Act of Terrorism vs. Acts of War
It’s important to keep in mind the commonly accepted definition of terrorism as defined by Hoffman when distinguishing between terrorism, crime, and acts of war. The key factors in both his definition and those of government entities, such as the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security, are the element of intimidation and terrorism as a political concept—to bring about governmental change. If we focus on these elements as parts of the working definitions of terrorism, we can begin to understand the difference between a terrorist act and a crime. A crime’s motivation is quite different from that of the motivation behind a terrorist act. A terrorist act is motivated by the desire to have a larger, political affect rather than just coerce and intimidate one or two people. If someone is held at gun point and robbed it is a crime and not a terrorist act because the act is meant to just intimidate and affect the person held at gunpoint. The act isn’t meant to intimidate a larger population or to bring about change to a government. The motivation is also influenced by personal, selfish reasons. A terrorist act, as opposed to a crime, would be motivated by the desire to bring about political change that would impact far greater numbers. In other words the motivation for a terrorist act is altruistic, and the motivation for a crime is purely self-interest.
This difference in acts can be quite clearly seen when examining actual acts carried out by terrorist groups. Operating in Peru, Shining Path frequently uses assassinations as a terrorist tactic to send a message to the government and the authorities. A specific example that demonstrates the difference between crime and terrorism is the assassination of Carlos Pariona Chungui. According to the START database at the University of Maryland, Chungui was the lieutenant Governor of Vilcabamba. He was abducted and assassinated in Villa Virgen village in the Cusco region of Peru on June 6, 2013. Shining Path claimed responsibility and stated that all police informants will meet similar fates. This assassination was not meant to just intimidate or coerce Chungui, it was meant to intimidate and send a political message to the Peruvian police and government. They intended to send a message that resistanceto the changes that Shining Path wants would result in more attacks, making the act a terrorist act and not a crime. This assassination also demonstrates the difference between terrorism and an act of war. While an act of waris usually both violent and meant to intimidate, it technically takes place between 2 states and follows a generally accepted set of rules. The above mentioned assassination did not (as do Shining Paths other attacks) take place between two separate warring states. Shining Path is a domestic group and certainly not a state. The group also does not follow the rules war.
Discussion of "Act of Terrorism vs. Acts of War"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...