Critical Perspectives on Terrorism: Definitions and Discourse

This essay critically examines the concept of terrorism, highlighting the challenges in defining it due to its political and ideological connotations. It explores how the term is often used for propaganda and the ambiguity created by state-sponsored terrorism and counter-accusations. The essay delves into the problems of conceptualization, including the confusion between means and ends, and the blurring of lines between terrorism, political violence, and guerrilla warfare. It analyzes the role of experts and academics in shaping the discourse on terrorism, citing perspectives from Noam Chomsky, Gunning, Weinberg, Huntington, and Hoffman. The essay discusses how cultural and religious factors contribute to the understanding of terrorism, ultimately emphasizing the importance of considering different perspectives and contexts to gain a more complete understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Running head: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
Critical Perspectives on Terrorism
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
Introduction:
Terrorism is the unlawful act of violence and intimidation focused against the
civilians. The aim of terrorism is to create fear and terror among the public, in order to
achieve financial, religious, ideological or political objectives (Martin 2017). Terrorism can
be of different types, based on the extent of its effects, its repercussions, type of action
involved and the medium of the action used. However, this is only a very simplified view of
terrorism, and a comprehensive definition of terrorism is hard to define or conceptualize
(Combs 2017). It has been pointed by authors that terrorism appears in various forms and
under a wide range of circumstances, due to which it is not possible to develop a
comprehensive definition of the term (Laqueur 2017). Instead, understanding of terrorism
would depend upon the observer, and how he/she interprets the actions and its circumstances.
This makes the concept of terrorism hard to conceptualize and define in its entirety
(Blanchard 2016). There are different aspects, which makes this conceptualization so
challenging, which will be discussed in this essay followed by how the discourse on terrorism
is affected by the different opinions of experts and scholars regarding this concept, in order to
reach a more complete and balanced understanding. The objective is to compare various
ideas, and identify useful aspects to explain the concept of terrorism.
Discussion:
Problems in defining and conceptualizing terrorism:
It has been proposed by many authors that ‘terrorism’ has widely been used for
creating a political effect (Jongman 2017). This can be understood by considering the rebel
groups who are involved in spreading violence, discord and terror bur label themselves as
‘freedom fighters’, thereby spreading a political propaganda, and attracting support to their
causes. Also, several ‘freedom fighters’ who were trying to fight the government to end

2CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
oppression and ensure freedom of its people were also labelled as terrorists by their
governments, in the attempt to discredit their actions (Saha and Yap 2014). This phenomenon
has been known as a propaganda advantage, where propaganda is used to leverage a political
or ideological advantage to a certain group of people or discredit certain people (Emma 2015;
Cohen et al. 2018). Moreover, the term terrorism usually is associated with a negative
context. Anyone labelled as terrorist is considered a miscreant or disruptor of the society,
creating negative mind-sets against the label. Because of this, individuals or organizations
who were labelled as terrorists often retort to such accusations by stating that their accusers
are the real terrorists (Jackson et al., 2011). Such accusations, counteraccusations and the war
of words further increases the ambiguity in the concepts of terrorism, and raises the question
as to who really are terrorists, and what range of actions can be considered as terrorism
(Jackson et al. 2011). Examples of such ambiguity can be found in cases of state propagated
or state sponsored terrorism. In these cases, the state machinery is actively involved in
spreading fear, maintaining subjugation and undermining the rights of its people as compared
to the actions of rebel groups trying to undo such atrocities and subjugations. For instance the
fight that rages between the Assad’s regime in Syria and the Free Syrian Army, in which
Assad has been convicted of using lethal force on civilians and the rebel faction labelled as
terrorist trying to fight the government oppression (Obey 2013; Spyer 2012). The flipside of
such an ambiguous situation would be in cases of terrorist organizations trying to get support
towards their cause, labelling any nation or organization fighting them as the real terrorists.
One such instance is how terrorist organizations such as Al Quieda or ISIS or Palestine
Liberation Organization labelled western nations as the actual terrorists, and labelling
themselves as fighting for a noble cause (Morell 2015; Stern and Berger 2015). These
scenarios examples where rebel groups fighting for the rights of the citizen are labelled as
terrorists, while the rebel groups themselves would consider the state to be the real terrorists.

3CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
The opposite phenomenon is seen when terrorists fighting to achieve some self-defined noble
purpose considers anyone trying to stop them as terrorists, and themselves are noble warriors
(Mahood and Rane 2017). This shows that what can be termed as terrorism and who can be
termed as terrorists largely depends upon the point of view or the perspective of who is
making the definition. The confusion and ambiguity is also caused by a confusion between
the ends and means of an action and whether the outcome of the action is deliberate or
unintended, as harm caused unintentionally is not considered as terrorism, while the act of
deliberately harming others can be a terrorist move (Ramsay 2015; Jackson and Sinclair
2013).
Another aspect that causes ambiguity in the conceptualization of terrorism is based on
confusions regarding the ‘memberships’ and ‘borders’ of the entities involved in terrorist
acts. For example, the considerations on how to differentiate terrorism from political violence
or guerrilla warfare can often blur the lines on what can be considered as a terrorist act and
what can be considered as guerrilla warfare or political violence (Eubank and Weinberg
2001; Jackson et al. 2011). Actions such as assassination, air piracy, abductions and hostage
keeping can be labelled as terrorist actions by some while it can be also considered as acts of
‘freedom fighting’ by other, depending upon the context of the action, the motivation of the
perpetrators or even the viewpoint of the victims of such acts (Duyvesteyn 2006; Shultz
1986).
Other authors have also suggested that the distance (physical or social) between the
acts with the observer as a way to conceptualize terrorism. For example, if the act of violence
occurs at a significant distance from the observer, it is generally not termed as terrorism and
is generally given a neutral name, while if the act of violence occurs closer to home; it may
be termed as terrorism. Similarly, terms such as ‘cyber-terrorism’ or ‘narco-terrorism’ can
refer to the distance and flexibility in the conceptualization of terrorism, as such acts hardly

4CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
implies any real threat of violence, and instead broadens the scope of what can be termed as
terrorism (Deeks 2013). Due to this, many authors have pointed out that implementing a set
of concepts developed in a specific context or cases, and using them into different context
and cases, which are significantly different from each other, makes the said concepts
inappropriate and inapplicable in the new context. In such cases, it is important to overcome
the tendency to generalize the concept and instead following the law of reverse variation
(Emma 2015). It has been suggested that dividing the act of terrorism into separate avenues
of discourse can be useful to develop a better understanding about terrorism (Martin 2017).
These discourses can include the academic avenue in which scholars try to outline a
comprehensive definition about terrorism that can be used to conduct studies on the topic and
the sentiments of the ‘state’ which can include how terrorism is defined by the law and the
state’s judiciary and political framework. A public debate can exists regarding the concept of
terrorism which can include how terrorism is labelled or portrayed or represented by the
media, and the point of view of those individuals or organizations opposing the values of the
societies and supporting the acts of violence against the entities they consider to be repressive
(Spyer 2012).
Role of experts and academics in the discourse of terrorism:
Several scholars, experts and academics have discussed about the concepts related to
terrorism, and significant differences can be noticed on how each have conceptualized the
term and its effects. Discussed below are the perspectives of the scholars, experts and
academics on how they view terrorism and how it influences our discourse and our views
about this concept (Schnell and Callaghan 2005).
Noam Chomsky on the discourse of the Gaza crisis commented that the Israeli
government, backed by the American Democracy is systematically terrorizing the Palestinian

5CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
occupation and its communities, considering them a ‘threat’ to the national security. It has
been pointed out that the victims of such state sponsored terrorism is mainly targeted towards
the civilians and it systematically subjugated the Palestinian people, taking away their liberty
to move freely and their national identities (Chomsky and Pappe 2015; Davis 2016).
Chomsky also used the term of Global Terrorism, where he implies that a single nation can
be involved in terrorist acts by subjugating other weaker nations to its political or ideological
agendas. According to him, the United States has been acting as the world’s biggest terrorists,
citing examples of Cuba, Vietnam and Palestine (Randahl 2018; Chomsky 2002; Lutz et al.
2004).
According to Gunning (2007), the conceptualization of terrorism depends upon who
the perpetrators of the ‘terrorist acts’ are and who is labelling the act. The same acts taken by
the government can be viewed differently than when it is done by the opposition. From the
perspective of the government, any actions by their opposition to disrupt their system can be
easily be termed as an act of terrorism, while for the opposition, such act may be noble or
even necessary (Gunning and Jackson 2011). While from the perspective of the opposition,
the act of the government to stop or discredit the opposition can be considered as terrorism.
This lead to a dichotomy between the understanding of who are terrorist, which in influenced
by the leniency or biases of who is observing or labelling the acts (Martin 2017).
According to Weinberg et al. (2004), several important elements are included in the
conceptualization of terrorism, these elements includes violence, politics, fear tactics, threats,
victimization, strategies, civilian targets and movement. These elements have been
consistently referred to in various academic papers, to explain terrorism. However, the same
elements also appear in the conceptualization of conflicts and political violence, thereby
implementing that the same actions can be labelled as either terrorism, political violence or a
conflict, based upon how the acts are perceived and who is perceiving them. This leads to the

6CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
continuation of the confusion that exists in the conceptualization if terrorism and complicates
its discourse (Ramsay 2015).
Huntington (1993) have pointed out that conflicts occurs as a result of the ‘clash
between civilizations’ that cause conflicts between the religious and cultural identities of
people when two very diverse cultures tries to coexist. Huntington divided the world into
several ‘major civilizations’ like the western civilization, Latin American civilization, Eastern
civilization, Islamic and middle eastern Civilization and Sub Saharan African Civilization.
He opined that each civilization are unique in their beliefs, cultural practice, and what is
considered as normal, moral, acceptable or inacceptable. When any such cultures interact, it
can give rise to a clash between these values and morals, as one civilization tries to condone
the other, based upon their own worldviews, beliefs and practices (Hauk and Mueller 2015).
For example, Sayyid Qutb, a famous Egyptian scholar and Islamic theologist wrote a book
about the immense cultural shock he got when he visited USA. The differences between the
cultures he was born into and the American Western culture was so immense, he could not
accept the it, and instead highly criticized the western culture to be materialistic, lacking
family and community values, racist and aggressive (Calvert 2009). His books on criticism
on western culture has been cited as a key influence on known terrorists like Osama Bin
laden, who orchestrated the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001. This shows how
cultural conflicts can pave the path to terrorist acts (Laden et al. 2005; Bergen 2002).
Hoffman (1995) coined the term ‘holy terror’, implying the religious motivations and
imperatives that underlie some of the terrorist acts. According to him, religious precepts can
be used in the legitimization of violent acts and the elimination of groups of people, who are
identified as enemies of the religion. The term ‘jihad’ or ‘holy war’ is often utilized in this
context, to imply Islamic terrorist groups who attempts to establish a religious superiority and
eliminate any other belief systems or religions that are opposed to their own religious beliefs,

7CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
labelling them as enemies of the religion and targeting followers of such religions for terrorist
attacks. Examples of such acts can be found in the acts of terrorist groups such as Boko
Haram in Africa, ISIS in the Middle East as well as White Supremacist Groups in America
(Chothia 2012; Walker 2012). These terrorist attacks are mostly to dissuade others to stop
following other religions or belief systems. Destruction of historical structures that stands as
evidences of different religious views and beliefs, such as the Bamiyan Buddha and the
Archaeological Sites of North Syria have been destroyed by the ISIS, as it represented the
‘wrong religion’. Similarly western culture had been labelled as forbidden or ‘haram’ by the
Boko Haram (a term which literally means that Western Culture is forbidden) in Nigeria
(Chiovenda 2014; Walker 2012). Gunning and Jackson (2011) also termed this as a form of
‘religious terrorism’, which is caused due to religious extremism according to Eatwell and
Goodwin (2012). Such perspectives shows how differences in cultures and beliefs can also
act as motivators of terrorist acts.
Conclusion:
Therefore on critically analyzing the perspectives of the great scholars it can be
summarized that terrorism is an act of violence that creates terror in the hearts of the people
and evokes the feeling of insecurity towards life. Terrorism can be characterized into various
types based on the opinions of the philosophical thinkers bur more or less it is used as a tool
to terrorize the innocent people and derive economic, religious or political benefit out of it.
The diversification of terrorism categories have made it difficult to consolidate the definition
of terrorism into a single unit however it should be noted that terrorism in any form elicits a
negative response for the human community and should be eliminated completely to ensure a
peaceful coexistence.

8CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
References:
Bergen, P.L., 2002. Holy war, Inc.: inside the secret world of Osama bin Laden. Simon and
Schuster.
Blanchard, A., 2016. Book review: conceptualizing terrorism by Anthony Richards. LSE
Review of Books.
Calvert, J., 2009. Sayyid Qutb and the origins of radical Islamism. Hurst & Company
Limited.
Chiovenda, M.K., 2014. Sacred blasphemy: Global and local views of the destruction of the
Bamyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 34(4), pp.410-
424.
Chomsky, N. and Pappé, I., 2015. On Palestine. Haymarket Books.
Chomsky, N., 2002. Who are the global terrorists?. Worlds in collision: terror and the future
of global order (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).
Chothia, F., 2012. Who are Nigeria’s Boko Haram Islamists. BBC News, 11.
Cohen, S.J., Kruglanski, A., Gelfand, M.J., Webber, D. and Gunaratna, R., 2018. Al-Qaeda’s
propaganda decoded: A psycholinguistic system for detecting variations in terrorism
ideology. Terrorism and Political Violence, 30(1), pp.142-171.
Combs, C.C., 2017. Terrorism in the twenty-first century. Routledge.
Davis, K.A., 2016. Shell-Shocked: On the Ground Under Israel's Gaza Assault. The
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 35(5), p.78.

9CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
Deeks, A.S., 2013. The observer effect: national security litigation, executive policy changes,
and judicial deference. Fordham L. Rev., 82, p.827.
DUYVESTEYN, I.S., 2006. The role of history and continuity in terrorism research. In
Mapping Terrorism Research (pp. 65-89). Routledge.
Eatwell, B.R. And Goodwin, M.J., 2012. Introduction: The ‘new’extremism in twenty-first-
century Britain. In The New Extremism in 21st Century Britain (pp. 19-38). Routledge.
Emma, B., 2015. Propaganda and counter-terrorism: Strategies for global change. Oxford
University Press.
Eubank, W. and Weinberg, L., 2001. Terrorism and democracy: Perpetrators and victims.
Terrorism and political violence, 13(1), pp.155-164.
Gunning, J. and Jackson, R., 2011. What's so ‘religious’ about ‘religious terrorism’?. Critical
Studies on Terrorism, 4(3), pp.369-388.
Gunning, J., 2007. A Case for Critical Terrorism Studies? 1. Government and Opposition,
42(3), pp.363-393.
Hauk, E. and Mueller, H., 2015. Cultural leaders and the clash of civilizations. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 59(3), pp.367-400.
Hoffman, B., 1995. “Holy terror”: The implications of terrorism motivated by a religious
imperative. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism
Huntington, S.P., 1993. The clash of civilizations?. Foreign affairs, pp.22-49.
Jackson, R. and Sinclair, S.J., 2013. Is terrorism still a useful analytical term or should it be
abandoned?. In Contemporary Debates on Terrorism (pp. 25-39). Routledge.

10CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
Jackson, R., Jarvis, L., Gunning, J. and Breen-Smyth, M., 2011. Terrorism: A critical
introduction. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Jongman, A.J., 2017. Political terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data
bases, theories, and literature. Routledge.
Laden, O.B., Laden, O.B. and Ibn-Lādin, U., 2005. Messages to the world: The statements of
Osama bin Laden. Verso.
Laqueur, W., 2017. A history of terrorism. Routledge.
Lutz, J.M., Lutz, B.J. and Lutz, B.J., 2004. Global terrorism (Vol. 3, p. 46). London:
Routledge.
Mahood, S. and Rane, H., 2017. Islamist narratives in ISIS recruitment propaganda. The
Journal of International Communication, 23(1), pp.15-35.
Martin, G., 2017. Understanding terrorism: Challenges, perspectives, and issues. SAGE
publications.
Morell, M., 2015. The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--from Al
Qa'ida to ISIS. Twelve.
O'Bagy, E., 2013. The free Syrian army. Institute for the Study of War.
Ramsay, G., 2015. Why terrorism can, but should not be defined. Critical Studies on
Terrorism, 8(2), pp.211-228.
Randahl, D., 2018. Terrorism and public opinion: The effects of terrorist attacks on the
popularity of the president of the United States. Terrorism and Political Violence, 30(3),
pp.373-383.

11CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM
Saha, S. and Yap, G., 2014. The moderation effects of political instability and terrorism on
tourism development: A cross-country panel analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 53(4),
pp.509-521.
Schnell, F. and Callaghan, K., 2005. Terrorism, media frames, and framing effects. Framing
American Politics, pp.123-147.
Shultz, G.P., 1986. Low-intensity warfare: the challenge of ambiguity (No. 783). US
Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of Public Communication, Editorial
Division.
Spyer, J., 2012. Defying a dictator: meet the Free Syrian Army. World Affairs, pp.45-52.
Stern, J. and Berger, J.M., 2015. ISIS: The state of terror (Vol. 7). London: William collins.
Walker, A., 2012. What is Boko Haram? (Vol. 17). US Institute of Peace.
Weinberg, L., Pedahzur, A. and Hirsch-Hoefler, S., 2004. The challenges of conceptualizing
terrorism. Terrorism and Policical Violence, 16(4), pp.777-794.