What Makes a Terroristic Act?

The only universally accepted attribute of the term “terrorism” is pejorative. It is something that bad guys do. Currency speculation is labeled “economic terrorism,” domestic violence “domestic terrorism,” and even crank telephone calls “telephone terrorism.” This is because when one is successfully able to pin the label “terrorist” on his/her opponent, he/she has gone a long way towards winning the dimension of public relations of any conflict.

In fact, even terrorists do not like to be called as such. Osama bin Laden said: “If killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.” Abimael Guzman, the Peruvian academic turned leader of the Maoist Shining Path declared: “They claim we’re terrorists. I would like to give the following answer so that everyone can think about it: has it or has it not been Yankee imperialism and particularly Reagan who has branded all revolutionary movements as terrorists, yes or no? This is how they attempt to discredit and isolate us in order to crush us.” The Chechen leader, Shamil Basayev, responsible for the Beslan school siege of September 2004 explained: “Okay. So, I am a terrorist. But what would you call them? If they are keepers of constitutional order, if they are anti-terrorists, then I spit on all these agreements and nice words.” Again, Osama bin Laden was reported to have said: “There’s an Arabic proverb that says, she accused me of having her malady and then snuck away.”

But, what really makes an act terroristic?

In Louise Richardson’s What Terrorists Want (Understanding the Terrorist Threat), one finds seven characterizations of terrorism, or a deliberate and violent targeting of civilians for political purpose.

Firstly, it is an act that is political inspired. And this differentiates terrorism from a crime. For, in point of fact, it is precisely because terrorists have political purpose that they are, indeed, terrorists. The Bombay attack was an example. Definitely, the attackers who were said to have trained in Pakistan were not homo-haters. They had a political statement to make. And they did!

Secondly, it involves violence. Remember the 9/11 and the Bali Bombing. Remember the war on Iraq, too.

Thirdly, the point of terrorism is to communicate a (political) message. For, definitely, it is not violence just for the sake of violence, or even violence in the expectation of defeating the enemy. It is a violence to convey a political message. An al-Qaeda spokesperson said, after the 9/11 attack: “It rang the bells of restoring Arab and Islamic glory.”