In the criticism of the concept of terrorism

Without a doubt that the thing called the "September 11" gave us the impression of being a milestone. But, what impression in this case? What event? What is the "event calamity" in particular? I confirm that I have reservations about several of these words - Jacques Derrida 

Escalating political discourse in the Arab countries must be "anti-terrorism" practiced violence against groups or sometimes not practiced at all is usually with the purpose of political speech is intended to enhance the mono-political practice and get rid of the opposition. And before you criticize this political discourse is worthwhile to go to deeper than that and wonder about what this meant terrorism, the understanding of the meaning of terrorism outlines specific to how to combat it. And you wonder definition that says its Arab regimes true or not and if it is true you apply to those who are struggling under the pretext that they practice it? And more importantly, earned criticism from the concept of terrorism is that if there is no specific definition of a basic framework is based upon the understanding of what makes terrorism terrorism constitutes a threat mainly? And thus is it miraculous phenomenon in the sense of history and different Hdhuzha its nature? 

Confusion in the definition of terrorism: The term is derived terrorism (Terrorism) of the act of bullying or intimidation (Terrorizing). What is the relationship, but intimidation politics? And practice the military? Or even violent practices of civilians? It goes without saying that it is not linked to political enhancer. It is not a requirement to use intimidation as a "terrorist" such as that used for the purpose of criminal Each horror is not necessarily the result of "terrorism," but the word has a history of political terrorism due to terrorism and the French revolutionary who Morse on behalf of the state and the principle of the dish perfectly legal monopoly of violence. Maybe we can not account for all definitions of terrorism at all institutions, but in general, all based on the type of intimidation in itself and its kind, also ignores most of these definitions that terrorism is possible that those who are against the authority or the power itself, and this we will talk about it extensively later. 

This is all if we consider that terrorism is something intentional in the sense that a deliberate and conscious. And this is what Derrida warns him that terrorism in human consciousness is a "cause of death" and criticizes it, saying and what about "letting die"? Is not allowing death is "not wanting to know what we allow to die" Hundreds of millions of people dying of hunger, AIDS and lack of medication .. etc.. Is not that an important part of a systematic strategy of terrorism? We make mistakes because we say that every conscious and systematic terrorism and holds manifesto or agenda. Because he can not talk about this hidden violence and non-conscious will specialize talking about terrorism meant at least. 

A broader and more general definitions and who is not without Alncodat in turn, is the definition of political terrorism researcher at the Rod Thornton of terrorism as a "symbolic act with a goal intended to influence political behavior by means of unusual typically include the use of violence." These include Avatar on the side suggestive motive for this act of sympathy with the "terrorist" or to demonstrate the ability to cause damage to power. Based previous definition on an important point is character ultra act of "terrorist" and that distinguishes "terrorism" all practices of political violence, acts, normal is idiosyncratic, is not considered an act of terrorism and we can not come up with an event "terrorist" and be a normal act of His attributes. But it shows us another problematic. Are not some super-criminal offenses and unusual? What distinguishes the terrorist act on the criminal? The crime of murder and brutality for the purpose of political action is definitely out of the ordinary and may carry a certain symbolism, why not consider terrorism and had contained all the terms of the previous definition? 

To get rid of this confusion resort Paul Wilkinson, one of the main researchers in the field of political violence to terrorism division into four categories: political terrorism, terrorism, wars, terrorism, criminal, terrorism and finally myself. But a series of problems continue, what is the difference between political terrorism and war? Is war and terrorism, and also put forward Wilkinson question as the title of one of his books, "you could be a terrorist state?" 

   Moral confusion in the definition of terrorism: This can be considered problematic obstacle perhaps more importantly, to find a specific concept of terrorism where it determines the moral position Hyaditna in the description of the violent political act. Someone may justify that practice sometimes violent justified and some of it is not justified to find that the release described as "terrorist" somewhat easy because it represents a moral position towards the issue or ideological position between the right and void. Do we ask the armed resistance in Palestine is the terrorist groups or not? Is Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Was the Algerian resistance in the sixties of the last century terrorist? Sealed Grant and Rdlo one and Rqath terrorism, saying: "Whatever one's feelings of personal toward the terrorist acts, or whatever amount Astfezall her, it is not in reference terrorist Award, brutal or irrational. Terrorism is not devoid of insight. It means consciously to achieve a particular goal, and his causes and roots and objectives, and is the point at which ignores observer of these events, he believes that terrorism is a random process does not constitute a death where people of any value, but they are collateral damage and this is not true. In order to understand this apparent paradox it is necessary to check the historical formation of modern terrorism and familiarity Botrohath and analysis tools that make modern terrorism is the continuation of the line of violence and historical phenomenon unique phenomena of this age at the same time. "According to Grisman, author of" social meanings of terrorism "can not dismantle the meaning of terrorism" slippery "as described without delivery and acknowledgment of the problematic of what he called" neutral value "(value-neutrality) this value that makes the work of violent terrorist operation at the other, and armed resistance legitimate, for example, when others. Grisman is a solution to the abandonment of the use of terrorism as a description of behavior because this description behavioral always and never will carry a moral judgment on the inside. We must move on to another level of analysis and see how it is moral values ​​of the ratio of violent acts Venattabr that this terrorist act or consider it part of foreign policy. Grisman borrows from the sociologist Kenneth Brock term empathy or identification (identification), which states that the observer is convinced things consists in consciousness by creating an image of the same hopes for gains possession of physical, emotional or greater than that is similar to the wants to convince him. For the casual observer to be legitimate is what makes achieving these gains form of congruence with the opponent and thus is an attractive and feasible. And legitimate social product here if we continue to be stripped to the point of Governments Governments became flesh felt like a completely legitimate represented by members of the bodies with concrete. Therefore become legitimate is earned and demand among these groups are violent against the legitimacy owned by governments which it can legitimize its actions easily, turning these groups are violent to the researcher for this legitimacy through the grounds that they are the only possible way to get rid of evils and assert that by becoming the kind of bureaucratic authority becomes similar to these groups and its members army soldiers and battalions like the military bureaucracy. It is clear that there is a kind of legitimacy for all the power to these groups that are working to get to this congruence and identification, and here begins to form our moral position of the actions of these groups. When a match or identifies people with victims of violent act (regardless of the roles of the media) becomes a terrorism act. But if there is identification with the actor, it may or gratuitous violence is not neutral demonic in nature. And often occurs that identifies people with the victims because they represent a number greater than the number of these groups always and state violence because people are doing essentially all citizens of the repressive state apparatus: the police, the army, etc. .., becomes a possibility that the victim is similar with those citizens much larger than that is similar with the actor. Becomes identification and congruence with the victim's problematic because it is possible that enjoyed by the minority of violent practices in the face of people who are the same weapon, a discount of power. And this is what generates hypotheses like mad and neurotic these groups and give the impression they despair, but this thesis by Jean Baudrillard in the book "The Spirit of Terrorism" in itself suspicious because it is considered "terrorism" is not representative of the misery of the world only through this act of violent and ignore what before the violent act, and even if we acknowledge it and handed him this is evidence of the failure of the global system as well. 

Are revolutionary groups and liberal terrorist? This question is thorny because we are still caught in the orbit of the moral value of the word terrorism, and they are of a negative character. If we assume that, yes they are terrorists, terrorism is revolutionary is by Wilkinson "tactics of the organization to the use of violent toward the goal of political revolution" and breaks them down into types: violent groups pure, which provides solutions to violent always, groups, liberal use of violence as a weapon of additional groups involved in wars bands. While repressive violence is the "systematic use of violence to suppress and subdue and conquer the individuals, groups or institutions." So what is the difference between them? Institutional form of violence in the scope of the state is what gives easy justification for terrorist acts against the state violence that groups and individuals does not work to earn legitimacy directly but to target structures and relations between the community and the state symbols of the state such as the historical and Urban and others. And this does not succeed, these groups only to shake the prestige of the state and show its strength against the weak power but reveal their role and prove faithful community's inability to provide support to them as sons of the same community, which gives them the legitimacy of state-owned from the beginning. And here stems from sympathy with the armed resistance movements often. 

State terrorism in the face of terrorism and revolutionary Singles: relationship of state terrorism or terrorism-Revolutionary singles complex relationship of several aspects, including the fact that there is a first essential is that the violence by the state generates counter-violence. Remember Martha Hutchinson competent in French colonial Algeria that terrorism operations practiced by the French troops and torture practiced against Algerians are what cause indiscriminate violence motivated by anti-retaliation by the resistance of the Algerian side of systematic resistance to expel the French. And quotes from one of the leaders of the Popular Resistance in Algeria in response to accusations that the French practice of torture occurred because terrorism Algerians themselves "when pretend to be blind violence exercised Algerians but it is only a response to the violence, Algerians, this claim a blind eye to the fact that the Algerian resistance did not start violence erupted and not any bomb before flowing blood of Algerians. "

Secondly, we still have not actually define what is terrorism, whether by the state or other, when asked the famous philosopher Jacques Derrida for which one or more individuals state terrorism, said: "This question is necessary and is doomed to remain unanswered at the same time. It is necessary because it presents itself as a response, Vjawi to terrorism is a last resort because the other more terrorism to me. Particularly hard Alarhaba course is terrorism, which is stripped of the other potential aggressor and be the first. Thus accuses colonial powers such as the United States, Israel and all the imperialist powers-shaped. This is difficult to imagine but eliminated the confusion lies in the wording of the question and refer the matter to the quantitative reasoning. "Derrida refuses to differentiate between state and non-state terrorism of the same logic that terrorism is a term sticks on understanding and mysterious. To get rid of this confusion resort Wilkinson to split Musth political terrorism as we have said into sections including: revolutionary terror and repressive terrorism. Differs from terrorism and repressive revolutionary terror in the same quality of intimidation, intimidation Vthornton distinguish between executive and intimidation provocation. The first specialist in power and the second for those wishing to undermining. The difference between them that intimidation, provocation whatever nature revolves in the orbit of violence and counter-violence and seems to be more symbolic of the Executive violence that draws our attention is more, although it is less important and the practice of state terrorism executive. Vfoazavith part of the symbolism that makes it not a regular practitioner while intimidation by the executive authority of institutional its shape seems to appear as a regular in the organs of the state ideology of TV and radio and newspapers template from a legitimate part of the violence that has monopolized by the state, and not just well, but this becomes intimidation Executive rational In other words if you do not pay the state the reasons for the exercise of terrorism against you they will not do! This division of Oalkinson leads to the conclusion that the risk of it when describing the political terrorism that violence institutionalized and frequently we can because of that to say that the military bombardments on civilians is not terrorism or terrorist act, but is intimidating only, and it becomes terrorism if it becomes bis and a pattern of intimidating continuously. 

War and terrorism: Derrida refers to the famous German philosopher Carl Schmitt, saying: "It is impossible even in theory to distinguish between war and terrorism, if we assume that the war does not break out, but between two states, terrorism is a struggle between the forces do not include the power of the sovereign state , however, the political history can easily be inconsistent with this definition of the term terrorism. States are sovereign always imposed terror on their own people or other nations in time of peace and war. "But Derrida puts a small difference between war and terrorism is the shock and impact of the sudden, he was calling for the need to turn the page on the events of September atheist continuation of the media talking about it will lead to the continuation of terrorism forms hidden such sentiments in favor of the event and the proliferation of wars are not visible, such as piracy and wars default on the Internet. Terrorism will move from the position of a traumatic event such as an accident happened to the planes invisible loss and a slight but constant. Terrorism to become a regular in our consciousness to move to the stage of the ongoing war, and that is not only continuing, but is wider and says, "We know when it began and when it ended September 11, but the micro-technology is a much more capable. But we are not in any kind and we know in advance, and this is what is frightening. "If the issue of sudden element must be taken into account it is in the public consciousness. According to one of the researchers who put this scenario to differentiate between terrorism and the other that if the income of a shopping mall or a school and began shooting and then died in the end shall be public opinion often that crazy or deranged while if he did the same act the same bomb it then becomes a terrorist