From the article:
[[[ "An act is labelled terrorism "if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." From Kofi Annan and first used by the first Chair of the Security Council Committee on Terrorism, UK Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock. ]]]
Ive belaboured this point in other threads:
- groups of two or more people (a single person committing a act of self-fulfillment, alone, is recognized as a criminal acting against society, not a terrorist; otherwise every employee who goes postal, every road rage driver, and every mass murderer would be a terrorist)
- not affiliated with a recognized national government (if they are recognized as legitimate political groups or governments they may become 'rogue' but are no longer labelled as terrorists; i.e. HAMAS has not been recognized as a legitmate government until it renounces its support of terrorism towards Israel)
- development of a political agenda or goal (violence motivated by self-fulfillment and without political cause are considered criminal acts)
- a statement of opposition targeting a government, organization, or specific population group (this is usually the target of the political goal, not the target of the violence)
- acts against an 'innocent' civilian population in order to influence or remove support from a government, organization or specific populatino group (this is usually the target of the violence, not the target of the political goal)
- acts of violence against, or attempts to commit violence against, or threats of violence against 'innocent' civilian population targets using whatever means developed.
Whats wrong with Annan's definition:
- "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm":
a) this refers to individual acts when it should refer to the stated political goal of the organization (i.e. Hamas's 'death to all Israeli's)
b) does not take into account propoganda, hoaxes, or psychological warfare which are tools of both armies and terrorists
- "civilians or non-combatants"
a) the definition of a civilian and non-combatant in terrorism is still being argued to this day. Is a banker who funnels money to a terrorist group labelled a 'civilian'? Is a terrorist on holiday in Canada (after commiting acts of violence overseas) now labelled as a 'non-combatant'? Is a retired counter-terrorist army officer now a 'civilian'? If a terrorist is always a terrorist, then is a soldier always a soldier? You cant define a term when the terms in the definition have yet to be adequately defined.
b) even if the target were army soldiers, who are not 'civilians and non-combatants', the act would still be an act of terrorism if a state of war has not been declared and the forces conducting the acts do not identify themselves as a unique 'regular military force' (or militia). (i.e. the Taliban is recognized as an opposition force, therefore their acts are of military violence not terrorist violence)
- "with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."
a) okay, now this one I can agree with!
