Defining terrorism: concepts, challenges, and contemporary perspectives

Terrorism

Defining Terrorism

Environmentalists have differing views and values regarding the sale and use of sports utility vehicles (SUVs), compared to the manufacturers and owners. To the environmentalists, owners of SUVs are polluters, harming the environment for their own enjoyment and pleasure. For the SUV manufacturers there is the argument that the vehicles and by extension the companies, are fully compliant with all legislation. It may also be argued that while some environmental groups may not like SUVs, many consumers do like them, otherwise they would not sell. The SUV owners themselves cite the desire for a large comfortable vehicle that they see as a car, which is provided for by the current commercial environment (Shpritz 1). A significant problem appears to be the way in which legislation controls, or fails to control, fuel efficiency on SUV's. Even the environmentalists recognize that the problem is with the legislation; one environmental supporter, Jeff Barrow, states that the problem is the way these vehicles "fall between the cracks on the federal fuel efficiency standards" (Shpritz 1). Despite this, there have been numerous attacks on SUVs by environmentalists, setting them alight and vandalizing dealerships associated with their sale (Shpritz 1; Tamaki et al. 1). In an article outlining the events Shpritz (1) as referred to the attacks as "domestic terrorism," while Tamaki (et al. 1) refers to the attackers as vandals acting in the name of environmentalism, these are two very different terms, used to refer to similar acts. There is little doubt that the environmentalists acting in order to try and make their message heard, possibly out of frustration, and using acts of violence against property to gain attention. However, is it fair to call those who are simply fighting for their view to be heard as domestic terrorist, or is this a fair label considering the amount of damage they are causing and the potential to create fear in those who see the acts?

The problem of determining whether or not those who set fire to the SUV's and damaged the dealerships are domestic terrorists, or may be defined as activists, rebels or counter terrorists, is difficult. The first stage is to consider exactly what is meant by terrorism. There is no singular fully encompassing definition of terrorism, Schmidt and Joungman in a book entitled political terrorism, found more than 109 different definitions for the meaning of terrorism. In order to identify a consensus on the meaning of the term, they undertook a survey of the definitions to identify characteristics on which the different definitions all agreed (Schmidt and Joungman 5). 83.5% all included the requirement for there to be violence or force, 65% required there to be a political element, 51% included the need for the act to focus on fear and place an emphasis on creating terror, 47% cited the need for it to create a threat, and 41.5% included consideration of the psychological effects and anticipated reactions that would be associated with acts of terrorism (Schmidt and Joungman 5). 37.5% stated that they would be a, discrepancy between the target and those who became big teams, and 32% stated that it had to be an intentionally planned and organized act (Schmidt and Joungman 5).

When examined this context the attacks on the SUVs are compliant with almost all of these elements. There is certainly violence with the vehicles being set on fire, and in undertaking these actions there is an implied threat that it will carry on, especially when an activist environmental group is taking responsibility for the actions. Fire is inherently associated with fear, although a major aspect of the action is the financial cost to the manufacturers and dealers and gaining attention. The aspect of political content may be more subjective. While it may be argued that the vehicles are legal, environmentalists may take a more ethical stance, arguing that was something is legal it is not necessarily mean that it is right. While legislation may force vehicle manufacturers to adopt more fuel-efficient standards for SUVs, it is possible for the manufacturers themselves to choose this path, adopting what the environmentalist may perceive ethical behavior. By creating a cost associated with continuing producing inefficient vehicles there may be a desire to create a fear that more attacks will occur, with the of these attacks possibly creating a motivation for the manufacturers to change, and for dealers to put pressure on manufacturers to change. In effect, environmentalists are trying to force change.

In trying to force change, does this make the environmentalists domestic terrorists? It is often cited that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Interestingly, Prof Benizion Netenyahu has stated that by definition a freedom fighter is not capable of undertaking terrorist acts. It is argued that those seeking to force change in the name of freedom have the ethical high ground and they do not purposefully attack innocents. For example, they do not attack small children or passers-by (Netenyahu 18). For terrorists the attack of innocents can be attractive, as it helps to increase the level of terror associated with their actions in order to force change (Netenyahu 9). In this context those who attacked the SUVs may be seen as freedom fighters, fighting for the environment, future generations and their beliefs, seeking to put right what is wrong with the practices of the commercial environment and absences of legislation. In their attacks it is only property that is damaged, innocents are not directly harmed, and the attacks are directly on those who are deemed to be perpetrators. So while some of the definitions of terrorism appear to apply, they are also avoiding some of the more insidious characteristics associated with terrorism. However, it often serves the purpose of the media to attach names such as domestic terrorism in order to sensationalize the story and gain the attention of the reader.