2012-stoa-bb-012-aff-saudiarabia-submitted.docx€¦ · web viewthis is a comprehensive topicality...

GENERIC: TERRORISM TOPICALITY

GENERIC: DEFINITIONS & TOPICALITY

By Kathryn Sumner

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its foreign policy regarding international terrorism.

This is a comprehensive topicality brief (from a Negative perspective, although an Affirmative could use it if a definition fits their case) providing multiple definitions of terrorism and "foreign policy" that can be used to narrow the resolution and help argue topicality. There are too many broad definitions of terrorism and this brief should help by providing a more narrow approach. It distinguishes between terrorism and: the government, a hate crime, guerilla warfare, insurgency, crime, and lunatics.

It helps differentiate domestic terrorism and international terrorism. It also talks about how people stereotype and how there is an exaggerated tendency to call people terrorists on a whim. We also provide definitions of "foreign policy" that may be helpful for either Affirmatives or Negatives.

Generic Brief: Definitions & Topicality.................................................................................................................3FEDERAL DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM......................................................................................................................3

FISA definition of "international terrorism".........................................................................................................................................3Immigration Law definition of terrorism..............................................................................................................................................3State Department definition of "international terrorism"......................................................................................................................4

OTHER DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................4

1. There are many definitions of terrorism that are too broad................................................................................................4There are over 260 definitions of terrorism...........................................................................................................................................4The general understanding of terrorism is too broad: It gets applied to almost any act of violence.....................................................4Media definition is too broad, making the term meaningless...............................................................................................................5The definition of terrorism saying ‘anything that terrorizes’ is too broad............................................................................................5Definitions matter..................................................................................................................................................................................5

2. It’s not terrorism if it’s the government.............................................................................................................................6Terrorism definition (non-state organizations employing violence for political purposes)..................................................................6Government or state-sanctioned violence is terror, but not terrorism. Terrorism has to be a non-state actor......................................6

3. "Hate Crime" is different from terrorism...........................................................................................................................7Hate crime is based on bias...................................................................................................................................................................7Difference between hate crime and terrorism.......................................................................................................................................7

4. Guerilla warfare is different from terrorism.......................................................................................................................7Terrorism is often confused with guerilla warfare................................................................................................................................7Guerilla warfare seeks to control territory, while terrorism doesn't......................................................................................................8

5. Crime and terrorism are different.......................................................................................................................................8Definition of Terrorism.........................................................................................................................................................................8Definition of Crime...............................................................................................................................................................................8Terrorism has to do with politics...........................................................................................................................................................8Criminals are out for quick gain for themselves, while terrorists want to send a message or change the system................................9

6. A lunatic assassin isn’t necessarily terrorism.....................................................................................................................9Definition of terrorism (threat of violence in pursuit of political change)............................................................................................9Difference between lunatics and terrorism..........................................................................................................................................10Example of the difference between lunatics and terrorism.................................................................................................................10

7. Domestic terrorism is not the same as international terrorism.........................................................................................10

COPYRIGHT ©2018 MONUMENT PUBLISHING PAGE 1 OF 15 MONUMENTMEMBERS.COM

This release was published as part of Season 19 (2018-2019) school year for member debaters. See the member landing page for official release date and any notifications. This is proprietary intellectual content and may not be used without proper ownership.


Definition of domestic terrorism.........................................................................................................................................................10International terrorism.........................................................................................................................................................................11

8. The difference between insurgency and terrorism...........................................................................................................11Definition of insurgency......................................................................................................................................................................11Terrorism is indiscriminate..................................................................................................................................................................11The difference is indiscriminate vs. selective......................................................................................................................................11The difference between terrorism and insurgency is important..........................................................................................................11

9. There is an exaggerated tendency to stereotype or to call people ‘terrorists’ if we don’t like them................................12Some people see terrorists as looking a certain way...........................................................................................................................12Some people call all Muslims terrorists..............................................................................................................................................12Terrorists don’t necessarily look a certain way – we like to think they do in order to feel safer........................................................12The real meaning of terrorism is entirely political..............................................................................................................................13

DEFINITIONS OF "FOREIGN POLICY"..........................................................................................................................13Dealings with other nations.................................................................................................................................................................13Diplomatic dealings with other countries............................................................................................................................................13State interaction with other states........................................................................................................................................................13Foreign policy includes diplomacy, war, alliances and trade..............................................................................................................13

Works Cited............................................................................................................................................................14




GENERIC BRIEF: DEFINITIONS & TOPICALITY

FEDERAL DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM

FISA definition of "international terrorism"

Nicholas J. Perry 2004. (attorney; Assistant General Counsel for Immigration Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Office of the General Counsel) "The Numerous Federal Legal Definitions of Terrorism: The Problem of too Many Grails," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 30: Iss. 2, Article 3. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1127&context=jleg

Immigration Law definition of terrorism

Nicholas J. Perry 2004. (attorney; Assistant General Counsel for Immigration Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Office of the General Counsel) "The Numerous Federal Legal Definitions of Terrorism: The Problem of too Many Grails," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 30: Iss. 2, Article 3. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1127&context=jleg



https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1127&context=jleg





State Department definition of "international terrorism"

US Code Title 22 Section 2656f "Annual country reports on terrorism" (undated because it's a section of federal law) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f

(d)Definitions As used in this section—(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

OTHER DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS

1. There are many definitions of terrorism that are too broad

There are over 260 definitions of terrorism

Kamala Kelkar 2017. (Digital Associate Producer at PBS NewsHour Weekend. She works on investigative projects at PBS NewsHour Weekend. She has been a journalist for a decade, reporting for many media outlets including Al Jazeera English, the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, and Public Radio International’s The World.) 26 February 2017 “When it comes to defining ‘terrorism,’ there is no consensus” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/defining-terrorism-consensus

Since then, scholars, organizations and government agencies across the world have created more than 260 definitions of “terrorism,” which have been chronicled by Alex Schmid, a research fellow at the think tank the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. And debates continue about whether some historical figures, such as Gavrilo Princip who in 1914 assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajewo leading up to World War I, are terrorists, heroes or something else entirely.

The general understanding of terrorism is too broad: It gets applied to almost any act of violence

Bruce Hoffman 1998. (visiting senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Council on Foreign Relations and has been studying terrorism and insurgency for four decades; tenured professor in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service; also visiting professor of terrorism studies at St Andrews University, Scotland. He previously held the corporate chair in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency at the RAND Corporation.) 1998 “Inside Terrorism” https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html?mcubz=0

What is terrorism? Few words have so insidiously worked their way into our everyday vocabulary. Like `Internet' -- another grossly over-used term that has similarly become an indispensable part of the argot of the late twentieth century -- most people have a vague idea or impression of what terrorism is, but lack a more precise, concrete and truly explanatory definition of the word. This imprecision has been abetted partly by the modern media, whose efforts to communicate an often complex and convoluted message in the briefest amount of airtime or print space possible have led to the promiscuous labelling of a range of violent acts as `terrorism'. Pick up a newspaper or turn on the television and -- even within the same broadcast or on the same page -- one can find such disparate acts as the bombing of a building, the assassination of a head of state, the massacre of civilians by a military unit, the poisoning of produce on supermarket shelves or the deliberate contamination of over-the-counter medication in a chemist's shop all described as incidents of terrorism. Indeed, virtually any especially abhorrent act of violence that is perceived as directed against society -- whether it involves the activities of anti-government dissidents or governments themselves, organized crime syndicates or common criminals, rioting mobs or persons engaged in militant protest, individual psychotics or lone extortionists -- is often labelled `terrorism'.

Media definition is too broad, making the term meaningless



https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=22-USC-2110163473-995759733&term_occur=4&term_src=title:22:chapter:38:section:2656f

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=22-USC-866365149-995759734&term_occur=7&term_src=title:22:chapter:38:section:2656f

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f


Gregor Bruce 2017. (this article was published in the Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, a peer reviewed journal published by the Australasian Military Medicine Association. It is dedicated to supporting the publication of research and information on military medicine and veterans’ health, recognising that the impact of military service translates into health effects on military personnel long after they retire.) 14 August 2017 “Definition of Terrorism – Social and Political Effects” https://jmvh.org/article/definitionof-terrorism-social-and-political-effects/

The media use the word “terrorism” as a term that will persuade people to read newspapers and watch television news programmes. It does not use a precise definition but calls events “terrorism” to catch the attention of the public (eg “school bullying terrorism”, “terrorism in the western suburbs of Sydney”, “economic terrorism”, “West Indies cricket pace attack terrorism”). The main education of the public on terrorism is via the media and frequent misuse of the word will result in it becoming a meaningless cliché.

The definition of terrorism saying ‘anything that terrorizes’ is too broad


Dictionary definitions are of little help. The pre-eminent authority on the English language, the much-venerated Oxford English Dictionary, is disappointingly unobliging when it comes to providing edification on this subject, its interpretation at once too literal and too historical to be of much contemporary use:

Terrorism: A system of terror. 1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the revolution of 1789-94; the system of `Terror'. 2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.

These definitions are wholly unsatisfying. Rather than learning what terrorism is, one instead finds, in the first instance, a somewhat potted historical -- and, in respect of the modern accepted usage of the term, a uselessly anachronistic -- description. The second definition offered is only slightly more helpful. While accurately communicating the fear-inducing quality of terrorism, the definition is still so broad as to apply to almost any action that scares (`terrorizes') us. Though an integral part of `terrorism', this definition is still insufficient for the purpose of accurately defining the phenomenon that is today called `terrorism'.

Definitions matter

Dr. Gregor Bruce 2017. (senior clinical lecturer, medical education, Univ. of Aberdeen, this article was published in the Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, a peer reviewed journal published by the Australasian Military Medicine Association.) 14 August 2017 “Definition of Terrorism – Social and Political Effects” https://jmvh.org/article/definitionof-terrorism-social-and-political-effects/

There are many examples of perversion of definition by authoritarian states, such as the labelling of French and Greek Resistance fighters as “terrorists” by Nazi Germany and the March 2012 description of Syrian civilians as “terrorists” by Syrian President Bassar al Assad while they are being killed by Syrian Government agents (13). ). Misuse of the definition of terrorism can have far-reaching social and political consequences. Political parties and religions can be outlawed and persecuted. An individual who is convincingly defined as a terrorist loses many civil rights. If they happen to reside in certain areas of Afghanistan or Pakistan, they are at risk of being killed by a drone.




2. It’s not terrorism if it’s the government

Terrorism definition (non-state organizations employing violence for political purposes)

Laurie Fenstermacher, Larry Kuznar, Tom Rieger, and Anne Speckhard 2010. (Fenstermacher - Principal Electronics Engineer at Air Force Research Laboratory, Kuznar - anthropologist with topical specialties in terrorism, insurgency, tribal conflict, and decision theory. He works for National Security Innovations, Inc. Rieger - Senior Practice Expert for Gallup. Speckhard - director at International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism, Georgetown University School of Medicine.) January 2010 “Topical Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment (SMA) Multi-Agency and Air Force Research Laboratory Multi-Disciplinary White Papers in Support of Counter-Terrorism and Counter-WMD” https://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/publications/U_Counter_Terrorism_White_Paper_Final_January_2010.pdf

Terrorism is defined by U.S. Law (U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)) as the ―premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents and by the Oxford English Dictionary as ―a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised. Fundamentally, terrorism occurs when non-state organizations employ violence for political purposes and when the target of that violence is civilian (or military in non-combat settings), and the immediate purpose is to instill fear in a population.

Government or state-sanctioned violence is terror, but not terrorism. Terrorism has to be a non-state actor


Certainly, similar forms of state-imposed or state-directed violence and terror against a government's own citizens continue today. The use of so-called `death squads' (often off-duty or plain-clothes security or police officers) in conjunction with blatant intimidation of political opponents, human rights and aid workers, student groups, labour organizers, journalists and others has been a prominent feature of the right-wing military dictatorships that took power in Argentina, Chile and Greece during the 1970s and even of elected governments in El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia and Peru since the mid-1980s. But these state-sanctioned or explicitly ordered acts of internal political violence directed mostly against domestic populations -- that is, rule by violence and intimidation by those already in power against their own citizenry -- are generally termed `terror' in order to distinguish that phenomenon from `terrorism', which is understood to be violence committed by non-state entities.




3. "Hate Crime" is different from terrorism

Hate crime is based on bias

Doug Criss 2017. (Digital Trending News Writer for CNN. He has been at CNN since 2010. Before that he worked as the copy desk chief for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.) 14 August 2017 “When is a crime a hate crime and when is it terrorism?” https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/hate-crime-or-terrorism-definition-trnd/index.html

The FBI says a crime becomes a hate crime when there's an added element of bias. For example, if the victim was killed because of his or her race, religion or sexual orientation. "Hate crimes are different from other crimes. They strike at the heart of one's identity," former FBI Director James Comey said in a speech at the Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Summit in 2014. "They strike at our sense of self, our sense of belonging. The end result is loss: loss of trust, loss of dignity and, in the worst case, loss of life." They're motivated by bias, said David Stacy, government affairs director of the Human Rights Campaign. "In a hate crime, the victim is targeted because of his characteristics," Stacy said. "These are bias-motivated crimes, and often they are much more violent than traditional crimes."

Difference between hate crime and terrorism

Doug Criss 2017. (Digital Trending News Writer for CNN. He has been at CNN since 2010. Before that he worked as the copy desk chief for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.) 14 August 2017 “When is a crime a hate crime and when is it terrorism?” https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/hate-crime-or-terrorism-definition-trnd/index.html

There are legal distinctions to calling an act of violence a hate crime or terrorism. Labeling something a "hate crime" can make the law come down much harder on a defendant. It adds a new serious charge that can come with a heavy additional sentence.

4. Guerilla warfare is different from terrorism

Terrorism is often confused with guerilla warfare


Terrorism is often confused or equated with, or treated as synonymous with, guerrilla warfare. This is not entirely surprising, since guerrillas often employ the same tactics (assassination, kidnapping, bombings of public gathering-places, hostage-taking, etc.) for the same purposes (to intimidate or coerce, thereby affecting behaviour through the arousal of fear) as terrorists. In addition, both terrorists and guerrillas wear neither uniform nor identifying insignia and thus are often indistinguishable from noncombatants.



http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/us/chapel-hill-shooting-hate-crime-explainer/


Guerilla warfare seeks to control territory, while terrorism doesn't


However, despite the inclination to lump both terrorists and guerrillas into the same catch-all category of `irregulars', there are nonetheless fundamental differences between the two. `Guerrilla', for example, in its most widely accepted usage, is taken to refer to a numerically larger group of armed individuals, who operate as a military unit, attack enemy military forces, and seize and hold territory (even if only ephemerally during daylight hours), while also exercising some form of sovereignty or control over a defined geographical area and its population. Terrorists, however, do not function in the open as armed units, generally do not attempt to seize or hold territory, deliberately avoid engaging enemy military forces in combat and rarely exercise any direct control or sovereignty either over territory or population.

5. Crime and terrorism are different

Definition of Terrorism

Oxford English Dictionary, copyright 2018 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Definition of Crime

Oxford English Dictionary, copyright 2018 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crime

An action or activity considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong.

Terrorism has to do with politics


For an act to be considered terrorism, it has to be an intentional act or threat of violence that also meets two of three additional stipulations. Those stipulations are that it has to be an act aimed at attaining a political, economic or religious goal; a violent act intended to coerce, intimidate or convey a larger message; and an act that precepts laws about armed conflicts.




Criminals are out for quick gain for themselves, while terrorists want to send a message or change the system


It is also useful to distinguish terrorists from ordinary criminals. Like terrorists, criminals use violence as a means to attaining a specific end. However, while the violent act itself may be similar -- kidnapping, shooting, arson, for example -- the purpose or motivation clearly is not. Whether the criminal employs violence as a means to obtain money, to acquire material goods, or to kill or injure a specific victim for pay, he is acting primarily for selfish, personal motivations (usually material gain). Moreover, unlike terrorism, the ordinary criminal's violent act is not designed or intended to have consequences or create psychological repercussions beyond the act itself. The criminal may of course use some short-term act of violence to `terrorize' his victim, such as waving a gun in the face of a bank clerk during a robbery in order to ensure the clerk's expeditious compliance. In these instances, however, the bank robber is conveying no `message' (political or otherwise) through his act of violence beyond facilitating the rapid handing over of his `loot'. The criminal's act therefore is not meant to have any effect reaching beyond either the incident itself or the immediate victim. Further, the violence is neither conceived nor intended to convey any message to anyone other than the bank clerk himself, whose rapid cooperation is the robber's only objective. Perhaps most fundamentally, the criminal is not concerned with influencing or affecting public opinion: he simply wants to abscond with his money or accomplish his mercenary task in the quickest and easiest way possible so that he may reap his reward and enjoy the fruits of his labours. By contrast, the fundamental aim of the terrorist's violence is ultimately to change `the system' -- about which the ordinary criminal, of course, couldn't care less.

6. A lunatic assassin isn’t necessarily terrorism

Definition of terrorism (threat of violence in pursuit of political change)


We may therefore now attempt to define terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack. It is meant to instil fear within, and thereby intimidate, a wider `target audience' that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party, or public opinion in general. Terrorism is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale.




Difference between lunatics and terrorism


The terrorist is also very different from the lunatic assassin, who may use identical tactics (e.g. shooting, bombing) and perhaps even seeks the same objective (e.g. the death of a political figure). However, while the tactics and targets of terrorists and lone assassins are often identical, their purpose is not. Whereas the terrorist's goal is again ineluctably political (to change or fundamentally alter a political system through his violent act), the lunatic assassin's goal is more often intrinsically idiosyncratic, completely egocentric and deeply personal.

Example of the difference between lunatics and terrorism


John Hinckley, who tried to kill President Reagan in 1981 to impress the actress Jodie Foster, is a case in point. He acted not from political motivation or ideological conviction but to fulfil some profound personal quest (killing the president to impress his screen idol). Such entirely apolitical motivations can in no way be compared to the rationalizations used by the Narodnaya Volya to justify its campaign of tyrannicide against the tsar and his minions, nor even to the Irish Republican Army's efforts to assassinate Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher or her successor, John Major, in hopes of dramatically changing British policy towards Northern Ireland. Further, just as one person cannot credibly claim to be a political party, so a lone individual cannot be considered to constitute a terrorist group. In this respect, even though Sirhan Sirhan's assassination of presidential candidate and US Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968 had a political motive (to protest against US support for Israel), it is debatable whether the murder should be defined as a terrorist act since Sirhan belonged to no organized political group and acted entirely on his own, out of deep personal frustration and a profound animus that few others shared. To qualify as terrorism, violence must be perpetrated by some organizational entity with at least some conspiratorial structure and identifiable chain of command beyond a single individual acting on his or her own.

7. Domestic terrorism is not the same as international terrorism

Definition of domestic terrorism

Doug Criss 2017. (Digital Trending News Writer for CNN. He has been at CNN since 2010. Before that he worked as the copy desk chief for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. ) 14 August 2017 “When is a crime a hate crime and when is it terrorism?” https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/hate-crime-or-terrorism-definition-trnd/index.html

Federal officials work with a very specific definition of when something is an act of domestic terrorism. It has to have three characteristics: an act that takes place in the United States, that's dangerous to human life, and is intended to intimidate civilians or affect government policy by "mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."




International terrorism

Dr. Gregor Bruce 2017. (senior clinical lecturer, medical education, Univ. of Aberdeen, this article was published in the Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, a peer reviewed journal published by the Australasian Military Medicine Association.) 14 August 2017 “Definition of Terrorism – Social and Political Effects” https://jmvh.org/article/definitionof-terrorism-social-and-political-effects/

Terrorism is international. The command and control of terrorist groups, the recruitment, training, active operations and the target audience can all be located in different countries and so counter-terrorist measures will not be effective unless all nations cooperate in agreeing to the characteristics of terrorist groups and their activities.

8. The difference between insurgency and terrorism

Definition of insurgency

Oxford English Dictionary, copyright 2018 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/insurgency

An active revolt or uprising.

Terrorism is indiscriminate

Sunil Dasgupta 2002. (former Brookings expert. He was a nonresident senior fellow with the India Project in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings. His research and writing is focused on security, military organization and insurgency.) 4 January 2002 “Why Terrorism Fails While Insurgencies Can Sometimes Succeed” https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-terrorism-fails-while-insurgencies-can-sometimes-succeed/

From the viewpoint of the population of whom political compliance is demanded by the state, indiscriminate or random violence means that political compliance is not a guarantee against death. The only action the people in the middle can take under the circumstances is to shift their loyalty to the other side in order to facilitate measures to guard against the random attack.

The difference is indiscriminate vs. selective

Sunil Dasgupta 2002. (former Brookings expert. He was a nonresident senior fellow with the India Project in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings. His research and writing is focused on security, military organization and insurgency.) 4 January 2002 “Why Terrorism Fails While Insurgencies Can Sometimes Succeed” https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-terrorism-fails-while-insurgencies-can-sometimes-succeed/

Terrorism is indiscriminate while insurgency is selective. There was nothing any of the victims of September 11 attacks could have personally done to have been spared their fate. Some of the victims were devout Muslims, few might even have sympathised with militant Islam, many were not American. Insurgency, on the other hand, is based on the selective use of violence against people or groups who do not comply politically with the wishes of the rebels or the government.

The difference between terrorism and insurgency is important

Haviland Smith 2008. (retired CIA station chief. A graduate of Dartmouth, he served three years in the Army Security Agency, spent two years in Russian regional studies at London University, and then joined the CIA. He served in Prague, Berlin, Langley, Beirut, Tehran, and Washington; former chief of the counterterrorism staff and executive assistant to Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.) December 2008 “Defining Terrorism: It Shouldn’t Be Confused with Insurgency” http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2008/1012/comm/smith_defining.html

Isn’t this all simply splitting hairs? After all, who really cares whether you call a trouble-making killer a terrorist or an insurgent? Actually, it is objectively important to carefully differentiate between terrorism and insurgency because, once classified into either group, a dissident movement will be given a level of treatment either formally or by general international consensus from which it will be difficult for it to extricate itself.




9. There is an exaggerated tendency to stereotype or to call people ‘terrorists’ if we don’t like them

Some people see terrorists as looking a certain way


Since former President George Bush declared the War on Terror after the September 11 attacks in 2001, people might only see terrorists as someone affiliated with well-known terrorist groups such as al-Qaida or the Islamic State. This hard-line definition can lead to preconceptions about what religions terrorists align with, languages they speak or the color of their skin. And then it becomes a circular problem because, “the less you understand someone the more frightening they are,” Lakoff said. “A white Christian guy can’t be a terrorist in some people’s eyes,” she said. “We don’t like to think that. We like to think that they’re weird-looking people with funny costumes from outside, speaking a language we don’t understand.” That’s why so many people debated whether Dylann Roof, a white Christian, could be one. Roof called himself a white supremacist because, “our people are superior,” and killed nine black people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015.

Some people call all Muslims terrorists

Izzy Kalman 2016. (Nationally Certified School Psychologist who has been working in schools and private practice since 1978. He has developed fun and effective methods that use role playing to teach basic psychological principles for solving bullying, aggression and relationship problems. He has written in greater detail on the problems with the bullying psychology than anyone in the world.) 19 Apr 2016 “All Muslims Are Terrorists!” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/resilience-bullying/201604/all-muslims-are-terrorists

Throughout human existence, just about every group had enemies that wanted to kill them. So just as people learned to recognize signs of dangerous animals, they learned to recognize signs of dangerous people. In recent years people have been getting news of radical Muslims committing terrible acts of terrorism; of leaders of Muslim nations calling for “Death to America! Death to Israel!”; of Muslim clerics preaching that Islam must take over the world and that anyone who criticizes Mohammed should be killed. It is therefore a normal reaction for people to see a Muslim as a potential danger. Of course the great majority of Muslims aren’t dangerous to them, but most people can’t differentiate between those that are and those that aren’t, so they react emotionally to anyone that resembles a Muslim as a potential enemy.

Terrorists don’t necessarily look a certain way – we like to think they do in order to feel safer


But the political value in the U.S., as with other governments, is power, said UC Berkeley linguistics professor Robin Lakoff who wrote the book “Language of War,” which explains why it can be too hard to come to a consensus. It is in the government’s best interest to have a narrow definition that demonizes people from different countries as “others,” in part to give the illusion that the U.S. can protect citizens from them, she said, instilling a stereotype in their minds. “We want terrorists to be a specific thing so if we run into one on the street we know he’s a terrorist because he looks a certain way,” said Lakoff, “because we like to think that the government can keep us safe.”




The real meaning of terrorism is entirely political


Terrorism, in the most widely accepted contemporary usage of the term, is fundamentally and inherently political. It is also ineluctably about power: the pursuit of power, the acquisition of power, and the use of power to achieve political change. Terrorism is thus violence -- or, equally important, the threat of violence -- used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim. With this vital point clearly illuminated, one can appreciate the significance of the additional definition of `terrorist' provided by the OED: `Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation'. This definition underscores clearly the other fundamental characteristic of terrorism: that it is a planned, calculated, and indeed systematic act.

DEFINITIONS OF "FOREIGN POLICY"

Dealings with other nations

Dictionary.com copyright 2018. "foreign policy” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/foreign-policy

a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives.

Diplomatic dealings with other countries

Business Dictionary copyright 2018. "foreign policy" http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/foreign-policy.html

Plan of action adopted by one nation in regards to its diplomatic dealings with other countries. Foreign policies are established as a systematic way to deal with issues that may arise with other countries.

State interaction with other states

Britannica copyright 2018. "Foreign policy" https://www.britannica.com/topic/foreign-policy

Foreign policy, General objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one state in its interactions with other states.

Foreign policy includes diplomacy, war, alliances and trade

Britannica copyright 2018. "Foreign policy" https://www.britannica.com/topic/foreign-policy

Diplomacy is the tool of foreign policy, and war, alliances, and international trade may all be manifestations of it.



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifestations

https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-trade

https://www.britannica.com/topic/diplomacy

https://www.britannica.com/topic/foreign-policy

https://www.britannica.com/topic/foreign-policy

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/foreign-policy.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/foreign-policy.html

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/foreign-policy


WORKS CITED

1. Nicholas J. Perry 2004. (attorney; Assistant General Counsel for Immigration Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Office of the General Counsel) "The Numerous Federal Legal Definitions of Terrorism: The Problem of too Many Grails," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 30: Iss. 2, Article 3. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1127&context=jleg

2. US Code Title 22 Section 2656f "Annual country reports on terrorism" (undated because it's a section of federal law) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f

3. Kamala Kelkar 2017. (Digital Associate Producer at PBS NewsHour Weekend. She works on investigative projects at PBS NewsHour Weekend. She has been a journalist for a decade, reporting for many media outlets including Al Jazeera English, the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, and Public Radio International’s The World.) 26 February 2017 “When it comes to defining ‘terrorism,’ there is no consensus” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/defining-terrorism-consensus

4. Bruce Hoffman 1998. (visiting senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Council on Foreign Relations and has been studying terrorism and insurgency for four decades; tenured professor in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service; also visiting professor of terrorism studies at St Andrews University, Scotland. He previously held the corporate chair in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency at the RAND Corporation.) 1998 “Inside Terrorism” https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html?mcubz=0

5. Gregor Bruce 2017. (this article was published in the Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, a peer reviewed journal published by the Australasian Military Medicine Association. It is dedicated to supporting the publication of research and information on military medicine and veterans’ health, recognising that the impact of military service translates into health effects on military personnel long after they retire.) 14 August 2017 “Definition of Terrorism – Social and Political Effects” https://jmvh.org/article/definitionof-terrorism-social-and-political-effects/

6. Laurie Fenstermacher, Larry Kuznar, Tom Rieger, and Anne Speckhard 2010. (Fenstermacher - Principal Electronics Engineer at Air Force Research Laboratory, Kuznar - anthropologist with topical specialties in terrorism, insurgency, tribal conflict, and decision theory. He works for National Security Innovations, Inc. Rieger - Senior Practice Expert for Gallup. Speckhard - director at International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism, Georgetown University School of Medicine.) January 2010 “Topical Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment (SMA) Multi-Agency and Air Force Research Laboratory Multi-Disciplinary White Papers in Support of Counter-Terrorism and Counter-WMD” https://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/publications/U_Counter_Terrorism_White_Paper_Final_January_2010.pdf

7. Doug Criss 2017. (Digital Trending News Writer for CNN. He has been at CNN since 2010. Before that he worked as the copy desk chief for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.) 14 August 2017 “When is a crime a hate crime and when is it terrorism?” https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/hate-crime-or-terrorism-definition-trnd/index.html

8. Oxford English Dictionary, copyright 2018 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crime




9. Sunil Dasgupta 2002. (former Brookings expert. He was a nonresident senior fellow with the India Project in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings. His research and writing is focused on security, military organization and insurgency.) 4 January 2002 “Why Terrorism Fails While Insurgencies Can Sometimes Succeed” https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-terrorism-fails-while-insurgencies-can-sometimes-succeed/

10. Haviland Smith 2008. (retired CIA station chief. A graduate of Dartmouth, he served three years in the Army Security Agency, spent two years in Russian regional studies at London University, and then joined the CIA. He served in Prague, Berlin, Langley, Beirut, Tehran, and Washington; former chief of the counterterrorism staff and executive assistant to Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.) December 2008 “Defining Terrorism: It Shouldn’t Be Confused with Insurgency” http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2008/1012/comm/smith_defining.html

11. Izzy Kalman 2016. (Nationally Certified School Psychologist who has been working in schools and private practice since 1978. He has developed fun and effective methods that use role playing to teach basic psychological principles for solving bullying, aggression and relationship problems. He has written in greater detail on the problems with the bullying psychology than anyone in the world.) 19 Apr 2016 “All Muslims Are Terrorists!” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/resilience-bullying/201604/all-muslims-are-terrorists

12. Dictionary.com copyright 2018. "foreign policy” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/foreign-policy

13. Business Dictionary copyright 2018. "foreign policy" http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/foreign-policy.html

14. Britannica copyright 2018. "Foreign policy" https://www.britannica.com/topic/foreign-policy



2012-stoa-bb-012-aff-saudiarabia-submitted.docx€¦ · web viewthis is a comprehensive topicality...

Documents