Terrorism: Analysis of Definitions

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Comparison between Combs and the FBI’s definition of terrorism
Why the proposed definition should include the four components
Conclusion and recommendation
Reference

Introduction

This is an analysis of the definition of terrorism according to Cindy Combs in comparison to the definition given by the FBI. The paper will seek to identify the 4 major conceptual components in Combs’ definition to compare their similarities or differences with the components in the FBI’s definition of terrorism. In addition to identifying the conceptual components, this paper will also analyze and examine the importance of having the four components as part of the definition or otherwise. This essay seeks to point out the benefits as well as limitations of each of the four components in Combs’ definition of terrorism.

Comparison between Combs and the FBI’s definition of terrorism

According to Combs, terrorism is a fusion of war and drama, a staging of the most illegal kind of aggression that is committed on blameless victims (Combs, 2003). It is played before spectators in the expectation of creating a mood of fear, for political reasons (Combs, 2003). According to Combs, terrorism is comprised of four elements; it is an act of violence, it has a political motive, is perpetrated against innocent persons, it is meant to cause fear and terror to victims (Combs, 2003).

According to the FBI’s definition of terrorism, the subject is divided into two categories which are international and domestic terrorism. Nonetheless, in both categories the components of its definition are similar. Just like in Combs’ definition, the FBI defines terrorism as an act of violence that endangers human life, it is meant to intimidate or coerce the civilians and the government to influence its policies or conduct (Combs, 2003). However, there are significant differences between the two definitions. While Combs’ definition is more of a general cover of violence and acts of mass destruction, the FBI’s definition gives more specific and definite descriptions of the scope of terrorism.

For instance, in the FBI’s definition, there is the aspect of actions that are meant to coerce the government to change or influence its conduct or policies regarding certain issues. The FBI’s definition is partial in defining terrorism. Clearly, according to the FBI’s definition of terrorism, government actions even when they endanger human life cannot be seen as an act of terrorism. According to Combs’ definition, even the government can perpetrate terrorism against its own people or against citizens in other countries. As outlined above, the FBI’s definition has mirror components in all four components.

Why the proposed definition should include the four components

The proposed definition of terrorism should include the four components included in Combs’ definition. Terrorism must be characterized by terror and violence which basically means going against the law. The inclusion of political motive or goal in the definition of terrorism gives its occurrence a succinct scope. In law, every detail should have a specific meaning in order to determine the extent and magnitude of the crime committed.

Benefits of the four components

For terrorism to be regarded as such, it must be staged to hurt innocent people. This draws a clear line between revolts and terrorism. Defining terror as an act of violence against innocent persons justifies the need for retaliatory measures. Globally, acts of terror are staged in front of civilians. This as discussed earlier causes fear among the citizens. Terrorism is a political activity meant to influence governments and to dictate and lay out a list of demands. By staging public violence and causing fear, terrorists force the government to meet their demands. In this light, it is therefore correct to say that terrorism is an act of hurting the vulnerable in order to compel and provoke the government’s ‘soft spot’.

Pitfalls/limitations of the four components

However, defining terrorism as an act of violence still has its limitations. It means that the government’s actions cannot be classified as acts of terrorism even though at times the government can commit violent actions against innocent persons. On the other hand, not all acts of violence associated with terrorism are politically motivated. Some of the terrorist attacks like Somali piracy are not political activities. While most terror attacks affect the innocent, in some instances the attacks are retaliation from oppressed minority groups. In such cases, the victims are therefore not innocent at all. Lastly, some terrorist attacks are based on revenge rather than creating fear. As such, branding terrorism as an act of creating fear can leave this possibility out.

Conclusion and recommendation

The four components identified in this essay have been found to be both conclusive and limiting in addressing the scope of terrorism. It is inconsistent with all fairness to term terrorism as an act of violence only when the act is perpetrated by civilians. On the other hand, when the government is perpetrating the same acts of violence on innocent Iraqi civilians, the definition changes. The component of terror being politically motivated is true but it limits the possibility of malicious terrorism or theft terrorism. The fact that terrorism is perpetrated against innocent persons demands that the scope of innocence should be clearly defined. Lastly, whether an act of terror is staged in front of people to cause fear or not, terror should be treated as such. Some of these definitions are limiting some other potential scopes of terrorism.

Reference

Combs, C., C. (2003). Terrorism in the 21^st Century (3^rd ed.). Uppers Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Click Here To Order Now!