SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!

National Debt Clock


A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!

Eurabia Watch


Family Security Matters has started a new feature, called Eurabia Watch, which will warn Americans that what happens in Europe with political correctness and Islamism will soon be on its way to America. What do you think?







View results


Sign Up for FSM Updates!

HOME > PUBLICATIONS > Exclusive: Not Every Violent Act Amounts to Terrorism

February 22, 2010

Exclusive: Not Every Violent Act Amounts to Terrorism

Gadi Adelman

Print This
  Comments (14)

Watching the media coverage this past week on the plane crash in Austin, I found myself yet again screaming at my television. Far too many pundits were calling it an act of terror after all the facts had shown that Joseph Stack had committed an act of suicide by flying his private plane into a building that housed IRS offices.
 
What is the Definition of terrorism? There isn’t just one. There are thousands.
 
This subject is, without a doubt, the most argued about subject with terrorist experts and novices alike. The amount of books and papers on the definition of terrorism alone is extraordinary. While studying terrorism over the years, I have seen and heard more definitions and the arguments for those definitions than there are terrorist groups themselves. No two groups, organization or country can seem to agree on a definition and this is one of the reasons that terrorism will continue to exist on a worldwide scale. Without an agreed upon definition to explain terrorism, let alone understand it, how can anyone begin to defeat it? This is simple logic: before you can combat anything, let alone live with or defeat it, you must first understand it. 
 
Anytime I speak or lecture on terrorism, I always devote a great deal of time on its definition. Not having an agreed-upon definition is one of the biggest problems facing this nation and the world as a whole. An Internet search on the “definition of terrorism” will give you over 8.5 million results.
 
The United Nations does not even have a definition on terrorism because they could never come to an agreement on one, although many within the UN have tried. The first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made in 1937 by the League of Nations, the forerunner to the UN, but the drafted definition never came into existence.
 
The various Departments of our own Government cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. All government agencies are required to follow the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004; however, even in following the IRTPA, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), The National Security Agency (N.S.A), The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and The State Department all have different definitions of terrorism.
 
This in itself is an oxymoron. How can all these United States government agencies have different definitions? How can we, as a country, work together against something when our own government cannot even agree on a single definition?  This is my biggest pet peeve in the counterterror or antiterrorism argument.
 
In their book Political Terrorism, Schmidt and Youngman cited 109 different definitions of terrorism, which they obtained in a survey of leading academics in the field. From these definitions, the authors isolated the following recurring elements, in order of their statistical appearance in the definitions:
 
  • Violence, force (appeared in 83.5 percent of the definitions);
  • political (65 percent);   
  • fear, emphasis on terror (51 percent);                         
  • threats (47 percent);                                                          
  • psychological effects and anticipated reactions (41.5 percent); 
  • discrepancy between the targets and the victims (37.5 percent);     
  • intentional, planned, systematic, organized action (32 percent);   
  • methods of combat, strategy, tactics (30.5 percent).     
 
After having read hundreds of definitions and studying terrorism, I have written my own definition, which is comprised of many of the above noted statistics. I wrote this after 9/11 because I felt that a more complete and accepted definition was needed. For example, most that I have read excludes combat troops from their definition – as if just because one is a member of the armed services, he can not be a victim of terrorism. Others that I have read did not include religion, and so on. My definition will not be accepted by terrorist organizations or those states that sponsor it, but I am not trying to be politically correct – nor am I attempting to unite the world on one definition. Maybe if the United States and/or the United Nations adopted one definition, they would immediately know and understand that as soon as any country or organization dismissed the definition that they are probably terrorists or supporters of terrorism themselves.
 
You may notice that my definition uses several other definitions as a guide. The main difference is that I do not make distinctions between domestic or foreign terror, nor do I place terrorism into different categories. It does not matter if you die in the United States or in a foreign country just as it does not matter what type of terrorist kills you. Dead is dead, just as terrorism is terrorism.
 
My definition is as follows:
 
A terrorist incident is a premeditated violent act or an act dangerous to human life, which is politically or religiously motivated and perpetrated against noncombatant and combatant targets alike by sub national groups or clandestine agents without regard to race, religion, national origin, gender or age. These acts are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence social objectives; the policy of a government; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction.
 
Short, simple, and to the point. 
 
Let’s stop using labels and throwing out words that that have far-reaching consequences when it is a matter of life and death and we are at war. Phrases such as eco-terrorism, cyber-terrorism and narco-terrorism, or using the word terrorism any time there is a criminal act or tragedy, only helps diminish its true meaning. Our government obviously has a problem with its own words, definitions and political correctness. We need not help it along by encouraging the use of incorrect terminology.
 
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He is currently writing his first book, Terrorism; Understanding the Threat. He can be reached at antiterror@nc.rr.com.  

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (14) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!

Print This
  Comments (14)

In your definition, you must include the threat of these acts mentioned above. The Terror "threat" is costing billions at airports, building access, computer system operations, shipping and transportation systems etc. etc. The cost of the threat of potential attack is passed onto the American people. That is why terror is terror, you do not know what is real, perceived or just words to evoke a reaction...... Thank you though for the analysis..
LA Mike

posted by: LA Mike
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM

I see a problem with this definition. The definition implies that a terrorist can only be someone belonging to a 'group' but how large this group is supposed to be? Is 2 people enough or does it have to 100? The amount of damage/anger/ideology may be completely unrelated to how many people were involved at planning and execution. Hence the definition implies there can never be a 'lone' terrorist which in my opinion is a very artificial assumption.

posted by: Michael J.
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 02:45 PM

USA PATRIOT Act, title VIII, section 802,terrorism is the following: “[An] act of terrorism means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” Terrorism expert I don't think so.

posted by: phil manning
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 03:17 PM

Your definition has a grammatical issue. It includes the fragment "the policy of a government", but doesn't include a verb. Do you mean "influence the policy of a government"? Perhaps you mean "change the policy of a government"?

I also agree with Phil that the USA PATRIOT act definition seems quite clear. Perhaps you'd like to comment on how you believe that your definition is superior?

posted by: MikeK
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 03:27 PM

I agree with Michael J. I believe a terrorist can be one man. And the problem is, one man's terrorist can easily be other's freedom fighter. I think the core idea is the intent to create terror in a general population -- without targeting a particular person.
I disagree with the fact we are 'at war'. I think the author should look-up the definition of war. Its been expanded way to much so that people can be incited by it and everything can be done in the name of idea that we are 'at war'. At this rate we'll be at war for the next 100 years. By the way one of the first terrorist acts after WWII was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

posted by: Jerry J
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 03:34 PM

It seems to me that it is the "intent" which is critical. A "terrorist" act is one which is intended to "terrorize" or "terrify" a large number of innocent people into realizing and fearing their vulnerability for the actions of others.

The recent general aviation tragedy in Austin, Texas does not fit into this category as the "intent" of the pilot was to strike a blow at the IRS and to gain publicity for his manifesto, rather than to terrorize the people of Austin, or IRS agents, or anyone else, for that matter.

posted by: Charles Morgenstein
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 03:44 PM

I strongly disagree with Charles. His manifesto clearly spelled out grievances against the US government and its tax laws, so by the definition cited above in the Patriot Act he clearly is a terrorist. If say he struck a bank because he was unhappy with some loan/foreclosure that would be a different matter.

posted by: Michael J.
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 03:54 PM

Whatever, the definition of a terrorist may be? Nothing can come close to the true motivation in every terrorist's heart.

Look at that 911 photograph closely and examine the smoke? For you will soon discover for yourself, the true definition of a real terrorist. Its not a flesh or blood being? No its more "Spirit"

posted by: Paul West
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 08:48 PM

I agree with some points and disagree with others. Simply citing the US legal definition of terrorism doesn't prove the author wrong. Far from it.

The article specifically points out that there's no internationally accepted definition. Americans view it through a very specific lens, one certainly tinted by 9/11, which is completely understandable. The Patriot Act definition was one written a month after 9/11 out of need. That doesn't make it necessarily right or universally accepted.

There's no way the Austin, TX plane crash was a terrorist act. It was a man disgruntled with the IRS. Simply because he wrote a "manifesto" instead of a short essay, that doesn't change it from an act of suicidal stupidity to an act of terrorism. He didn't intend to shake American faith in the IRS, nor did he have the power to do that through his online ramblings, no matter how compelling or planned his language seemed. If someone is annoyed at the government, writes a few thousand words and then crashes a car into police headquarters, is that person a terrorist? No way.

I think Charles M. makes an excellent point which is mirrored in the author's definition of terrorism and the Patriot Act. It's about "intent," and the desire to change the way you live your life out of fear. Paul W. gets at this feeling by mentioning "spirit."

Mr. Adelman, as an Israeli, understands this to a depth which few in this country have experienced. A suicide bomber blowing up a coffee shops on a busy street isn't something we as Americans can fully comprehend, as acts of terrorism in the US have been fairly large scale (and, lately, they've been foiled, i.e., underwear bomber). Does that make him automatically right on everything terrorism-related? Of course not, but it's a different perspective on an issue that drives a lot of decisions at the highest levels in this country.

But I don't think the author was ever intending to posit his definition as the best one. Rather, he was trying to curtail the blatantly incorrect use of the word we hear so often today. And maybe inspire readers to think of how they view terrorism.

posted by: OL
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 11:14 PM

Thanks for wasting five minutes of my time. You are an idiot. First off, the idiot who crashed the Piper into the IRS building was no doubt a terrorist to me. He was also a very mentally disturbed loon. Who cares if there is a clear definition of "terrorist"? Seriously? What will this prove? Who cares how you use it? Will it make this idiot's actions more justified if he didn't fall under that category? You are a moron for putting this much thought into something so obvious. The guy "terrorized" everyone in that building and in America with his actions. As a commercial airline pilot, I can tell you much about terrorism. I have spent much of my career preparing for and learning to counter terrorism in the sky should it ever occur on my watch. Terrorism (to me) is simply exactly what it implies... terror. If someone tried storming the cockpit, setting off a bomb or killing my passengers or my crew, that is terror... no matter what nationality they come from. You are a moron for wasting everyone's time in writting about something you're wrong and know nothing about.

posted by: A Commercial Pilot
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 06:31 AM

I agree with OL - points made by Adelman are valid and factual. There are many definitions of terrorism, however, and one of them, in my humble opinion, is to frighten and kill - regardless of your nationality!

posted by: EMA
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 10:54 AM

First, my opinion of the action of the disgruntled private pilot who crashed his aircraft into the IRS building is, without a doubt, a terrorist act, period!

Secondly, to the commercial pilot who wasted five minutes of his precious time calling the author and “idiot,” – I understand your frustration, but was the name calling justifiable? What did you accomplish with your “terrorizing” expression? Why waste your time commenting? Provide your rebuttal and give the reason why and that’s that! Geez, I won’t want to be a passenger in your plane, be your copilot, nor have you as an instructor. I highly recommend that your employer have you attend anger management classes.

Third, ladies and gentlemen, in this forum, each of you, including the author, are simply exercising your constitutional right of freedom of expression. Thus, there is no need to throw temper tantrums or insults at each over differing opinions. It's part of our legal system. As Rodney King cried while our exemplified law enforcement officers were “terrorizing” him with blows for his offensive behavior, let me comment: “can’t we all just get along?” hehehehe!

Fourth, simply said, terrorism, by definition, rest in the eyes of the beholder. Anyone using a violent act to cause injury, death, overthrows, strike fear or terrorize innocent human beings in name of a cause or an ideology, be it justified or not, is a “terrorist.”

Let me provide a few simple layman examples:

The American Revolution - the American patriots were considered to be "terrorist" by British colonial rulers and the throne of England because they “terrorized” the “Red Coats.” But to the distinguished freedom fighters, they were just that, freedom fighters against the establishment or thrown of England;

The Klu Klux Klan, in my opinion, are considered terrorist, because they terrorize a sector of the U.S. population, disrupted the freedom of millions, threaten the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of others, and presented a threat to the economy of a nation. They are terrorists!

Right to bear arms groupies are terrorists! Why will you need heavy automatic weapons in your home for hunting unless you are planning on a grand scale slaughtering of animals or people or overthrow a democratically elected government.

The so called Colombian freedom fighters known as the FLNs “narcos,” are also terrorists, I do not think I need to expand and the reason why – bombings, assassinations…etc.

The bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma where innocent people died was an act of a terrorist. Because you hate someone does not give you the right or justify going out and killing people you did not create.

Yep, definitively, the crazy Texan who flew his plane in the IRS building qualifies as a terrorist, it was not an accident. 911 was an act of terrorism. The bombing of Peal Harbor was an act of war. The release of the atomic bomb on Japan, yep, an act of war, although some may argue the contrary. Hitler’s disgusting actions, again, an act of war, and yes, arguable.

Finally, only God will judge us for who we are, and for our despicable action against humanity.

Charming Aviator

posted by: TR
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 01:08 PM

The amount of ignorance and just plain bad manners displayed by some of the posters in this thread is shocking, though in the modern internet age, hardly surprising. Its always easy to run ones mouth (well, keyboard) when one is merely a faceless entity on the other end of an internet connection.

Mr. Adelman expressed his opinion in regards to a fact. It seems that almost no two organizations/governments seem to have the same definition of terrorism. I share his opinion that this is a problem.

Words do mean things (lest they be reduced to mere animal gruntings), so yes it does make a difference how they are defined. Failure to come to an agreement about what the word(s) in question actually represent will hinder efforts to reduce or eliminate percieved threats. Especially when the effort is undertaken by multiple agencies or (especially) allied nations.

And, to TR above. Please. "Right to bear arms groupies" are, in your view, the same as the FLN and KKK? Especially ironic given that the Patriots of the Revolution would fall into that same category. You might also be interested to know that the Revolution wasn't fought about hunting. Spare the Brady Campaign propaganda, please. In fact, reread your comments to the commercial pilot and take your own advice. Just because you disagree with someone...

In the end, we can argue all we want about whether or not Joseph Stack was a "terrorist". I would submit that if he was one, he was a highly ineffective one. Where was the terror?

Cheers,

Concerned Reader

posted by: Concerned Reader
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 09:03 PM

There is a big elephant in the room many of you folks are ignoring and that is Terrorism requires a political element.

The IRS suicide flyer had a personal problem with the IRS - his actions were not meant to exact a political end beyond his own rage and frustration. No need for him to file an extension. I hope the victims sue the crap out of his family so they spend their lives in abject poverty and shame.

The Spain Terrorist attacks were meant to turn an election, and they did.

9/11 was an act of war committed against the USA. The only problem was the USA did not declare war on Political Fundamentalist Islam. We declared war on Terrorism which is a tactic - big mistake Pres. Bush.

Hassan was a Political Islamist Terrorist who committed his terrorism for the sake of the Umma (the world Muslim Community) Article 10 Sec. 8 says he is a pirate and should be shot on sight.

Zazi and Gang are terrorists caught before the bombs exploded therefore he is a traitor and should be hung by the neck until dead.

Good Muslims follow the Qur'an and Sunna to the letter as Allah demanded they submit too. Bad Muslims talk of peace and finding common ground. Good and Bad Muslims will follow Allah's Laws over our Constitution until the end of time.

Islam is Sharia and Sharia is Islam. Anything or anybody who promotes Sharia Law is our enemy either domestically or foreign.

That is the bitter reality folks. Disregard at your own peril.

God Bless America and God Bless our Troops!

AMERICA AKBAR

posted by: Radio Jihad
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 10:52 PM