The Norwegian Attacks Are the Latest Example of the Misuse of the Word “Terrorism”

     Nearly everyone appears to be calling the recent attacks in Norway “terrorism.” However, the massacre does not meet the definition of terrorism.

     As I have posted previously, terrorism is a strategy that targets innocent civilians (i.e. those who are not responsible for formulating or implementing government policies) with violence or the threat of violence in order to intimidate the populace into pressuring the government to give into the terrorists’ political demands.

     In the attacks in Norway, the Norwegian government and ruling party were targeted. Attacks on government do not meet the definition of terrorism because they are not attacks targeting innocent civilians. The attack on the ruling party took place at a youth camp in which the killer callously killed youths, but it was a political target nonetheless. The killer opposed the policies of that party. He intended to assassinate leading Norwegian political figures. Thus, the massacre at the youth camp was not intended to intimidate the populace, but the party leadership. Both attacks were on the Norwegian ruling class. 

     Assuming the perpetrator of the Norwegian attacks is sane, the attacks were treasonous militant acts intended to spark a revolution, not terrorism. These heinous attacks were evil, but terrorism is even more evil because it is targeted at those who have no responsibility for government policies. Indeed, the less connection the victims have to government and policy (i.e. the more innocent they are), the more effective the terrorist act becomes, as the entire populace, and not only the ruling class, is made to feel targeted. Attacks upon only the ruling class fail to accomplish the strategic goal of intimidating the populace, as the people recognize they are not personally the targets of the terrorists and thus do not feel intimidated.

     The false labeling of the Norwegian attacks is part of a pattern that has existed for decades. Over the last several months, in particular, I had observed several examples of acts incorrectly being classified by government, the media or other commentators as “terrorism” and had intended to post about them, but the Norwegian attack has made this matter timely. 

     In one case that was referred to as “terrorism,” a businessman attempted to sabotage a rival by placing vermin in his rival’s business. This attack was economic sabotage directed at one business, not an attempt to intimidate anyone for any political purpose. 

     Another example was also economic sabotage: counterfeiting. Counterfeiting, even if undertaken by an enemy in order to intimidate the populace, is economic sabotage. Although it might create fear, it lacks the element of violence that the vermin example at least had. Furthermore, an essential element of terrorism is that the terrorists must make demands on the government they target, or else the populace cannot be expected to support the changes to policy demanded by the terrorists. Counterfeiters do not admit their crime and, therefore, make no demands.

     “Cyberterrorism” is another example that lacks the element of violence, unless it were specifically used for a violent purpose against innocent civilians. Otherwise, it is only economic sabotage, with the possible additional element of the loss of privacy.

     The murder in Germany of two American troops by a citizen of Kosovo was called “terrorism,” even though the target was the military, not innocent civilians. The killings were a violent example of jihad carried out on behalf of militant Islam. This case was noteworthy for another pattern exhibited by government and the media of judging whether an act is terrorism if the perpetrator has a link to terrorists. A perpetrator’s intended target, not his link to terrorists, determines whether an act was terrorism. It is important to recognize that some terrorists alternate between terrorism and attacks on military or other government targets (e.g. al-Qaeda) or between innocent civilians and targeted individuals whose activities the perpetrator opposed (e.g. the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski). Therefore, a perpetrator may be linked to terrorists or is himself a terrorist, but his action may nevertheless not be terrorism.

     The misuse of the word terrorism is diluting its meaning. Now, any acts of violence are called “terrorism,” even those taken in defense against terrorism, especially by the Islamist enemy that seeks to place itself on an equal moral level by accusing the government it opposes of the same thing they do, as if to justify their continued terrorism. Other anti-Americans on the Left eagerly agree with the charge for their own purposes. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Obama Administration’s missile strikes from aerial drones have been called “terrorism.” The United States does not target innocent civilians, only terrorists and other militants. Terrorists and other militants are usually civilians, but not innocent ones. Those civilians who harbor or finance the terrorists or other militants are not innocent civilians, either.

     We conservatives must use the word terrorism correctly.