Thomas Riley
Why has it been difficult to define the concept of terrorism?
The concept of terrorism is not impossible to define. Many definitions of terrorism exists. What is difficult is developing a single universal definition that fits all acts and perpetrators. Terrorism comes in many forms (e.g., state, sponsored, domestic, ideological, and religious) and has just as many motivators (e.g., nationalism, religion, and political). Before delving further into my research, I believed that H.H.A Cooper defined it best in Terrorism: The Problem of Definition Revisited with Terrorism is the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for the purpose of securing or maintaining control over other human beings. (Mahan & Griset, 2013, p. 5 and 18) However; with further reading I determined this definition is not specific enough for legal purposes and does not exclude certain legitimate acts of violence such as war. The legal ramifications are one milestone to hinder a single definition but what most likely affects the definition is which side you are standing on. The view point of the audience impacts whether the act is terrorism or is justified.
After starting this course I had an interesting conversation with co-workers considering some past historical events and whether or not they could be considered acts of terrorism. I saw a similar topic of discussion in the group discussions. The event or events are actions taken during the American Revolution. I have been unable to shake the idea since I can see more than one side of these events. Consider the following: was the Boston a terrorist attack or a devoted act of patriotism.
Patriotism is defined as a devotion to one’s country. Terrorism is not as simply defined. The U.S Department of state defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” (Combs, 2012, p. 5) Applying this definition we can see that the attack on the three merchant vessels in Boston harbor was premeditated, was politically motivated, the Sons of Liberty operated under disguise, and was definitely aimed at spotlighting taxation without representation. By this definition alone the Boston Tea Party appears to be an act of terror. The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance e of political or social objectives.” (Combs, 2012, p. 5) By this definition it also appears to be terrorism. However; by Cooper’s definition discussed above, it does not. It does not generate a massive fear. Financial loss but not financial ruin, a loss of tax revenue to the king, but not massive fear. I personally consider the Boston Tea Party a courageous act of patriotism. I only worry that others can see the same patriotism in the acts they perpetrate against the United States.
