Redefining Terrorism

 Blake Burchill

International Politics 

Blog Post 4

Redefining Terrorism 

The attacks on 9/11 were the beginning of a new era of terrorism. It made the US realize that this is a reality that could happen again and they needed to do everything in their power to stop potential future attacks. This leads to a terrorist watchlist overseas and at home but this brings up the question of what individuals and groups makes are considered terrorists. Every year there are attacks in the US and while each is terrible, not all of them are considered terrorism. If a white man shoots up a school, he is considered to have mental problems but if a Muslim man does the same thing, it is a terrorist attack on American values. In the perception of Americans, the color of your skin and your nationality can make you a potential terrorist, “Since 2001 the terrorist has come to be imagined almost exclusively as Muslim or Arab” (Husain). If a group or individual is deemed as a terrorist, the government has few limits on the ways they can capture that individual. This can be positive towards individuals who are actually going to commit horrific acts. Some people want to disassemble to term together because the definition of terrorism is too vague and discriminates against certain cultures and skin colors. While this seems ethical, dissembling the term totally could cause many problems with being able to stop those who really intend to commit harm. The US people and the government do not need to abolish the term terrorism of who they consider terrorists but they need to create a set of guidelines that any person of any race or political stance can fit in. By narrowing down what a terrorist is considered, they will have more credibility when it comes to stopping that person or group from committing acts of violence. 

The US people and government creating certain guidelines of what is considered terrorism would remove stereotypes while also keeping the country safe. What scared the American people is that by deeming someone a terrorist, the government has the power to do whatever they want against them. “Today it is possible for the state to execute any degree of violence against those it labels terrorists. The power and value of this label for justifying state violence comes from its accumulated racial meanings from the mid-twentieth century to today” (Husain).  This is a problem because there are no guidelines on who is considered a terrorist but it usually is related to racial meanings. While this is currently a negative thing, it could be turned positive if the people they were chasing fit under the guidelines that they could create. This is because you would want the government to do anything in its power to hunt down people who really intend to commit harm no matter what race or political views they have. These guidelines would have to include all people and really consider if their acts are worthy of being a terrorist. While it is hard to have exact guidelines, there is a range that could be created. The main problem now is that the definition of terrorism is too vague. “To be called a terrorist is, by definition, to have one’s political ideas exist outside the scope of acceptable discourse and licit protest” (Husain). Most people have political views that are not acceptable but does that make them terrorists? If the term was ‘an individual who commits acts of violence on a larger scale on innocents because they do not share their own beliefs' that would narrow it down to the bad people who will do the most harm. and yes that can include people like white supremacists or school shooters or a Muslim blowing up a deli.  

Having guidelines for what is considered terrorism will take the power of the word away from the US government and will make the war on terror strictly for safety reasons. The government can use the word terrorist to delegitimize political groups for their own gain. By deeming a group as a terrorist, people will associate that group with violence and terror even if they are not. “In this way, the terrorist can not only be disappeared as a person but their politics can be disappeared, too” (Hussain). If the government does not like a group of people's political views or their right to protest, who’s going to stop them from doing this often. If anyone who protests with an opinion has deemed a terrorist then we would take away the seriousness of the term and then the real terrorists would gain power. By making guidelines for what a terrorist is, the government would lose this power making it more legit when a group or individual is called a terrorist. 

Sources

Terror and abolition. (2020, June 11). Boston Review. https://bostonreview.net/articles/atiya-husain-terror-and-abolition/