Terrorism and Extortion are very similar in action but where they differ the most is with intended results.
Extortion: Using violence or the threat of violence to create an environment where actions toward the victim lead to the victim giving the perpetrator(s) something of value.
Terrorism: Using violence of the threat of violence to create an environment where actions towards the victim lead to society giving the perpetrator(s) something of value.
When defining terrorism it is pertinent to first set what parameters the definition is adhered to. If we took a general definition of terrorism and said that it is simply the act of generating fear to elicit the desired response of the issuer then we can say all governments engage in terrorism to control the activities of their populace. Threat of going to jail unless you meet social norms would fit into this definition of terrorism. The same could be said about having a strong military imposing the will of a country upon another country. Again this would meet the simple definition of terrorism.
Definitions by governments declare that terrorism is any activities conducted by non governmental agencies or entities against governmental or non-governmental entities in order to cause chaos. This allows governments to declare “war” on what they deem is terrorism.
Individuals that are indisposed towards the current government define terrorism as the systematic and deliberate act of a repressive regime to suppress the rights of their people. Often claiming that a government is a government of terror gives the “freedom-fighters” a license to respond in extremely violent means as they are morally vindicated when they label the government as the terrorists.
When a “state” sponsors organizations or entities that use terrorism as a chief tactic then they are either considered state-sponsors-of-terrorism, or they are assisting a freedom-fighting organization. This is a very dangerous form of interpretation because the definition is completely based upon which side of the ideological coin you fall. Wars fought in South America, Near East, Middle East, and Africa between the Communists and Capitalists are a prime example of this.
In any event the victor writes the history books. During the American Revolution the “Patriots” often engaged in acts of terrorism but due to the United States wresting control of America from a tyrannical ruler during the “War of Independence”, they could easily write off those actions as necessary when facing such atrocities from a government. One would just have to read letters written by British soldiers to hear a completely different view of the “Patriot’s” actions.
Terrorism is hard to define because each variant in society will have a different view of terrorism when it is compared to different aspect in their paradigm. In the simplest form Terrorism is exactly what I stated earlier “the act of generating fear to elicit the desired response of the issuer.” However the exact definition of terrorism changes with each instance that it is assigned to explain. The terrorism that was conducted by Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre during the Reign of Terror in France is much different than the terrorism used by the Army of God and their anti-abortion pro-Christian agenda. The part that all can agree upon is that Terrorism in any event must always effect non-combatants or innocents in a negative way, otherwise it would just be considered war and a separate word would never have been formed.
Extortion: Using violence or the threat of violence to create an environment where actions toward the victim lead to the victim giving the perpetrator(s) something of value.
Terrorism: Using violence of the threat of violence to create an environment where actions towards the victim lead to society giving the perpetrator(s) something of value.
When defining terrorism it is pertinent to first set what parameters the definition is adhered to. If we took a general definition of terrorism and said that it is simply the act of generating fear to elicit the desired response of the issuer then we can say all governments engage in terrorism to control the activities of their populace. Threat of going to jail unless you meet social norms would fit into this definition of terrorism. The same could be said about having a strong military imposing the will of a country upon another country. Again this would meet the simple definition of terrorism.
Definitions by governments declare that terrorism is any activities conducted by non governmental agencies or entities against governmental or non-governmental entities in order to cause chaos. This allows governments to declare “war” on what they deem is terrorism.
Individuals that are indisposed towards the current government define terrorism as the systematic and deliberate act of a repressive regime to suppress the rights of their people. Often claiming that a government is a government of terror gives the “freedom-fighters” a license to respond in extremely violent means as they are morally vindicated when they label the government as the terrorists.
When a “state” sponsors organizations or entities that use terrorism as a chief tactic then they are either considered state-sponsors-of-terrorism, or they are assisting a freedom-fighting organization. This is a very dangerous form of interpretation because the definition is completely based upon which side of the ideological coin you fall. Wars fought in South America, Near East, Middle East, and Africa between the Communists and Capitalists are a prime example of this.
In any event the victor writes the history books. During the American Revolution the “Patriots” often engaged in acts of terrorism but due to the United States wresting control of America from a tyrannical ruler during the “War of Independence”, they could easily write off those actions as necessary when facing such atrocities from a government. One would just have to read letters written by British soldiers to hear a completely different view of the “Patriot’s” actions.
Terrorism is hard to define because each variant in society will have a different view of terrorism when it is compared to different aspect in their paradigm. In the simplest form Terrorism is exactly what I stated earlier “the act of generating fear to elicit the desired response of the issuer.” However the exact definition of terrorism changes with each instance that it is assigned to explain. The terrorism that was conducted by Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre during the Reign of Terror in France is much different than the terrorism used by the Army of God and their anti-abortion pro-Christian agenda. The part that all can agree upon is that Terrorism in any event must always effect non-combatants or innocents in a negative way, otherwise it would just be considered war and a separate word would never have been formed.
Comments