When was the word terrorism first used

In this way, groups implementing terrorism as a method of fighting should rightfully be viewed as having a wide array of interests, aspirations and causes they are fighting for.

Chailand and Blin 27 articulate the issues surrounding this constructed dichotomy between the two terms by asserting that. On the other hand, not all national liberation movements resort to terrorism to advance their cause. The debate around who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter and from whose perspective is important as it again emphasises the controversial nature of any definitions of terrorism.

It is also important as it highlights the shifting nature of those definitions in the hands of those making them. Having established that the definition of terrorism is controversial and the subject of divergent views, in the next part of this paper, I will argue that the controversy can be resolved but only through political will. Taking into consideration the foundational definition of terrorism as articulated in the early part of this paper, a link is observed between the threat of or the use of force and violence with the aim of achieving pre-determined outcomes, and another similar phenomenon: political violence.

Various authors see political violence as a form of mass, collectivist political struggle which manifests in many forms, such as revolutions, civil war, riots and strikes but can also manifest in more peaceful protest movements. The key factor distinguishing terrorism and political violence is that it is agreed that there is typically a political solution in the case of the latter Canetti et al , This means that states — as the institutions against which the violence is meted — have the means, legitimacy and authority to end the violence at hand through a host of different mechanisms like negotiation, peace talks or power-sharing agreements, amongst others whilst those using violence to achieve pre-determined outcomes may employ terrorism, guerrilla warfare, civil war, insurgency or other similar methods.

Some political scientists argue that even political parties have more in common with terrorism than one might expect. Weinberg and Pedahzur, in their book Political Parties and Terrorist Groups , challenge the widely held belief that parties signify peaceful forms of democratic political activity while terrorist groups signify illegal and extranormal forms of violence.

Furthermore, they argue that both political parties and terrorist groups use the power of persuasion to modify the behaviour of one audience or various audiences. While it is not possible and ultimately not relevant to explore the full argument presented by Weinberg and Pedahzur in this paper, it is important to note that they tackle the question as to why the same socio-political protest movements that gives rise to a terrorist organisation can also, often almost simultaneously, produce a peaceful and independent political party; in doing so, they ask important questions about the definitions of terrorism, terrorists, political parties and political violence.

Political history over many decades has shown that those defined as terrorist groups can, over time, become legitimate political actors recognised by the states they have fought against. Each of these examples is that of an organisation once designated as terrorists by the international community, and the West in particular, but ones that have transformed into political parties that respect the rule of law and contest in elections — the hallmarks of participatory democracy and a philosophy championed by the West.

Many anti-colonial liberation movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America used violence and force to obtain their political goal of decolonisation but ironically, in present-day political discourse, many would have been denounced as terrorists by their own states and others the international community.

In each instance, these groups waged violence against the states they operated in — racist, illegitimate settler colonial administrations — however, in each instance, the solution was inevitably a political one such as the departure of the settler colonial administrators, power-sharing agreements, negotiated peace settlements etc. Moran, In this manner, groups such as the Mozambican Liberation Front FRELIMO , ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe and Hamas in Palestine are all examples of those once labelled and condemned as terrorists who all eventually partook in transitions to democratic governance and have participated in multi-party elections in their countries, facilitated by political resolution.

More recently, the Basque separatist group ETA in Spain dissolved as an organisation following a peace deal signed in Masters and Rebaza, and the former rebel group, FARC in Colombia agreed to disarm and disband following a peace deal, with some former leaders even contesting in Senate elections in that country earlier this year Taylor, Arguably the most poignant example in modern history of a group moving from terrorists to liberators to political leaders in the eyes of the West is South Africa, with the late Nelson Mandela personally embodying the paradigm shift that occurs when terrorists are considered rational, political actors with whom political solutions can be negotiated and achieved.

The examples listed in this section illustrate the truly complex and controversial nature of the definition of terrorism over time and in many contexts, and who is labelled as a terrorist by whom. To this end, in the next section, I will argue that the definition of terrorism and the designation of who perpetrates it is not only controversial, dynamic and ever-changing, but also heavily influenced by the prevailing political landscape.

A case study in the controversial, changing definitions of terrorism: The United States. The United States of America provides an interesting and layered case study into the complexity of defining terrorism; leaving definitions open to interpretation by those implementing anti- and counter-terrorism strategies; and the inherent vulnerability of those definitions to partisan politics.

The United States as a government and society is not immune to the issues faced in academia and the world at large when it comes to attempts to define terrorism. On a practical, pragmatic level, analysing terrorism in America is difficult to do because there is both widespread ambiguity as to what to should be considered terrorism, and reliable official statistics on terrorist incidents are difficult to track across 50 states and numerous federal agencies.

Christopher Hewitt in the book, Understanding Terrorism in America , underscores the enormous difficulty faced by law enforcement in attempts to identify, thwart and prevent terrorism, stemming from the lack of a consensus on a definition. The FBI relies on reports from local law enforcement to gather information for their data but without a way to apply the definition across the board, the agency has to rely on the discretion of those offices.

The true purpose of defining terrorism for law enforcement and those implementing anti- and counter-terrorism policies is to create frameworks within which violent attacks are understood, plans to execute them are thwarted and those planning them are caught and prosecuted.

I would argue that this stalemate is not something that has occurred by accident, rather that it is the result of policies influenced by politics which dictate the definition. The distinction between domestic and international terror is blurred in America because of a host of factors.

The country has a long history of domestic terror ranging from those in the South who sought to prevent the racial desegregation of the region in the s and 60s, to protest action related to the Vietnam War in the s, to the debate around abortion in the s and 90s, and many other issues Hewitt, While it is not possible in this paper to explore all of the different variations of terrorist attacks that have occurred in America in recent decades, nor to examine the groups that have perpetrated them, it is important to note that America has faced many threats from many groups before and faces a multitude of threats now.

These conclusions were echoed in a June research study that found that between and , more than 70 attacks by right-wing, anti-government groups were recorded and 50 attempts were foiled by law enforcement, as opposed to 18 attacks by so-called Islamist extremists were recorded and 45 attacks foiled Neiwert, When it was over, people started to use the word terrorist to describe a person who abuses power through the threat of force.

A journalist in the United Kingdom wrote about the Reign of Terror in The Times newspaper, and created the word terrorism as a way to describe the actions of Robespierre. The word became so popular it was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary three years later.

An agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the reign of terror in France. A second shift in meaning took place later: the use of terrorism without political connotation. It was used in this way in newspaper coverage of gangsters during the s:. Regarded as the most important fact of all is this: Gangsters, by terrorism , vote stealing and bribery, swung a certain political faction into power and in return were given the privilege of operating gambling, vice and booze joints.

They realize that terrorism , however effective for a while, is revolting and cannot be sustained forever; no regime can be vigilant enough in perpetuity to crush opposition wherever and whenever it arises. Act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; specif.

As for the word terror itself, our dictionaries included it as a synonym for Reign of Terror for decades, until a specific sense connected to terrorism was added in Whether or not a new sense referring to extremely violent acts without apparent motive to intimidate a population or government is added to the dictionary in the future, only time and usage will tell.

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free! Log in Sign Up. Terrorism is the threat or use of violence, it is politically or ideologically motivated and the violence is used to communicate a message of political change and intimidation to individuals or groups beyond its immediate victims. In short, terrorism is best understood as violence used as a form of political communication. Although modern terrorism followed the emergence of modern mass politics and mass media, terrorist violence has probably been used as a political tactic since time immemorial.

They used violence to communicate messages of freedom from opposition and resistance to submission. During The Terror, Robespierre described it as a virtuous form of violence, to be used by the new revolutionary democratic state against its domestic enemies.

Modern terrorism, which implies the systematic use of violence against the state, rather than by it, emerged in Europe in the s.