The National Counterterrorism Center has redefined “terrorism†to include 3,200 incidents in 2004, up from 651 under the old definition.
I’m wary of any “redefinitionâ€, but especially of one that changes numbers so drastically, and so clearly in a way that supports the administration’s priorities. On the other hand, CNN says:
the earlier estimate did not include the following:
• The February 27, 2004, sinking of a superferry in the Philippines that killed about 130 people when a bomb planted by Abu Sayyaf rebels went off. The terrorist attack was one of the deadliest in the history of the Philippines.
• The August 24 downings by Chechen suicide bombers of two Russian airliners. The attacks occurred nearly simultaneously, killing a total of 89 people.
It certainly seems like any realistic definition of terrorism should include those incidents.
But what about the other 2,500? I couldn’t find a simple list of changes (I’d guess it’s more complicated than that anyway, although I don’t know), but here are the two I did find:
- Domestic incidents are now counted. IE, Iraqi insurgents attacking Iraqi police (but not Iraqi soldiers). Only international attacks were counted before.
- The new definition includes all damage and injuries. The old definition included only those attacks that caused more than $10,000 in damage or non-superficial injuries.
They’re also announcing the launch of a new website, the Terrorism Knowledge Base. It gives the following definition:
Terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. These acts are designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take. All terrorist acts are crimes. Many would also be violation of the rules of war if a state of war existed. This violence or threat of violence is generally directed against civilian targets. The motives of all terrorists are political, and terrorist actions are generally carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. Unlike other criminal acts, terrorists often claim credit for their acts. Finally, terrorist acts are intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage of the cause, having long-term psychological repercussions on a particular target audience. The fear created by terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerate the strengths of the terrorist and the importance of the cause, to provoke governmental overreaction, to discourage dissent, or simply to intimidate and thereby enforce compliance with their demands.
Life would be easier if everything were black and white.
I also find it alarming that 2,500 acts are now re-defined as terrorism. One wonders what acts the new list includes.
The definition of terrorism gets especially tricky in the Arab world, where many people view attacks on “occupation forces†– i.e. Israelis in the Palestinian territories and foreign forces in Iraq – as legitimate acts of resistance. I can understand the logic that would lead to such a belief, but I fail to see the point of any violence.
There’s no doubt that it was an act of terrorism when Iraqi insurgents bombed a Baghdad market, where 12-year-old Laith Falah when he was riding his bicycle to buy bread:
http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2005/06/20/iraq/photoessay703011_0_11_photo.shtml
But wasn’t it also terrorism when an Israeli Army sniper shot and killed 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura?
http://www.addameer.org/september2000/focus/dura.html
And is it not terrorism when U.S. troops kill Iraqi civilians?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/25/193144/999
I’d say the above definition of terrorism applies to all of these acts. Perhaps we should expand the list of terrorist incedents even further to include state-sponsored terrorism.
How about this:
I would agree that some of the incidents cited in the DailyKos story should be defined as terrorism, but I’m not sure that the accidental deaths should be. The new definition does not include insurgent attacks against military forces (Iraqi or “coalitionâ€), so it seems reasonable to not include military action that accidentally injures or kills civilians. I think it’s more reasonable to classify crimes by the US military as war crimes. I just don’t know who should hold troops accountable for those crimes.
Unrelated, I think maybe we should redefine the Iraqi “insurgency†as the Iraqi “resistanceâ€. Try swapping the words in every article you read — it’s a striking difference, and you don’t even have to decide whether or not the resistance is Right.
We have many terrorists in our midst. Born and raised in the USA. Read your newspaper, watch your TV. Every day. Crash kills two teens. Man shoots wife. Blasts kills three. Forget war: We have 40,000 people killed on our hiways every year. Hundreds die from bogus medical procedure. Drugs. Booze. Cigarettes. Open your eyes to the world you live in and see your fellow terrorist. WE are trying to straighten out a FOREIGN country while ours is sliding into the third world. Remember Russia. I support our troops – I was one. Bring them home to their families – they are needed here. Let OTHER countries go to hell. They immigrate here for a better chance – we send our troops there to die for THEM. Time – way past – for these helpless people to start helping themselves to a better life in their own country – we cannot babysit the world. Where next: Africa; North Korea; Iran; ???