DEFINING TERRORISM

To take the simple approach, one would just look in the dictionary or on-line to find a definition of terrorism. Here, I'll save you the trouble, Webster's on-line dictionary defines terrorism as; The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. That's simple enough. However, as the recent Fort Hood Shooting has shown us, that definition needs a little more explaining. When does a nut-job with a gun or a bomb become a terrorist? Does he have to follow a religion? Can he be a terrorist in his own country? What's the difference between someone who's fighting to free his country from oppressors and a Patriot? Can a country itself practice terrorism? Where are the lines?

These are all questions that need answers. To help you sort these questions out I've decided to take a stab at how I would define an act of terror and what makes a terrorist.

First and foremost, I would say that every terrorist has one main thing in common. They target civilians. Notice that I italicized "target". There is a big difference between a military action that has non-targeted civilian collateral deaths and someone who blows up a shopping mall. Israel is a good example of a country that walks the fine line between the two. If Hamas attacks from within civilian housing, is it fair for Israel to blow up suspected houses knowing good and well that innocent civilians will be killed? I would say "Yes". That line, however, I believe, is crossed the minute Israel is trying to enact punishment on the Palestinian people without specifically targeting a known terrorist house. If it's a policy of "If Hamas kills five Jews, then Twenty-five Palestinians will die.", then I believe it is state-sponsored terrorism by Israel. As long as the terrorists themselves put the civilians in danger to protect themselves, then Israel is justified to commit an act of war with civilian casualties. Remember, it is Hamas that put them in danger.

But is Hamas, or for that matter any one else, a terrorist organization if they believe that they are fighting a guerrilla war with an occupier? This can get a little more complicated. First, to be fighting for the liberation of your country, in my opinion, you have to have the support of the majority of your people. Without that, every group, no matter how small, can justify attacking their country in the name of "patriotism". Civilized society allows civil decent, it does not allow every fringe group that disagrees with some policy to act out violently. The proper function of a patriot group is to persuade it's people to rise up against a government it believes has gone wrong. That group must convince a majority of people that it is right. It is the function of an oppressive government to limit demonstration and free expression. It is through those actions that they prove that they no longer have the majority of the people behind them and are no longer acting in the interest of it's people. If you are a member of a group that believes in changing it's government, has free expression, access to media, and the right to demonstrate peacefully and still cannot convince the majority of the public to get behind you, then your job is to continue to try to convince more people. You are not justified to use acts of terrorism to get your way.

Can a country be engaged in terrorism? This is the argument used by Liberals to defend the actions of people who feel, or even are, oppressed by some of the bigger, more powerful countries in the world. The truth is; they are sometimes right and most times wrong. Countries have opposing goals that are interlocked by limited resources, land, water, religion, past conquests, sketchy borders, regional conflicts and a host of other problems. War is the solution of choice for a lot of these countries. To assume that diplomacy and negotiation is always the solution is naive at best. Oppression is always the badge worn by anyone that doesn't get their way or loses the conflict. Since one side or the other will eventually win and get their way, the other side is always oppressed in their own opinion. This in and of itself cannot justify terrorism. Oppression, however, can take many forms, some inhumane and brutal, some economic and far more sublime. The ones that are brutal or inhumane will surely be easy to rally the opinion of the people against and terrorism I believe is justified in that instance. The lesser "oppression" is far harder to justify with violence unless the majority of the people are persuaded.

The world as we now know it has been a little too quick to slap the word "terrorism" on any action by an oppressed group that acts out against it's more powerful oppressors. The keys to separating these people from true terrorists is in their actions. Do they have the support of the majority of their own people and are they acting in their own country? If so, they aren't terrorists in my world. If they are targeting civilians in another country and if they haven't the support of the people in the country they're attacking, then they are terrorists. This may seem a little over simplistic, and maybe it is a simple answer for a very complex question. But I have applied this philosophy to a lot of situations and it seems to work far better than webster's definition. If any one has some input they would like to contribute, this is one discussion I would like to further flesh out. H.C.