Terrorism: The Arbitrary Term
Terrorism is a term that strikes a feeling of fear and anger within the American public when dealing with the aspect of Americanism that is narrow in its application. The arbitrary nature of the word requires a function which is necessary to understanding the true purpose in relating to the American people. The definition, deconstruction, reconstruction, and meaning of the word will all be examined in this piece on the objectivity and reliability of the word.
Terrorism as defined by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is split into two parts, Domestic and International;
Domestic: "[An act of terrorism] perpetuated by and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S. based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."
International: "Perpetuated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state sponsored)."
Terrorism, as defined by, the dictionary definition is the "unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." To focus on the specific term for a minute, 'terror', which means to exhibit "extreme fear". And next '-ism', which is the suffix of the word 'terrorism', means "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement." Now, the distinct feeling I get when I hear the word terrorism is not a feeling of ideological disparities between groups that hold extreme views that act upon those views, but a sense of people that commit certain acts to cause "extreme fear". Besides that, there are very real problems with the term, the biggest problems with the term are;
1. It's too broad in certain aspects, but also its too narrow in others.
2. It's not applied consistently across the board.
3. It's duplicative and at times unnecessary.
Studying the domestic side of terrorism that is described as social, political, religious, racial, or environmental in nature, what is uncovered is a really broad spectrum of incidents when this specific type of violence is examined. For example, the murders committed by the Manson Cult, which included celebrities who were killed, like Sharon Tate, was done in order to start a race war. As it may seem, the race war would end with all the black people killing all the white people and since the black people were unable or unfit to rule, the Manson Cult would emerge from hiding and rule over all of the people who were left. Furthermore, the Manson Cult not only had a racial angle, when it comes to what we call 'terrorism', but a political one, as well. The difference being, in this specific case, even though it follows the exact same pattern as 'terrorism' it is not described as such. Also, another case of the broad approach to the term 'terrorism' has certain religious and social aspects to it, it's the curious case of Richard Ramirez. Richard Ramirez aka 'The Nightstalker', a 24-year old hispanic male, who went on a killing spree in the San Francisco, CA area. Mr. Ramirez brutally murdered, sometimes raped his victims, but what was truly strange was the reason why he murdered them. Mr. Ramirez was a satanist and he killed because he thinks everyone is intrinsically evil and those evil desires should be acted upon. But the question is; is this terrorism? Ramirez struck fear into the hearts of his victims and the public at large. Ramirez had a religious reason, as he, himself states. And I know serial killers have their own intrinsic personal philosophy, which they abide, but still it's done for the reason listed in the definition of the term. Lastly, a case that would haunt most, is the case of Ted Kaczynski aka 'The Unabomber', a 36-year old mathematician, went on a bombing rampage where he killed 3 and injured 23 others. Mr. Kaczynski released a manifesto detailing the insufficiency of the new technological age and the rise of technology which would worsen the human condition. Mr. Kaczynski also has other political aspects to his reasoning but the focus is on the social aspects and things he wanted to change in society, outside of any political motivations. So, based on his rants around technology and the new technological age, would this not be terrorism?, considering the social implications. So, what's the point of having a term that conveys such a broad spectrum of actions that can't ever be reduced because it includes almost every reason that a person might commit murder.
Examining the dictionary definition of terrorism versus the FBI definition. One consists of a narrow world view while the other considers a broader world view. The dictionary definition occupies the space of politics, which in words is just super narrow and the subject of terror loses meaning. Terror can be caused for numerous reasons outside of political ones. For instance, a case in which had the public at large terrified was the DC Sniper or more accurately, John Allen Muhammad with his young protege Lee Boyd Malvo, which together they've killed 10 people and injured 3 others. The incident caused widespread panic and fear amongst the populace. The reasoning was to be able to kill as many people, so that John Allen Muhammad could then kill his ex-wife in a brutal murder and as a result make her murder look like one of the random murders he had already committed. You see, Mr. Muhammad wanted custody of his kids and he believed by killing his wife, he would be granted custody and since her death would be chopped up as some derange mass murderer killing random people, he would not be suspected in her death, at least that his what his ex-wife believed. This should be considered terrorism, because of the social implications, but it's not. The consistency of the word gives valuable insight as to the implications of the term.
How many times after a Muslim commits certain acts of violence, is it immediately considered 'terrorism'? Almost immediately after any incident, terrorism is always a precursor in Muslim violence. But what about white-supremacy violence or other right wing violence. When Dylann Roof murdered 9 black people in a church, it was called 'terrorism' by some on the left but almost universal silence on the right or a downplaying of the actual events. The other cases I previously mentioned are never considered terrorism, such as the acts of serial killers or mass murders, outside of any Muslim violence. Another incident of such acts is the Occupation of the Malheur Wildlife National Refuge in which a militia including such figures as Ammon Bundy took control over the refuge of public lands that the government owned. There was no instance in which the incident was classified as 'terrorism' even though based on the FBI's own definition, the same group the militia was opposing, should've been classified as such. There are others such as Tim McVeigh and David Koresh in which I plan to cover in a future article, so I would save those figures until then. But regarding the social implications of the right wing who commit crimes such as those mentioned are sometimes excused from their violence, while Muslim are looked to as evil or sometimes deranged lunatics who irrationally hate the west. This is not to excuse Muslim violence, but to point out the hypocrisy of certain figures in the media and in mainstream political discourse.
Murdering those for political, social, religious or any other reason is just that, murder. The connotation of having a separate meaning for murder in the case of a specific meaning is not necessary. But don't mistake this for not having utility, the term 'terrorism' still has utility but it's unnecessary for any discussion of the act of murder because the reasoning for murder should be separate from the actual specific case of the act. People kill other people for a lot different reasons, outside of any social, political, or religious aspects, doesn't mean that there needs to be a relative term to describe such acts. I am not petitioning to change the word or get rid of it, but I am stating the obvious issues regarding the term and how it's used in mainstream political discourse. Also, the meaning of the word is to cause a relative reaction in most people to fear one group over the other. When terrorism is implemented, it's usually used to give a divide in the country on who to fear and who not to. The word is not consistent, no matter what the variations of the word might be. The purpose is still the same, regardless of the FBI's or any other politically neutral organization's reasoning for the word. The purpose is to sow fear, while also downplaying certain acts of other right wing violence such as militias, white-supremacy, and religious motivations outside of things like "Radical Islamic Terrorism".
Studying the domestic side of terrorism that is described as social, political, religious, racial, or environmental in nature, what is uncovered is a really broad spectrum of incidents when this specific type of violence is examined. For example, the murders committed by the Manson Cult, which included celebrities who were killed, like Sharon Tate, was done in order to start a race war. As it may seem, the race war would end with all the black people killing all the white people and since the black people were unable or unfit to rule, the Manson Cult would emerge from hiding and rule over all of the people who were left. Furthermore, the Manson Cult not only had a racial angle, when it comes to what we call 'terrorism', but a political one, as well. The difference being, in this specific case, even though it follows the exact same pattern as 'terrorism' it is not described as such. Also, another case of the broad approach to the term 'terrorism' has certain religious and social aspects to it, it's the curious case of Richard Ramirez. Richard Ramirez aka 'The Nightstalker', a 24-year old hispanic male, who went on a killing spree in the San Francisco, CA area. Mr. Ramirez brutally murdered, sometimes raped his victims, but what was truly strange was the reason why he murdered them. Mr. Ramirez was a satanist and he killed because he thinks everyone is intrinsically evil and those evil desires should be acted upon. But the question is; is this terrorism? Ramirez struck fear into the hearts of his victims and the public at large. Ramirez had a religious reason, as he, himself states. And I know serial killers have their own intrinsic personal philosophy, which they abide, but still it's done for the reason listed in the definition of the term. Lastly, a case that would haunt most, is the case of Ted Kaczynski aka 'The Unabomber', a 36-year old mathematician, went on a bombing rampage where he killed 3 and injured 23 others. Mr. Kaczynski released a manifesto detailing the insufficiency of the new technological age and the rise of technology which would worsen the human condition. Mr. Kaczynski also has other political aspects to his reasoning but the focus is on the social aspects and things he wanted to change in society, outside of any political motivations. So, based on his rants around technology and the new technological age, would this not be terrorism?, considering the social implications. So, what's the point of having a term that conveys such a broad spectrum of actions that can't ever be reduced because it includes almost every reason that a person might commit murder.
Examining the dictionary definition of terrorism versus the FBI definition. One consists of a narrow world view while the other considers a broader world view. The dictionary definition occupies the space of politics, which in words is just super narrow and the subject of terror loses meaning. Terror can be caused for numerous reasons outside of political ones. For instance, a case in which had the public at large terrified was the DC Sniper or more accurately, John Allen Muhammad with his young protege Lee Boyd Malvo, which together they've killed 10 people and injured 3 others. The incident caused widespread panic and fear amongst the populace. The reasoning was to be able to kill as many people, so that John Allen Muhammad could then kill his ex-wife in a brutal murder and as a result make her murder look like one of the random murders he had already committed. You see, Mr. Muhammad wanted custody of his kids and he believed by killing his wife, he would be granted custody and since her death would be chopped up as some derange mass murderer killing random people, he would not be suspected in her death, at least that his what his ex-wife believed. This should be considered terrorism, because of the social implications, but it's not. The consistency of the word gives valuable insight as to the implications of the term.
How many times after a Muslim commits certain acts of violence, is it immediately considered 'terrorism'? Almost immediately after any incident, terrorism is always a precursor in Muslim violence. But what about white-supremacy violence or other right wing violence. When Dylann Roof murdered 9 black people in a church, it was called 'terrorism' by some on the left but almost universal silence on the right or a downplaying of the actual events. The other cases I previously mentioned are never considered terrorism, such as the acts of serial killers or mass murders, outside of any Muslim violence. Another incident of such acts is the Occupation of the Malheur Wildlife National Refuge in which a militia including such figures as Ammon Bundy took control over the refuge of public lands that the government owned. There was no instance in which the incident was classified as 'terrorism' even though based on the FBI's own definition, the same group the militia was opposing, should've been classified as such. There are others such as Tim McVeigh and David Koresh in which I plan to cover in a future article, so I would save those figures until then. But regarding the social implications of the right wing who commit crimes such as those mentioned are sometimes excused from their violence, while Muslim are looked to as evil or sometimes deranged lunatics who irrationally hate the west. This is not to excuse Muslim violence, but to point out the hypocrisy of certain figures in the media and in mainstream political discourse.
Murdering those for political, social, religious or any other reason is just that, murder. The connotation of having a separate meaning for murder in the case of a specific meaning is not necessary. But don't mistake this for not having utility, the term 'terrorism' still has utility but it's unnecessary for any discussion of the act of murder because the reasoning for murder should be separate from the actual specific case of the act. People kill other people for a lot different reasons, outside of any social, political, or religious aspects, doesn't mean that there needs to be a relative term to describe such acts. I am not petitioning to change the word or get rid of it, but I am stating the obvious issues regarding the term and how it's used in mainstream political discourse. Also, the meaning of the word is to cause a relative reaction in most people to fear one group over the other. When terrorism is implemented, it's usually used to give a divide in the country on who to fear and who not to. The word is not consistent, no matter what the variations of the word might be. The purpose is still the same, regardless of the FBI's or any other politically neutral organization's reasoning for the word. The purpose is to sow fear, while also downplaying certain acts of other right wing violence such as militias, white-supremacy, and religious motivations outside of things like "Radical Islamic Terrorism".
Comments
Post a Comment