By:

Dr. Ali S. Awadh Asseri

(Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon)

     We shall engage in this debate in greater detail in the next two chapters. In so far as the above-discussed theoretical formulations of terrorism are concerned, it is clear that we need a functional rather than a theoretical definition of the problem. As Mockaities argues, the place to begin in fashioning a functional definition is not with terrorism but with terror, a weapon that can be used by a variety of actors. Terror, unlike most weapons, aims not merely to destroy enemy combatants, but to spread fear among the general population.[1]

‘Terror’, as one commentator observes, ‘is a theatre. Its real targets are not the innocent victims, but the spectators’.[2]

Those who watch consist of an audience in the community under attack and an audience in the community from which the terrorists come. To the public in the targeted country, terrorists say: “See, no matter how powerful you may be, we can hit you whenever and wherever we choose”! To their own supporters they proclaim: “We are not powerless. We can deal decisive blows against our enemies”. Contrary to one popular myth, terror attacks are never completely arbitrary. Those who use terror select targets less for their military value than for their symbolic significance. They choose buildings or landmarks that represent power, pride, or economic strength. They kill people to send a message to the group those people represent.[3]

     Almost all the definitions make a common reference to the psychological element. The academic and legal definitions identify terrorism as a type of violence (or threat of violence) intended to achieve a psychological effect. Or, in other words, the immediate target or victim of a terrorist attack is only part of an operation whose main aim is to change the thinking and often the behavior of some audience. Apart from the psychological aspect, there is general consensus about some other principal elements of terrorism: that it is a politically motivated form of violence, that it is undertaken in a deliberate and organized manner, and that it specifically targets unarmed civilians. Some Western scholars do try to underplay or together ignore the political motivation, especially when it comes to terrorism committed by deviant individuals and groups in the world of Islam. However, over time, even in Western scholarship, there is greater acceptance of terrorism’s political dimension. The fact that a number of the Muslim world’s conflicts, such as Palestine and Kashmir, have remained unresolved decades after the UN Security Council passed resolutions for their just settlement, provides a fundamental political context for terrorism by deviant individuals or groups in the world of Islam.

     Thus, just because a particular argument on the causes of terrorism is being articulated and reiterated by a section of Western scholars does not mean it is entirely true.

[1]  Mockaitis, op. cit., p. 4.

[2] David K. Shipler, Arab and Jews: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land (New York: Penguin, 1987), p. 84

[3] Mockaitis, op. cit