POL SCI 1G06 Lecture 8: lecture 8

11 views5 pages
International Terrorism
Definition
Can we define it?
There is politics associated with defining terrorism- term is notoriously loaded
What's the difference between terrorism and state violence?
Don't have a definition of this term that all parties can accept
States notoriously call groups who oppose them and their policies, "terrorists"
There are clear parallels between state violence and "terrorist" violence
1. Both kill civilians
2. Both are directed at obtaining political ends
3. Cause terror in their wake
States exercise violence against civilians, but it is called legitimate- but when another
group does it, it is terrorism
"One person's terrorism is another person's freedom fighter"- what makes a terrorist a
terrorist rather than a freedom fighter?
Why is it that if they are successful in obtaining their goals, "terrorists" frequently are
retroactively labeled as revolutionary freedom fighters?
Where the same act is considered illegitimate terrorism at one moment but a
legitimate struggle for freedom at another, any objective categorization becomes
questionable
Defining a group or an action as terrorist is an unavoidably political act
There isn't an obvious definition that would be accepted without vocal opposition
from one quarter or another
Academic response to definitional problem- either reject the term "terrorism" as an
objective label, or to divide terrorism into a number of forms:
A) State terrorism
Where government will deliberately inflict violence on its own citizens in an attempt
to "suppress dissent and silence opposition"
B) State sponsored terrorism
A state government will offer material "support to international terrorist groups"
C) Non-state terrorism
"Terrorism is the intentional murder of defenceless non-combatants, with the intent
of instilling fear of mortal danger amidst a civilian population as a strategy designed
to advance political ends "
Why fear as a tactic? If fear can be produced, one of two things is likely to happen:
1. The offending policy might change- frighten regime
2. The target may be provoked into responding with oppressive measures: which can be
strategically advantageous to the terrorist group- they will overreact- people will side with
them now because they see the oppression or seem victimized – or they can also expend all
their energy and resources until they no longer have any
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 5 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
Historical Context:
"Terrorism" in the form defined above has existed as long as there has been a
government to oppose
However, it is probably more useful to focus on terrorism in the era of the modern
state
4 major waves of non-state terrorism in modern history (David Rapoport)
1. Anarchist Wave (1880s-1920s)
Attempt to bring down the state- not very successful
2. Anti-colonial Wave (1920s-1960s)
Outbreak of violence against legitimately constituted authority
Some colonies not liberated after WWI and Treaty of Versailles
England brought in troops from their colonies- when war was over, didn't free them-
resentment from those subject to colonial rule
Can't attack England's military directly- they're too strong- attack other things like
state buildings, population, etc
Most states got sovereignty- so it motivates people in future to use violence to get
what they want- liberation
3. Leftist Wave (1960s-90s)
Vietnam War- demonstrates it is capitalist power just like France and England before
it- but they weren't immediately successful
Developing and developed world
FLQ in Canada
Airplane high jacking- lots of them
Finds events with a lot of international attention and high jack them
4. Religious Wave (1979-?)
4th wave is not made up solely of Islamist movements (even though they get most of
the press
Sikh (Babbar Khalsa)- Air India bombing in Canada
Buddist/Hindu/Christian (?)- Aum Shinrikyo : terrorist group using chemical
weapons- gas into the subway system in Japan
So what does history demonstrate?
At the very least, it demonstrates 9/11 wasn't a unique category of event
Other eras have encountered the types of violence that fall under our definition of
terrorism
Moreover, the types of policy responses that have been pursued in response to
terrorism have often
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Causes of Terrorism
Talking about it in a sociological sense- not reduced to individual psychopathology-
look at it in terms of society
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 5 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get OneClass Notes+

Unlimited access to class notes and textbook notes.

YearlyBest Value
75% OFF
$8 USD/m
Monthly
$30 USD/m
You will be charged $96 USD upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.