Terrorism has got to be one of the most misconstrued terms out there. Both in the media and in our heads – after all, how many times have you read or heard a proper definition? And yet it’s pasted next to conflicts and acts of violence all the time… Like with almost every definition in academia, there is no one definition accepted by all. BUT there definitely are attributes that can be agreed on. Terrorism is a tactic used in asymmetric warfare (as in – not a war that is ‘equal’ – where both sides are representing a a state and are part of official armed forces). Regardless of the reason behind the action, terrorism is a method used for changing behaviour through intimidation and fear. This fear and intimidation is often a result of violence or the threat of violence. Intimidation and fear is used to facilitate change in the wider audience and/or state. The victims of the violent acts are not the focal point for the terrorist- and hence why the victims are picked by random or chance – the violence is less important than the result of violence. As it is a tactic used in asymmetrical warfare, states as well as other groups can use and be charged with using terrorism, hence the term state sponsored terrorism
I hope this clears some things up. I will probably go into further detail about this soon. Until then! Miss S. https://www.facebook.com/missworldsec
You’re totally right. Terrorism has become a buzzword for political expediency rather than a proper analytical term to describe certain types of violence directed at civilians.
Thanks for you’re comment! Hopefully people can use this definition when they hear about violent attacks and think about whether or not the terrorism label is justified. Or who the terrorism act is aimed at and who perpetrated it. Of course the definition can be even more specific and detailed, so I’ll go into that soon 🙂 hope to see you again around here!
Pingback: Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 – What Happened? | Miss World Security