be exempt from terrorism as part of a broader movement excluding any consideration of the motives or causes cited as the reason for the attack. The definition should focus on the nature of the act, not the philosophy behind it. For even if the cause or grievance is understandable, and can be reasonably argued with a defence of necessity, that does not mean the violence undertaken should cease to be illegal and inhumane. The ends must be separated from the means. Clarity of definition is crucial for counter-...

Terrorism and political violence, 2004

Terrorism has been situated-and thereby implicitly also defined-in various contexts such as crime, politics, war, propaganda and religion. Depending on which framework one chooses, certain aspects of terrorism get exposed while others are placed 'outside the picture' if only one framework is utilised. In this article five conceptual lenses are utilised: 1. terrorism as=and crime; 2. terrorism as=and politics; 3. terrorism as=and warfare; 4. terrorism as=and communication; and 5. terrorism as=and religious fundamentalism. TERRORISM AS=AND CRIME 1 Most, if not all activities commonly perpetrated by terrorists, are considered illegal if not always illegitimate by the international community. Typical expressions of terrorist violence such as indiscriminate bombings, armed assaults on civilians, focused assassinations, kidnappings, hostage-taking and hijacking are considered criminal offences in national or international laws. While the criminal nature of acts of terrorism is widely accepted, most observers acknowledge the presence of political motives underlying certain terrorist activities. The two categories-crime and politics-do not exclude each other, as is exemplified by the concept of 'political crime', which exists in some legal frameworks. The motive or intent of a crime might be 'political', but the act itself is considered 'criminal'. It is worthwhile to recall what exactly a 'crime' is. Crime has been defined as 'the intentional commission of an act usually deemed The views and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent positions of the United Nations where the author serves as Senior Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer in the Terroism Prevention Branch of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna.

This draft paper is a phenomenological, critical and ontological examination of the idea of terrorism and the notion of a terrorist act. The paper looks at the ideological foundations of terrorism, and the presentation of terrorism and terrorist acts in media and communication in language and discourse. More particularly, there is a specific examination of the ontology and phenomenology of the term through four lenses: terrorism as performance, terrorism as ritual embodiment, terrorism as a double-sided experiential phenomenon, and terrorism as political discourse linked to power. There is also emphasis on terrorism as reflecting a clash of worldviews and value systems throughout the paper. The paper also discusses radicalisation and deradicalisation.