Hoffman And Terrorism
The subject of terrorism is both complicated and emotive. It is complex because it combines so many varied aspects of human experience, including arenas such as politics, social discourse, psychology, philosophy, military strategy, and history, to name a few. Terrorism is also emotive both because experiences of terrorist acts arouse tremendous feelings, and because those who see terrorists as justified often have strong feelings concerning the morality of the use of violence. Without a doubt, terrorism evokes strong feelings whenever it is discussed. Terrorism is a global phenomenon that is easily recognised yet difficult to define. Academics across the world describe it according to their political and socio-economic conditions; therefore
…show more content…
the word terrorism' is interpreted to suit different interests. The following discussion explores the importance of the definitions of terrorism and their consequences, both politically and socially.
What is terrorism?
The perpetual discussion of what constitutes terrorism has been debated for centuries. Presently, there are countless different legal and adopted definitions of what in fact constitutes an act of terrorism. An explicit definition has been sought by the United Nations (UN) for 2 decades, however; member nations have not been able to form a bilaterally accepted definition. This may not have a direct influence on social outcomes, but policy makers and academics require some sort of definition in order to identify the phenomenon and to justify law enforcement actions. The UN's academic consensus definition, written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used within social science, runs:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action; employed by (semi)-clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby in contrast to assassination the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat and violence based communication processes between terrorist (organisation), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought."
Another widely accepted, and perhaps less elaborate definition of terrorism is offered by Yonah Alexander. He defines terrorism as:
"The use of violence against random civilian targets in order to intimidate or create generalised pervasive fear for the purpose of achieving political goals"
Further proposed by A.P. Schmid: an act of terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime.
In conclusion to his lengthy discussions in distinguishing acts of terrorism from other types of violence, B Hoffman lends an appreciation to the fact that terrorism is:
§ Ineluctably political in aims and motives;
§ Violent or equally important, threatens violence;
§ Designed to have far reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate target or victim;
§ Conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders; and
§ Perpetrated by a sub-national group or non-state entity.
There is a seemingly endless bevy of varying definitions of terrorism, yet all of these definitions lead towards terrorism as a concept and have certain common features. One primary concept is evident in all descriptions; terrorism is fundamentally and inherently political. This key characteristic of terrorism is absolutely paramount to understanding its aims, motivations and purposes and is critical in distinguishing it from other types of violence, such as organised …show more content…
crime.
The social and political consequences in defining terrorism.
The adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is but a cliché in contemporary language though it simply conveys the definitional problem of "terrorism". Terrorism is a poignant word for all that use it and is portrayed as an objective term, however it is a pejorative notion, implying an unacceptable standard of moral views of the perpetrator (by western' standards) and moral superiority and self-righteousness by the wider audience. Can acts of terrorism be justified, socially or politically? The common perception is that terrorism is illegitimate. Moral condemnation should follow examination and due process of each terrorist case, rather than by labelling the act as terrorism' or the perpetrators as being terrorists'.
The absence of a working definition of terrorism poses a serious problem when terrorists are apprehended and bought to trial.
Terrorism', per se, may not always be proscribed by legislation, however, criminal acts such as hijacking, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, killing and conspiracy to commit such offences are prohibited under statute laws. In judicial defence, Terrorists may often argue that they are being persecuted for supporting certain political or religious causes, and that the ensuing trial is that of a political trial rather than that of a criminal justice case. This in turn raises concerns for law enforcement agencies that are challenged to plan for contingencies that are not well defined and have not been inventoried. A universally imposed legal definition will allow governments to apply a different standard of law to that of criminal law on the basis of a unilateral
decision
Terrorism' is a matter of political agenda and the term or notion is therefore engaged for political effect. When used in such a manner, it forms a derogatory connotation designed to strike fear, hostility and anxiety within its target theatre. Using the term terrorism' may also eschew political agendas, and regardless how political or social commentators purport to be neutral, it is inherently difficult for them to escape from their cultural or political persuasions for which they are advocating. This raises the question as to whether it is possible to achieve an objective definition within the political arena, free from the influence and subjectivity of state actors' political priorities, objectives and particular interests. The terms within legal, adopted and individual agency definitions may also be regarded as contentious. For instance, the U.S. Department of State recognises that there is a broad range of definitions for terrorism, influenced particularly by the definer's perspective on any given conflict or group.
Today, there is one common enemy perceived' by the Western world the terrorist. Benjamin Netanyahu coined this in saying: "not only because they absorb the brunt of the attacks, but because their political philosophy is anathema to the terrorists" . Conversely, how is the Western world perceived by the terrorist? Many terrorists consider themselves as altruist and that they are in the servitude of a good cause designed to achieve a greater good for a wider constituency and will act with little compunction. This value system' is much the same for a democratic state. Therefore, what differentiates acts committed by terrorists compared to those of the Western world? Would they include: I. Those committed by, or on behalf of Western states; II. Those committed by regimes against their own subjects; and most generally III. Those committed in lands geographically or economically distant enough that Western citizens or property are not endangered? Netanyahu's aforementioned supposition implies contrasts of West VS- terrorist political philosophies, implying that all terrorism is part of a mass conspiracy against liberal democracies or that all terrorist groups have philosophies, which invariably include a common element hostile to Western styles of government. When presented to the social arena, a states citizens are asked to make a simple choice: either to support the wholly good' (i.e. the state, its pursuits and political priorities), or the wholly bad' (i.e. the terrorist). Ambivalence towards the state may be regarded as supporting the state's enemies. The resounding end for the state is that it may assert its moral supremacy over political competition, inviting right thinking' people to support it not only against terrorism but also those parties who are seen as being parochial or soft' on terrorism. By stressing the reference of terrorist' and the terrorist threat, a state can only increase on political capital. Failure for parliamentary opposition to show bipartisan support for anti-terrorism policy will inevitably result in damage to their electoral standing.
Political demonization of terrorists serves purposes in both political and social domains. Firstly, it seems to publicise the enemy as barbaric and incapable of reasoning by logic. The wider public is persuaded to believe that the terrorist is irrational a conclusion which is reinforced by selective rhetoric such as "guerrillas", "commandos", "soldiers", "fanatics" and "extremists". This is most evident in mainstream news media, where further obfuscation of the meaning and definition "terrorism" transpire, and perhaps most importantly, in which circumstances it should be applied. Who gets labelled as a terrorist'? This is dependant on where one is and what media outlet or political commentator one is listening to. Terms may be used selectively by governments and the media to categorise those who resort to force in opposing governmental policies. It is difficult to understand why the free press' should follow the government's lead, but Picard has tried to explain this trend by pointing out that America's media (for example) "support the existing social, political, and economic order in which they operate because they are part of and benefit from that order, and the views they convey rarely stray from the norm". It becomes evident that the term terrorism' is not used consistently. Although this matter would seem to be semantic, the collective impact of ambiguous meaning only compounds the matter by bewildering audiences and thus complicating the definition process. Terrorism and the media are intrinsically linked, each feeding off and exploiting the other for its own purposes. The media is a very powerful outlet by which political and social events are projected to the masses, therefore has the ability to influence public opinion and government decision making. David Rapoport has observed,
"The relationship between publicity and terror is indeed paradoxical and complicated. Publicity focuses attention on a group, strengthening its morale and helping to attract recruits and sympathisers. But publicity is pernicious to the terrorists groups too. It helps the outraged public to mobilise its vast resources and produces information that the public needs to pierce the veil of secrecy all terrorists groups require."
Conclusion
In order to fully appreciate the phenomenon of terrorism, one must come to appreciate the diversity of views as to what in fact constitutes terrorism and the subsequent definition in use'. Definitions will ultimately be influenced by human emotive response and political perspectives, which will in turn shape the process of terrorism policy writing. Reaching a common viewpoint on the definition of terrorism has generated much debate in social science circles. Any implementation of terrorism and/or anti-terrorism policy following legal definition will have varied social and political ramifications both positive and negative. Moreover, with various definitions and their applications to various incidents and terrorists groups, one can appreciate terrorism or terrorist acts as the shocking to the senses and promotion fear and concern around the globe. This is either embellished or eschewed by the world's media, where the terrorist cause/s are often concluded as being weird or bizarre. The gross effect is that terrorist' rhetoric hinders and even shuts down further debate on policy. Schmid rounds off the inherent difficulty in achieving an objective definition of terrorism' by saying: "the best that we can hope for is a definition which is acceptable to social science analysts, leaving political definition to the parties involved in terrorism and anti-terrorism".
the word terrorism' is interpreted to suit different interests. The following discussion explores the importance of the definitions of terrorism and their consequences, both politically and socially.
What is terrorism?
The perpetual discussion of what constitutes terrorism has been debated for centuries. Presently, there are countless different legal and adopted definitions of what in fact constitutes an act of terrorism. An explicit definition has been sought by the United Nations (UN) for 2 decades, however; member nations have not been able to form a bilaterally accepted definition. This may not have a direct influence on social outcomes, but policy makers and academics require some sort of definition in order to identify the phenomenon and to justify law enforcement actions. The UN's academic consensus definition, written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used within social science, runs:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action; employed by (semi)-clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby in contrast to assassination the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat and violence based communication processes between terrorist (organisation), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought."
Another widely accepted, and perhaps less elaborate definition of terrorism is offered by Yonah Alexander. He defines terrorism as:
"The use of violence against random civilian targets in order to intimidate or create generalised pervasive fear for the purpose of achieving political goals"
Further proposed by A.P. Schmid: an act of terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime.
In conclusion to his lengthy discussions in distinguishing acts of terrorism from other types of violence, B Hoffman lends an appreciation to the fact that terrorism is:
§ Ineluctably political in aims and motives;
§ Violent or equally important, threatens violence;
§ Designed to have far reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate target or victim;
§ Conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders; and
§ Perpetrated by a sub-national group or non-state entity.
There is a seemingly endless bevy of varying definitions of terrorism, yet all of these definitions lead towards terrorism as a concept and have certain common features. One primary concept is evident in all descriptions; terrorism is fundamentally and inherently political. This key characteristic of terrorism is absolutely paramount to understanding its aims, motivations and purposes and is critical in distinguishing it from other types of violence, such as organised …show more content…
crime.
The social and political consequences in defining terrorism.
The adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is but a cliché in contemporary language though it simply conveys the definitional problem of "terrorism". Terrorism is a poignant word for all that use it and is portrayed as an objective term, however it is a pejorative notion, implying an unacceptable standard of moral views of the perpetrator (by western' standards) and moral superiority and self-righteousness by the wider audience. Can acts of terrorism be justified, socially or politically? The common perception is that terrorism is illegitimate. Moral condemnation should follow examination and due process of each terrorist case, rather than by labelling the act as terrorism' or the perpetrators as being terrorists'.
The absence of a working definition of terrorism poses a serious problem when terrorists are apprehended and bought to trial.
Terrorism', per se, may not always be proscribed by legislation, however, criminal acts such as hijacking, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, killing and conspiracy to commit such offences are prohibited under statute laws. In judicial defence, Terrorists may often argue that they are being persecuted for supporting certain political or religious causes, and that the ensuing trial is that of a political trial rather than that of a criminal justice case. This in turn raises concerns for law enforcement agencies that are challenged to plan for contingencies that are not well defined and have not been inventoried. A universally imposed legal definition will allow governments to apply a different standard of law to that of criminal law on the basis of a unilateral
decision
Terrorism' is a matter of political agenda and the term or notion is therefore engaged for political effect. When used in such a manner, it forms a derogatory connotation designed to strike fear, hostility and anxiety within its target theatre. Using the term terrorism' may also eschew political agendas, and regardless how political or social commentators purport to be neutral, it is inherently difficult for them to escape from their cultural or political persuasions for which they are advocating. This raises the question as to whether it is possible to achieve an objective definition within the political arena, free from the influence and subjectivity of state actors' political priorities, objectives and particular interests. The terms within legal, adopted and individual agency definitions may also be regarded as contentious. For instance, the U.S. Department of State recognises that there is a broad range of definitions for terrorism, influenced particularly by the definer's perspective on any given conflict or group.
Today, there is one common enemy perceived' by the Western world the terrorist. Benjamin Netanyahu coined this in saying: "not only because they absorb the brunt of the attacks, but because their political philosophy is anathema to the terrorists" . Conversely, how is the Western world perceived by the terrorist? Many terrorists consider themselves as altruist and that they are in the servitude of a good cause designed to achieve a greater good for a wider constituency and will act with little compunction. This value system' is much the same for a democratic state. Therefore, what differentiates acts committed by terrorists compared to those of the Western world? Would they include: I. Those committed by, or on behalf of Western states; II. Those committed by regimes against their own subjects; and most generally III. Those committed in lands geographically or economically distant enough that Western citizens or property are not endangered? Netanyahu's aforementioned supposition implies contrasts of West VS- terrorist political philosophies, implying that all terrorism is part of a mass conspiracy against liberal democracies or that all terrorist groups have philosophies, which invariably include a common element hostile to Western styles of government. When presented to the social arena, a states citizens are asked to make a simple choice: either to support the wholly good' (i.e. the state, its pursuits and political priorities), or the wholly bad' (i.e. the terrorist). Ambivalence towards the state may be regarded as supporting the state's enemies. The resounding end for the state is that it may assert its moral supremacy over political competition, inviting right thinking' people to support it not only against terrorism but also those parties who are seen as being parochial or soft' on terrorism. By stressing the reference of terrorist' and the terrorist threat, a state can only increase on political capital. Failure for parliamentary opposition to show bipartisan support for anti-terrorism policy will inevitably result in damage to their electoral standing.
Political demonization of terrorists serves purposes in both political and social domains. Firstly, it seems to publicise the enemy as barbaric and incapable of reasoning by logic. The wider public is persuaded to believe that the terrorist is irrational a conclusion which is reinforced by selective rhetoric such as "guerrillas", "commandos", "soldiers", "fanatics" and "extremists". This is most evident in mainstream news media, where further obfuscation of the meaning and definition "terrorism" transpire, and perhaps most importantly, in which circumstances it should be applied. Who gets labelled as a terrorist'? This is dependant on where one is and what media outlet or political commentator one is listening to. Terms may be used selectively by governments and the media to categorise those who resort to force in opposing governmental policies. It is difficult to understand why the free press' should follow the government's lead, but Picard has tried to explain this trend by pointing out that America's media (for example) "support the existing social, political, and economic order in which they operate because they are part of and benefit from that order, and the views they convey rarely stray from the norm". It becomes evident that the term terrorism' is not used consistently. Although this matter would seem to be semantic, the collective impact of ambiguous meaning only compounds the matter by bewildering audiences and thus complicating the definition process. Terrorism and the media are intrinsically linked, each feeding off and exploiting the other for its own purposes. The media is a very powerful outlet by which political and social events are projected to the masses, therefore has the ability to influence public opinion and government decision making. David Rapoport has observed,
"The relationship between publicity and terror is indeed paradoxical and complicated. Publicity focuses attention on a group, strengthening its morale and helping to attract recruits and sympathisers. But publicity is pernicious to the terrorists groups too. It helps the outraged public to mobilise its vast resources and produces information that the public needs to pierce the veil of secrecy all terrorists groups require."
Conclusion
In order to fully appreciate the phenomenon of terrorism, one must come to appreciate the diversity of views as to what in fact constitutes terrorism and the subsequent definition in use'. Definitions will ultimately be influenced by human emotive response and political perspectives, which will in turn shape the process of terrorism policy writing. Reaching a common viewpoint on the definition of terrorism has generated much debate in social science circles. Any implementation of terrorism and/or anti-terrorism policy following legal definition will have varied social and political ramifications both positive and negative. Moreover, with various definitions and their applications to various incidents and terrorists groups, one can appreciate terrorism or terrorist acts as the shocking to the senses and promotion fear and concern around the globe. This is either embellished or eschewed by the world's media, where the terrorist cause/s are often concluded as being weird or bizarre. The gross effect is that terrorist' rhetoric hinders and even shuts down further debate on policy. Schmid rounds off the inherent difficulty in achieving an objective definition of terrorism' by saying: "the best that we can hope for is a definition which is acceptable to social science analysts, leaving political definition to the parties involved in terrorism and anti-terrorism".