We cannot effectively combat terrorism without a clear definition of what it is.
"We cannot effectively combat terrorism without a clear definition of what it is." Discuss.
If we are to critically analyse this statement, we must first look at what ‘terrorism’ is, what a ‘clear definition’ of terrorism should include and whether one is available to us, and what ‘effectively combatting’ terrorism is considered to be. So, what definitions of terrorism are available to us today? Etymologically, the word ‘Terrorism’ is derived from the Latin root “terreo”, meaning “to frighten or alarm, or to deter by terror.”1 Terreo is itself derived from the proto-Indo-European root “-tre”, which translates as “to shake” or “the act of shaking”. The Oxford Dictionary sets out its own definition of ‘Terrorism’, which states: “1. A system of terror. 2. A Policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or being terrorised”2. Would this fulfil our requirement of a ‘clear’ definition? In order to say for sure, we must also look at the definition of a clear definition. Re-consulting the Oxford Dictionary, we can see that ‘clear’ is defined as something “easy to perceive, understand or interpret”3, would the definition of terrorism posed about be considered “easy to perceive…”? Of course, so by all trains of logic and reason we have our ‘clear definition’ in order to attempt to combat terrorism, do we not? But this definition is just one of many, made from a wide range of perspective, opinions and biases and is not suitable to fill our purpose. A ‘clear’ definition is merely an unambiguous one, but is not synonymously a ‘correct’, ‘just’ or ‘accurate’ definition, nor is it one that can properly address the intricate religious, political and personal details that must be acknowledged whenever discussing terrorism. “Remember that terrorism is a complicated, diverse and multi-determined phenomenon that resists simple definition and undermines all efforts at objectivity.”4 A
If we are to critically analyse this statement, we must first look at what ‘terrorism’ is, what a ‘clear definition’ of terrorism should include and whether one is available to us, and what ‘effectively combatting’ terrorism is considered to be. So, what definitions of terrorism are available to us today? Etymologically, the word ‘Terrorism’ is derived from the Latin root “terreo”, meaning “to frighten or alarm, or to deter by terror.”1 Terreo is itself derived from the proto-Indo-European root “-tre”, which translates as “to shake” or “the act of shaking”. The Oxford Dictionary sets out its own definition of ‘Terrorism’, which states: “1. A system of terror. 2. A Policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or being terrorised”2. Would this fulfil our requirement of a ‘clear’ definition? In order to say for sure, we must also look at the definition of a clear definition. Re-consulting the Oxford Dictionary, we can see that ‘clear’ is defined as something “easy to perceive, understand or interpret”3, would the definition of terrorism posed about be considered “easy to perceive…”? Of course, so by all trains of logic and reason we have our ‘clear definition’ in order to attempt to combat terrorism, do we not? But this definition is just one of many, made from a wide range of perspective, opinions and biases and is not suitable to fill our purpose. A ‘clear’ definition is merely an unambiguous one, but is not synonymously a ‘correct’, ‘just’ or ‘accurate’ definition, nor is it one that can properly address the intricate religious, political and personal details that must be acknowledged whenever discussing terrorism. “Remember that terrorism is a complicated, diverse and multi-determined phenomenon that resists simple definition and undermines all efforts at objectivity.”4 A