The various definitions of terrorism created by organizations such as the FBI, the Department of Defense (DoD), and the State Department are valid in their own respective organizational environments. Also, it is evident that all definitions fall under the premise of the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, they are as different as they are the same, and therefore, only one comes close to grasping the 9/11 concept of terrorism.
The State Department’s definition encompasses the most, when it comes to the September 11, 2001 attacks, as it defines terrorism as a premeditated, politically motivated catalyst for attacks on noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents (White, 2006, p.6). Specifically, the attacks in New York which meant to hinder the image of America in the eyes of the world; the sublunary audience; simply put: the humanity. The attacks almost fully related to the State Department’s definition of terrorism.
FBI’s definition of terrorism seems to me like corporate governance; where U.S. is the corporation and the civilians affected are the subdivisions. The definition does, in part, cover the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks. However, it only lists political or social objectives as causes for such heinous acts of terror (White, 2006, p.6). After reading the newspapers and seeing countless newscasts it is evident (based only on facts provided by the media) that religious ideologies were the force behind the attacks.
The Department of Defense is the runner up in the matchmaking of definitions and the September 11, 2001 attacks. The definition is short but to the point, yet lacks the density to carefully tie the events of 9/11 together with its rendition. J.R. White states: “Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives” (p.6). The DoD’s definition of terrorism, when compared with FBI’s interpretation, lists other reasons (matching the format of 9/11 attacks) for terrorist organizations or individuals to commit to the destruction of lives and property.
None of the three definitions completely tie in with the September 11, 2001 attacks, but I feel the State Department’s definition is by far the best match.
Reference:
White, J.R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security. (5th ed.). Belmont: Thomson-Wadsworth
You might also like:
- Terrorism: No Common Definition Offered for the Term Terrorism
- Terrorism: Homeland Security and Hypothetical Terrorist Threat
- Terrorism: Schmid and the Definitional Dilemma Solution
- Modern Terrorists More Violent Than Terrorists in the Past?
- Terrorism: The Four Force Multipliers
- Terrorism: Contributing Factors
- Terrorism: Brian Jenkins, Theory in the Area of Terrorism
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
The State Department’s definition focuses on “sub-national groups or clandestine agents.” If this definition is accepted. then no nation (or government representing it) can be a terrorist. This lets certain people off the hook. Note also that the definition of terrorist is limited to “non-combatant targets.” By this reasoning, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was not a terrorist act; the same is true for attacks on military checkpoints.
I hope you will find the following definition of terrorist to be helpful.
Highest regards,
Thomas Belvedere
Author of “The Source of Terrorism: Middle Class Rebellion” (published May 2009).
A terrorist is usually a middle class rebel (1) experiencing magnified marginal or transitional conditions, who (2) voluntarily (3) goes through certain rites of passage, among which are (4) clique membership and (5) a deliberate decision to commit a criminal act that is almost always (6) violent and usually (7) murder, in (8) the name of higher intentions or convictions without (9) retaining consciously the ambiguity of his criminal act and his higher intentions/convictions. He expresses powerful, unconscious, ambivalent emotions in two ways: (10) converting his intentions/convictions into idées fixes or absolute truths, the opposite extreme from ambiguity, and (11) wielding uncertainty as a weapon. That uncertainty is total, as shown by the fact that (12) everyone — allies, non-combatants, even himself — is a potential victim. A concluding note: it is the syndrome, the running together of components, which counts — not specific components taken in isolation.
By not admitting what he cannot admit, the terrorist guards his secret, even from himself.
By not admitting what he is, the terrorist shows the gravity that admission holds for him. To my knowledge, no terrorist or other middle class rebel has ever said what he is.
What he is, is the secret he keeps: he is a middle class rebel.
Thomas,
Thanks for your invaluable input.
Webster has already defined terrorism, terrorist. the term dates back hundreds of years in France, i think. the only reason to change its definition is to make it fit a predetermined storyline. my point being by definition the US is a terrorist state so is Israel. So to change the definition to only apply to lone nuts or small groups of again nuts but conspiring nuts, is to effectively make the US actions no longer definable as terrorism.
politically correct lawyer speak= BS