Whitney
Lazo
December
2, 2013
Terrorism is surprisingly difficult
to define. It is a general word that covers a broad area. In Nate Silver’s The Signal and the Noise he offers
different ways to describe terrorism. I believe that the most important aspect
of terrorism and its definition is that the purpose is to instill fear and to
alter a population’s behavior in some negative way in order to accomplish
another goal or message (Silver, 428). Because this is ultimately done through
violence and death, some are misguided and believe the destruction is part of
the definition of terrorism. However, this is wrong. Most of the incidents from
1979 to 2000 against Western nations produced few fatalities. There were three
attacks that accounted for more than 40 percent of the fatalities in this time
span due to terrorism (429). This can be explained through power-law
distribution.
The power-law distribution implies
that disasters that have occurred in the past can get worse, even if society
does not expect it. Although it is plausible that disasters such as earthquakes
and terrorist attacks can be more dangerous, it is also true that they will be
infrequent (432). Just as this is true, it is also true that disasters can be
common but not as dramatic. This is why the definition of terrorism does not
only include extreme acts of aggression or mass killing. As long as a terrorist
instills fear and sends a message to the victims or audience, it does not
matter how big or small or how common. In addition, terrorists can be defined
as many different types of groups or individuals. Al Qaeda and the Klu Klux
Klan can both be considered terrorists. This is another reason why terrorism is
so difficult to define.
Regardless of who commits the act of
terror or how it is done, terrorism is still a method of creating fear for the
perpetrator’s gain. The power-law distribution helps prove that terrorism can
be performed in all different ways. “Terrorists are not purely seeking to
maximize their body count” (428). Silver describes that terrorist’s true
motives are simply to maximize fear. This helps clear up a misunderstanding in
today’s society.
Bibliography
Silver, Nate The Signal and the Noise. New York, The Penguin Press 2012.
I though you made many good points. I do believe that terrorists main goal is to maximize fear in a society. I believe they do this though by killing and harming people, therefore this would be a the major goal of theres as well. Because of this I believe that any violent act done by a person or group to cause fear is an act of terrorism. For these reasons I do believe that destruction is part of the definition of terrorism because terrorists destroy peoples way of living.
ReplyDeleteI like how you you said at the end that "terrorists are not purely trying to maximize their body count" I think that is a very interesting quote and a thought provoking way to end your paper. One thing I think that this paper is missing is you don't mention that terrorists act to push an agenda. This is one of the main points of terrorism and though you mention it briefly in your first paragraph I think explaining it further would have really added something.
ReplyDeleteI think that you make many valid points when outlining what terrorism is. Additionally, I believe that you are correct in saying that they aren't always going for the highest body count and that a terrorists main goal is to instill fear. However, I felt as though you could have added thoughts on some states actions being regarded terrorism, like the United States drone program to make your argument a little more interesting.
ReplyDeleteI agree there is an ambiguous definition to what terrorism actually is. How do you think your definition of terrorism can be applied in the context of the war on terror and decreasing terrorist organizations/ groups today?
ReplyDeleteI also wrote my 5th blog posts on the Silver reading regarding terrorism, however I took a different approach to the paper so I thought it was really interesting how you focused solely on the definition of terrorism and how its interpreted. Do you think that since after the year 2000, there have been more terrorist attacks that resulted in a large amount of fatalities, that people might have a different definition of terrorism than they had before? Or does the definition of terrorism have a different meaning now that terrorist attacks have resulted in a great amount of fatalities in the new century?
ReplyDelete