What precisely defines a what a terrorist is or what a terrorist act is?

Question

I have heard it said that any fighting force that doesn't wear a uniform or fight according to international standards of "conventional" warfare is a terrorist force. Additionally, the intent of a fighting force has been used to differentiate between "legitimate" military force and terrorism. If a military force commits an act of violence to meet a certain tactical or strategic objective this legitimizes the action, if a person or group commits an act of violence to cause domestic, commercial, and political instability without a clear objective it is called terrorism.

The question is; are these good ways to evaluate what is or is not terrorism?

Consider that the British criticized the American rebels during the revolutionary war for not wearing uniforms and not "fighting in conventional ways"

Doesn’t it stand to reason that an inferior force will attempt to exploit a stronger forces weakness and that the stronger force will attempt to legitimize its actions and demonize an enemy?

Yes I know I have an extra "a" in the question so please don't crucify my grammar, lol

Answer 1

There is no "precise" definition of terrorism, and attempts to define the term tend to degenerate into emotional and agenda-laden debates.

One commonality that tends to run through the various definitions is that "terrorists" intentionally target non-combatants. But that's usually where agreement ends.

Labeling any non-conventional military force as "terrorist" makes little sense, since this would include any guerrilla army that confined to its operations to military targets.

Some definitions limit the "terrorist" designation to non-state actors. Critics of this approach, usually on the left, make a good case that this unreasonably excludes the practice of "state terror" (such as that by Stalinist Russia or Pinochet's Chile), or the deliberate targeting of civilians in war--such as the bombings of London, Antwerp, Dresden, or Tokyo during World War II, not to mention the "rape of Nanking" or the A-bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people, for obvious reasons, resist applying the "terrrorist" designation to such actions--and this is where the discussion tends to become an argument about the ends, rather than the means. Even if we accept that all violence against non-combatants is terrorism, it does not follow that all terrorism is equally morally indefensible. Context does matter.

I think it is safe to say that terrorist violence always has some sort of objective in mind, even if it is not "clear" or comprehensible to those on the receiving end. Even when terrorism is used to create instability, that instability is usually considered by the terrorists to be a precondition for the achievement of some other goal--a change of regime, political separation, the ejection of an occupier, etc. Even seemingly senseless acts, such as the recent mass murders of the Yazidis in Iraq, have an understandable if inhumane logic to them. They are designed to demonstrate the weakness of the U.S. and the current Iraqi government, and convince the population that they would be better off by placing their bets with the insurgents.

Answer 2

Geneva Convention: There are three classes of lawful combatants. Regular forces, Reserve forces and levee en masse. The first two may conduct combat operations outside their own nation. Levee en masse can only be done within one's own nation. It means when the people of a nation rise up to repel an invader, such as the Free French in WW Two. However, to be considered a lawful combatant under the Geneva Conventions, you must also follow the Geneva Conventions.

You can not claim to be a lawful combatant if you shoot non-combatants or blow them up in a cafe. You can not claim to be a lawful combatant if you are not under control of your nation's command and control function. (When your national leaders say to stop, you must stop.) You can not claim to be a lawful combatant if you dress as a civilian and hide your weapons. Lastly, you are not a lawful combatant if your actions go contrary to the desires of your government and/or you are blowing up more of your own people than the supposed enemy.

Clearly, those we label "terrorists" are not lawful combatants under any of the three definitions nor do they follow the Geneva Conventions. In Iraq, we have repeated examples of them blowing up mosques and market places full of their own people. In one case, they had two kids in the back of the car, which caused the check point guards to let the car in. Then when the car got past the check point, the driver jumped out and the car blew up, with the kids inside. In Afghanistan they kidnapped and killed some civilian South Korean missionaries. On 911, they used civilian airliners to hit civilian targets, the WTC. (The Pentagon is a military target.) In Israel, they capture Israeli soldiers then rather than treating them as POWS under the Conventions, they kill them.

There are ways for people to fight without resorting to terrorism, even against an overwhelming enemy. For example, years ago a Palestinian used a hang glider and entered an IDF base and started shooting. He killed a number of Israeli soldiers before they figured out what was happening. He attacked a target that was clearly military, going after the soldiers. The Israelis themselves bombed the King David hotel, which was being used as the British HQ for the area, another target that was clearly military. (And they did give a warning there was a bomb, something they did not have to do.)

The major problem is with the USA. The Geneva Conventions allows enforcement in one of two ways. War Crime Trials when it is all over or tit-for-tat responses to violations. If for example, a terrorist attacked a mosque or church, we could respond by doing the same. This is not how American does it however, so it has given the terrorists the advantage. The USA is bound by the Conventions, the terrorists are not. While the USA is "politically correct" the terrorists have the advantage. And that is one reason the war is going so badly. We are accustomed to fighting people who have some concept of morality and limitations and the terrorists have none.

Answer 3

You Stated
"Consider that the British criticized the American rebels during the revolutionary war for not wearing uniforms and not "fighting in conventional ways"

The American Rebels were militiamen at first before they became organized. Later when they became organized the Army of the Potomac DID wear uniforms.

Also the American rebels DID NOT INTENTIONALLY KILL NON-MILITARY BRITISH SUBJECTS IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR OBJECTIVES.

------------------------------------------
You Stated "Doesn’t it stand to reason that an inferior force will attempt to exploit a stronger forces weakness and that the stronger force will attempt to legitimize its actions and demonize an enemy?"

That is a valid argument. Yes it does stand to reason.
------------------------------------------------------------
You Stated "The question is; are these good ways to evaluate what is or is not terrorism?"

In order to answer this I will give you the definition of war. War is the attainment of a political objective through violent means. --- Karl Von Clausewitz.

Terrorism to me is the INTENTIONAL killing of NON-MILITARY forces in order to obtain a political objective. In this process you intentionally attack those who more than likely are innocent people who are somehow associated with the government of your adversary. This is a tactic not designed around military factors but simple killing to inflict terror.

The American Rebels as you mention employed unconventional tactics against the British MILITARY. This seems perfectly fine to me.

We are talking about targets. The intentional killing of non-military personnel to obtain your objectives to me makes you a terrorist.

Answer 4

Typically, IMHO, terrorists also attack the defenseless as a primary means of warfare. I think that is a large determining factor because our experience with terrorists so far, is that they are too small in numbers to actually face an organized military because we would wipe them out in a heartbeat. Our Revolutionary soldiers did often face the British in formation, and it is important to note that they were not attacking the innocent and defenseless to achieve their objectives, they were attacking an organized military and its government/interests. Even a government organization is given military protection, so it's fair game when war has been declared.

Modern terrorists 'terrorize' the defenseless citizens to appear larger than they are. Plus, they've usually declared their hatred for the West and in particular, the United States.

Answer 5

IMO, if an organized force fights another organized military force, regardless of dress code, I do not consider either forces to be terrorist. Maybe I side with one force or the other, but both are military forces waring against each other, not terrorists.

If an individual or group of individuals attack and kill innocent, non-military persons for the sake of making political or religious statements and striking fear in the hearts of their enemies, then I would consider those person(s) terrorists.

Answer 6

Simply put,a terrorist act involves the use of violence against non-military people in an effort to achieve a political goal.You seem to be interchanging terrorists with insurgents.Insurgents would be those who organize as a combat unit to attack a military force using unconventional warfare tactics.

Answer 7

A terrorist is defined by _how_ they go about attempting to achieve their political goals.

A good way to tell if somebody is or is not a terrorist is to pay attention to how they treat civilians and non-combatants. If they make an honest effort to avoid civilian casualties then they are not terrorists. If they preferentially target civilians then they are terrorists.

Answer 8

You should read the book, "Terrorism: An Introduction" by Johnathan White. The entire first chapter is devoted to the problem in defining terrorism. There is no single definition that can be agreed upon.

Answer 9

Chapter 113B of Title 18, United States Code, defines what a terrorist is and what a terrorist act is, precisely.

Answer 10

A terrorist is who you or your supporters are not - if they use a paramilitary force, as opposed to an army. If they use an army they merely "support terrorism"

Guevara = terrorist because he was a socialist who undermined pro-US governments
Pinochet = good guy because he was a pro-American who undermined the socialist government of Allende. The fact he brought in a totalitarian fascist regime was irrelevant, because he was pro-US.

Chavez = bad guy because he is an anti-American socialist
King Saud = good guy because he is pro-American who will sell the US cheap oil in exchange for support of his totalitarian regime with numerous human rights abuses to his name. The fact that almost all the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi is irrelevant.