Comment Paper One-Defnition Differences

 

Definition Differences

The notion of terrorism is something that has always been up for debate.  The question of defining a terrorist and where to draw the line from action of a state or terrorism is a subjective matter.  With this is clear that there will be multiple definitions of what is considered terrorism.  The most interesting regarding the definitions is the contrast between the definition of terrorism by the Department of State and that of Rodin.  The United States regards terrorism as being perpetuated by sub-national groups on innocent people whereas Rodin cites that terrorism is a tactic and can be perpetuated by both a state and non-state actor.  It is interesting that the state definition eliminates the possibility of a state being the one perpetuating terrorism.  It is not possible within the scope of the state department’s definition could the United States be considered terrorist because theta are not a sub-national group.  On the other side of this, they do fall into the element of premeditation and politically motivated violence that can be used to influence an audience.  It seems that the element of qualify terrorist as groups of people working outside the boundaries of a “state” allows the United States to accuse others of being terrorist when they may commit the same violence that so called “terrorist” commit.

Rodin’s definition, which is created with no association to the state, allows for all groups to be considered terrorist and therefore defines it a tool or strategy that a group or nation could use to influence the actions of another actor.   His definition could at times place the United States within the scope of terrorism as seen by those in the Middle East or other regions where the United Sates has sued force to influence the decisions of a nation.  This definition is more compelling and one that should be used.  Be perpetuating a definition that includes states, it provides a “check” for states and subjects them to the same questioning as they perpetuate onto their enemy.  It eliminates the ability of a state to just label a group as terrorist as a means for gaining a free pass to attack.  It seems that all too often the word terrorist is used to rally the public against a group, where it is possible that the accuser may have been the perpetrator of the violence.  This can be seen is the case where the United States funded Al-Qaida for missions and allowed them to conduct business, but when they no longer acted in accordance with United States goals they were moved terrorist classification when in fact the United States where the backers of the organization.  If they public adopted Rodin’s definition the United States may not have been able to so easily persuade the public that Al-Qaida were terrorist because the United States where the ones supporting the reckless use of violence.  Instead the United States is able to hide behind their definition because they cannot be terrorist because they are not “sub-national groups or clandestine agents.”