What is a "Terrorist"?

      What exactly IS the definition of a Terrorist you might say? Well the world renowned Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines a terrorist as "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities". Although that is one definition that I have listed, most sources use the same basic outline for the defining the criteria of a Terrorist; "One who uses force/violence/intimidation in order to achieve political intimidation". Is that necessarily the only meaning of a terrorist or is that the only name? Over the past decade, the word "Terrorist" seems to have lost this flexible meaning. The problem that I am stating is that “Terrorist” is something that can never be taken out of context; it is a definition that needs to actually be seen in its operation in order to properly attempt to label it. My purpose throughout this paper is to argue that people who were once known as revolutionaries and freedom fighters cannot be defined as terrorists by definition, but by their actions. I will attempt to enlighten my audience to the meanings behind terrorism and the insult of being labeled a "Terrorist". It's time to make an attempt to find out what a terrorist truly is and separate it from real revolutionaries and give insight to how these terms change in different discourse communities.  I will do so by examining and analyzing a few examples of opposing views of terrorists vs. freedom fighters/Revolutionaries (such as Gandhi, Samuel Adams, Fidel Castro and Osama Bin Laden as well as acts that could have been labeled as terrorist acts throughout history.

     The one problem in truly defining the term terrorist is that no one person has the same view of it. It seems as if terrorism is only defined as such only if someone sees it as that. The definition of a terrorist is too broad of a category to properly coin it. It seems as if the struggle to define terrorist is just as difficult as preventing terrorists acts themselves. A United Nations War Crimes expert, M. Cherif Bassiouni, stated that; "to define "terrorist" in a way that is both all-inclusive and unambiguous is very difficult, if not impossible.

       To define a terrorist is more difficult than one might think. This broad term, as well as other terms associated with it tends to have varying meanings to different discourse communities. When people think of the word "Terrorist" and what terrorism is, they more than likely envision the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. That disaster would traditionally be a prime example of terrorist action, yet other acts with less extreme results are still somehow labeled as a terrorist act. The Oxford English dictionary defines a terrorist as “a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects”. Yet, this broad definition also seems to hold similarities to other terms. One label that people like to partner with a terrorist is a freedom fighter. Wikipedia defines a "freedom fighter" as "a person engaged in a resistance movement against what they believe to be an oppressive and illegitimate government". Speaking in a general sense, freedom fighters are seen as people who are using physical force in order to cause a change in the political and or social order, does this mean that individuals who were once called freedom fighters can now be labeled as terrorists? Mahatma Gandhi was considered a widely influential freedom fighter, and he strove for non-violence in all of his protests, yet under today's definition, can he now labeled terrorist? Gandhi strictly involved with non-violent means to achieve his goals, but according to the criteria of "Terrorist", he could possibly still be labeled as such only for the fact that his intentions were to overthrow a government, regardless of whether or not they were violent, intimidation was the goal. This is the main problem that I am bringing to focus: The definitions used for “Terrorist” do not help us distinguish between the terms revolutionary and freedom fighters from it– since both groups often use similar tactics and feel justified. 

             The term "Revolutionary", is so widely used in this day and age that its actual meaning has become confused with terrorist and other stigmas that were once known to be separate. Wikipedia defines a revolutionary as "someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change". One of the founding fathers Samuel Adams was called a revolutionary, and was even the leader the American Revolutionary War of 1775 and led many other early Americans to fight for independence. Would they all be considered as terrorists now? In theory, terrorists are usually known for targeting civilians in order to prove a point in political intimidation, whereas revolutionaries simply fight for national liberation, not to harm civilians. There have been numerous cases throughout history that could be considered terrorist acts but don't quite fulfill the criteria, and others that have all of the signs of being terrorist acts in today's society, yet are still known as revolutions or resistance movements. One example of this is the American Revolutionary War. The Revolution, like many, encountered quite a few times when violence broke out and people were injured and vandalism took place, even though the intent was only to overthrow King George III and gain liberation. A group known as “The Sons of Liberty” was the political group that began the movement to remove King George III from power. This group essentially handled the Revolution with the same criteria as that of a modern day terrorist; they purposely plotted to overthrow a government and take control over a nation, they used intimidation to gain a means to an end, and sometimes violence ensued. Does that make them terrorists? That seems to be the problem.

     Fidel Castro was one of the most controversial and well known Cuban revolutionaries in history. He is known for his involvement in armed rebellions, violent revolutions and Guerrilla Warfare tactics. To his supporters, he is a champion of anti-imperialism, humanitarianism, environmentalism and the world's poor, but to all those he opposed, he was a terrorist and a dictator whose authoritarian administration has overseen multiple human rights abuses. His actions have all of the criteria of a terrorist, both before and after he came into power, but the only ones who label him as a terrorist are the ones whom he oppressed or those who have a negative opinion of him. Castro's label as a terrorist is only relevant to those who see him as such.

     One man who can properly be labeled as a terrorist is Osama Bin Laden. His viewpoints and methods of achieving them led to him being given the stigma of a Terrorist.  He is the founder of the militant (or Terrorist) Islamist organization known as Al-Qaeda, was the organization responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001, as well as over 39 other mass casualty attacks that were targeted at both civilians and military organizations. All of his attacks were purposely intended to intimidate the government by targeting landmarks, murdering innocent civilians, and eliminate both the United States and its government. Bin Laden’s ideology was that innocent civilians, including women and children, are legitimate targets just because they are affiliated with his enemies. This ideology is that of a classically defined terrorist. As the definition says, a terrorist is a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities".

One of the principal difficulties in defining and isolating the word terrorist lies in the fundamental values at stake in the acceptance or rejection of terror-inspiring violence as means of accomplishing a given goal. The obvious and well known range of views on these issues are what makes an internationally accepted specific definition of what is loosely called "terrorism," a largely impossible undertaking. That is why the search for and internationally agreed upon definition may well be a futile and unnecessary effort." Although it seems fairly easy to label one as a terrorist, to actually be able to define one as such seems pointless. The way I see it, the stigma of Terrorist is only based on personal opinion. One individual can hear about the cases of someone such as Osama Bin Laden or Mahatma Gandhi and label them as a hero, or revolutionary, or freedom fighter, and another person can use the same criteria and label them as terrorist. The thing that separates Gandhi far from the likes of Bin Laden lie in the means in which he achieved his goals; peace. The fact that Bin Laden opposed a government does not make him a terrorist, but the fact that he used, excuse my lack of a better word, Terror, to harm and cause problems, which is something that Gandhi went out his way to avoid doing.  In my opinion, I believe that a terrorist is someone who uses violence, force, and intimidation purposely to harm innocent civilians and a government in order to achieve a common goal. As I stated in the introduction of my argument, the definitions used for “Terrorist” do not help us distinguish between the terms revolutionary and freedom fighters from it but how people view them. In conclusion, it looks as if, for the time being, the commonly used aphorism "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", seems to be a fitting definition for a terrorist.  

Works Cited

Clark, Jack. "Definition of Terrorist." Web log post. The Rational Radical. The Rational Radical, 5 Oct. 2001. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

Marsico, Katie (2009). Fidel Castro: Cuban President & Revolutionary. ABDO Pub. Co

"Terrorists and Terrorism Broadly Defined: Is the Definition so Wide It Steps Right over the Constitution?" About.com. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

Primoratz, Igor. "How Terrorism Is Wrong: Morality and Political Violence // Reviews // Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame." RPhilosophical Reviews. University of Notre Dame, 2 Dec. 2008. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

Terrorism Research - What Is Terrorism? Publication. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

"Terrorism",Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

Cameron, Amy. "Another word for terrorist? Not psychopath". Maclean's. Toronto: Sep. 24, 2001. Vol. 114, Iss. 39; pg. 33. Web. 24 Oct. 2011 .