Soldiers and police officers, for instance, are state actors. That’s a political science term that basically means anyone who’s not acting as the agent of a recognized government. Third, terrorism is perpetrated by non-state actors. But having such a cause is what distinguishes terrorism from crime, personal passion, or other common reasons for violence. It need not be a wholly rational or achievable cause. The target and motivation need to be linked to a broader cause or ideology. Second, terrorism is inherently political. Otherwise, major terror attacks like the 2018 shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - in which a gunman killed 11 people in the deadliest attack on Jews on American soil - get diluted by numerous non-lethal events. Stone-throwing or other low-level forms of violence, including street brawls and physical assaults, could technically be counted, but it’s best to maintain a high bar when using the terrorism label. Serious terrorism definitions have several factors in common, most of which are self-evident, but a few require a bit more explanation.įirst, terrorism involves violence or the threat of it: Marches, protests, and similar peaceful activities do not meet the criteria. Conversely, one can oppose a cause without considering those advocating for it to be terrorists. So one can favor a cause (national liberation, say) but still label the violence used to achieve it as terrorism. Important for all these efforts is an attempt to put aside the question of the justness of the cause - whether someone is the “bad guy” - and focus on the goals and actions of the perpetrator. However, serious analysts such as Bruce Hoffman and Boaz Ganor, as well as US statutes and various government agencies have all tried to define terrorism. As my colleague Chris Meserole and I have pointed out, even close US allies don’t agree with the United States - or even with one another - as to which groups are terrorists. One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter, as the old saying goes - an argument one still hears walking the halls of the United Nations. It’s easy to dodge this question and conclude that there is no real agreement on the definition of terrorism. The answer is not as straightforward as you might think. So what about individuals and groups that have been credibly linked to violence in Kenosha, Minneapolis, Portland, and other cities? Where does antifa fit in? Or right-wing militia-type groups like Patriot Prayer? How about individuals such as the shooter at the Kenosha, Wisconsin, protests? Should we call all of these people terrorists? In many instances, even those who do actively promote and use violence don’t merit the label “terrorist.” Thus, labeling the movement as a whole as violent is false.īut not all violence is terrorism, either. Moreover, Black Lives Matter is an open movement with a host of organizations participating along with self-proclaimed supporters rather than a tight group with a defined membership. Most of the protest leaders have tried to stop looting and other violence, recognizing this is counterproductive as well as wrong. One analysis of the Black Lives Matter protests found that 93 percent were peaceful, and some of the violent incidents at the rallies were simply opportunistic vandalism. When it comes to Black Lives Matter, there’s no credible case for labeling it a terrorist organization. Brian Jenkins, a leading scholar of terrorism, observed in 1981: “Terrorism is what the bad guys do.” The terrorism label, for them, is a way of distinguishing who is in the wrong. Their opinions are backed up by statements from the police and Trump administration officials and images of burning cities.
0 kommentar(er)
