Re: What is terrorism?

Greetings,

For those interested, in the January 2002 edition of Monthly Review (though not available on the website), Eqbal Ahmad posthumously writes about the uses of the concept terrorism, specifically noting how it is never defined in any state documents. It is a very useful piece and even gives a definition ("the use of violence that is used illegaly and extra-constitutionally, to coerce") and a categorization of the types of terrorism (state, religious, criminal, political, and oppositional).

However, I think it is by no means unimportant to ask whether the word terrorism has lost all meaningful content, even as a word the left can use as moral ammo against state regimes or state actions, or as a rhetorical symptom of a certain reactionary stance in leaders and in the media. When Ariel Sharon, in a five minute speach, uses the word 15 times or more, as a way of legitimating Israel's actions in front of the international community by mirroring US rhetoric, we must wonder if the overuse of a concept, like any object of exchange, and its application to diverse situations can only be a sign of the weakness of the chosen language (and perhaps it ideological efficiency). It clearly obfuscates any critical thought of each particular situation, which Steven started to counter by expanding the discussion to include the history of different actors' obedience to the "rules of war". We should produce new language and new ways of thinking about and framing these situations we describe and reject others' representations. It is after all the ways we frame situations that are largely determinant of the conclusions we draw. Let the opposition have the term! The currency of the concept terrorism seems now as worthless as an over-rubbed coin, if not moreso since it may not even be worth the substance of which it is composed.

Regards,

Joshua Howard