After reading David Rodin’s, Terrorism without Intention I had some
questions about how he chose to define the word “terrorism”. In the article,
terrorism has multiple definitions. The definition I will focus most on defines
terrorism as “the deliberate, negligent,
or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for
ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process.”
I do not agree with this definition. The definition includes “negligent and
reckless” uses of force. How can an act of terrorism be negligent or reckless? This
is implying that even if harm inflicted on noncombatants is completely
unintentional, it is considered terrorism. In my eyes, this is not accurate. I
think terrorism is absolutely deliberate, and premeditated. The hijackers on
Tuesday morning of September 11, 2001 knew exactly what they were doing and had
a specific goal in mind. Their goal, their intention, was to kill a mass amount
of innocent, noncombatant, American lives. At no point, were their actions
negligent or reckless. The article looks at the controversial case of aerial
bombardment against targets within or adjacent to civilian populations which is
almost certain to generate noncombatant casualties. I believe that if
noncombatants die in an act of violence aimed at enemies doing evil, it is not
terrorism. This issue also makes me think about Operation Neptune Spear, the
most famous raid conducted since the September 11th attacks. Operation
Neptune Spear was the mission the Navy SEAL team six carried out leading to the
killing of Terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden. The compound that Bin Laden was
staying had women and children living there as well, some were noncombatant. What
if to get through the door that Osama was in SEALs had to breach the door with
an explosive charge? That charge could’ve killed noncombatant people that were
in the room. Would that have been considered an act of terrorism? I would hope
that no one would believe that it was terrorism. War is an ugly and messy thing
and unfortunately noncombatant people are going to die, however, I do not
believe that when they do it is terrorism. If the intentions are not to deliberately
cause harm to noncombatants I believe it is not terrorism.
If you don't want to call these acts 'terrorism', would you put them on the same moral footing as terrorism? Didn't al Qaeda believe that we were doing evil? If you wouldn't, why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to call these acts 'terrorism', would you put them on the same moral footing as terrorism? Didn't al Qaeda believe that we were doing evil? If you wouldn't, why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there is a necessity to make a clear distinction between the acts of the unprovoked aggressor and counter-operations when defining terrorism, but believe that "reckless and negligent" does not necessarily mean that an act of terror is not pre-meditated. To me, reckless and negligent rather refer to the lack of consideration of noncombatant casualties.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you that using words like "reckless" is completely inaccurate in describing the acts of someone wishing to instill terror. I also agree that it does not necessarily have to be premeditated. There is definitely something to be said for premeditated attacks like 9/11, but there is also the element of spontaneous, yet terror-enducing acts. These acts cannot be placed under the same definition, in my opinion, yet they both have the same effect.
ReplyDeleteThough he uses the terms reckless and negligent, it is important to look at the second half of his statement which stresses "by state or non-state actors for ideological ends". Therefore, if the attack was completely random or accidental, there would be no ideological factors involved and it would not fit Rodin's definition of terrorism. Though I do no think his definition is full proof, I think it is one of the better definitions I have seen on the controversial topic of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI agree that terrorist attacks are deliberate and premeditated. However, the definition of reckless: "utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action". I believe that Rodin was correct when he used "reckless" in his description of terrorism. Terrorist are unconcerned of their consequences and are even willing to kill non combatants.
ReplyDeletei agree with Danielle that terrorist attacks can be considered reckless. These individuals are unconcerned with the impact of their attacks on the society. While it can be argued that only deliberate and premeditated attacks are terrorism, I believe that more spontaneous acts of violence can still be considered as terroristic.
ReplyDeleteI believe that by "reckless" Rodin simply means the lack of thought by the terrorist party of who, besides their target, is put in danger by these attacks. Reckless does not necessarily mean "unintentional." Instead, it means that an act is committed without the necessary (or appropriate) forethought. Did Timothy McVeigh consider the fact that he would kill many non-government workers, including everyday civilians-men, woman, and children-when he bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City?
ReplyDelete