User:SAR23/Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective

Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective
Based on the below mentioned Information according to terrorism and Definition of terrorism, the Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective.

Terrorism: A political judgment?
Terrorism is a crime in all countries where such acts occur, and is defined by statute; see Definition of terrorism for particular definitions. Common principles among legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country and would, thus, label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

A LEGAL THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

Causes
The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict.

The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include:
 * Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state
 * Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups
 * Imposition of a particular form of government, such as democracy, theocracy, or anarchy
 * Economic deprivation of a population
 * Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

Weapon of the weakest
As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest".

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy
Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness to distinguish between actions authorized by a "legitimate" government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a "legitimate" government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existance of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term. For these reasons this criterion is not universally accepted. Most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.

Pejorative use
In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism that

" On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore."

'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.Google cached copy

The difference between the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the terms above can be summed up by the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is exemplified when a group that uses irregular military methods is an ally of a State against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the State and starts to use the same methods against its former ally. During World War II the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor, the Malayan Races Liberation Army, were branded terrorists by the British.Malayan People's Anti-Japanese ArmyMalayan Emergency, 16 June 1948 More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters during their war against the Soviet Union,Ronald Reagan, speech to National Conservative Political Action Conference 8 March, 1985. On the Spartacus Educational web site yet twenty years later when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled terrorism by George W. Bush. Groups accused of terrorism usually prefer terms that reflect legitimate military or ideological action. Lord Desai Hansard, House of Lords 3 September 1998 : Column 72, "''However, Jomo Kenyatta, Nelson Mandela and Menachem Begin&mdash;to give just three examples&mdash;were all denounced as terrorists but all proved to be successful political leaders of their countries and good friends of the United Kingdom.BBC NEWS:World: Americas: UN reforms receive mixed response BBC website "Of all groups active in recent times, the ANC perhaps represents best the traditional dichotomous view of armed struggle. Once regarded by western governments as a terrorist group, it now forms the legitimate, elected government of South Africa, with Nelson Mandela one of the world's genuinely iconic figures.

Sometimes states that are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether members of a certain organization are terrorists. For example for many years some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists, while it was using methods against one of United States closest allies, that, that ally (Britain), branded as terrorist attacks.

Weapon of the weakest
As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest".

Reasons for controversy
The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated to a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition.

Definitions

 * The definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) begins:


 * Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups.


 * The Online Etymology Dictionary refers to terrorism as the "systematic use of terror as a policy" and describes the word's origin in the specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France".

United Nations
United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism

United States
Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania:

In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us — this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group — they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says — one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

Criticisms of the term
Jason Burke, an expert in radical Islamic activity, has this to say on the word "terrorism":


 * "There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. the term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way." ("Al Qaeda", ch.2, p.22)

Other arguments include that:
 * There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
 * Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries.
 * Almost every serious attempt to define the term have been sponsored by governments who instinctively attempt to draw a definition which excludes bodies like themselves.
 * Most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations. Virtually no organisation openly calls itself terrorist.
 * Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist".
 * The word is very loosely applied and very difficult to challenge when it is being used inappropriately, for example in war situations or against non-violent persons.
 * It allows governments to apply a different standard of law to that of ordinary criminal law on the basis of a unilateral decision.
 * There is no hope that people will ever all agree who is "terrorist" and who is not.
 * The term as widely used in the West reflects a bias towards the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as "defence", even when that claim is considered dubious by some; any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labelled "terrorism".
 * If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents perceive them, such labels would be very controversial, for example:
 * State of Israel, USA but also the states of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban
 * The Contemporary Palestine Liberation Organization
 * Groups conducting revolution, such as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), are routinely denigrated as "terrorist"
 * Almost all guerrilla groups (like Tamil Tigers or Chechen rebels) are accused of being "terrorist", but almost all guerrilla groups accuse countries they fight against of likewise being "terrorist".

State sponsors
A state can sponsor terrorism by funding a terrorist organization, harboring terrorism, and also using state resources, such as the military, to directly perform acts of terrorism. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism or not vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such.

The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. For terrorist groups and their government sponsored supporters, it is crucial that they not be labeled a terrorist group; so as not to be labeled "terrorists" and by association as "terrorist nations". Groups that have described themselves as terrorists are therefore unknown. It is equally important for a group's opponents that the label "terrorist" be applied. The application "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim.SAR23 17:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)