A Definition of Terrorism

I am not about to try to define... well, actually, I am. First, though, I am going to provide you, my readers, with a link to an article that spends a good deal of time and energy on the subject:The Definition of Terrorism, by Charles Ruby,was written after September 11th. In this article, Mr. Ruby addresses the question of what precisely is meant by the term 'Terrorism' -- and it turns out that this is not as simple a question as one might assumption. 'The use of terror as a means of coercion' is the most straightforward definition. It is, however, not the only possible definition as the article demonstrates.

It turns out that, in any discussion, the first and most important step should be to define terms.  If one does not do this, one will quickly encounter problems. A discussion in which participants are all using their own undisclosed definitions will quickly devolve into a shouting match with frustrated individuals unable to understand why the other side doesn't understand the 'simplest' thing! So, with that in mind, I will state that, for my purposes, in the previous blog, Terrorism is defined as 'the instilling of a state of fear/terror in an alien population for the purpose of disrupting political/civil/economic processes through the use of apparently random and senseless acts of violence.'

Now... what a nice tidy definition that is! And how truly effective it was. We are all so terrified that we forget that more people were killed in auto accidents than in the Twin Towers collapse. That, however, was huge and -- best of all -- played and replayed on all the television stations. Oh, what a Media Fest!! Indeed, if one were into conspiracy theories one might almost think that they had engineered the whole thing. At any rate, the media certainly made hay while the sun shone. They milked the subject and are still milking it, scaring Americans as best they can.

Of course, they knew that we were susceptible to this sort of thing... does anyone remember 'War of the Worlds'? That wasn't even real... and it was Radio, for heavens sake! You don't remember? Here is another link for you: http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/war_worlds_orson_welles_mercury.htm Orson Welles, in his wonderful voice, read H.G. Well's novella for Radio theater audiences in the United States. Repeatedly, through out the broad cast, Welles told audiences that this was a story, a fiction but somehow, people missed that part. A mass hysteria gripped a whole section of the country as people fled what they thought was an alien invasion. And are we so different now? In the name of 'safety' we are willing to surrender liberties for which our ancestors fought and fled and died.

I am not going on about this simply as a philosophical exercise. I am concerned because of my sons. My husband and I were discussing the difference between our own childhoods -- messy, dirty, and rather dangerous -- and those of today's children, and I have been reading 'Free Range Kids'. Combine those two events with the mess at the airports and suddenly I am seeing a cultural phenomenon, one that bothers me deeply. We are a culture steeped, it seems, in fear... fear of everything. Is this really how we want to live? Is this living at all? The answer, it would seem to me, is no. I did not give birth to my children to watch them hide from absolutely everything, to have them cringe at the smallest cut, to panic at the sight of a knife or a fire or a smidgen of dirt. And I do not want them to grow up in a world where the police are the enemy, where airports boast armed guards at every entrance and exit and where everyone, EVERYONE, including children, is assumed to be a terrorist in the making. I want to live in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' and if that means that the land is a little more dangerous then so be it. Bring on the danger. Isn't that part of being brave? Isn't that part of the price of freedom? I would rather have the danger -- and the freedom -- than the security at the cost of choice.