• Home
  • Southern New Hampshire University
  • Intro to Homeland Security and CounterterrorismCJ 310
  • Comparative Definitions and Implications of Terrorism

Comparative Definitions and Implications of Terrorism

Of the many different ways that terrorism has been defined, I narrowed down my choice to two, the United States and the United Kingdom. In the US, international terrorism is defined as "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations." The UK defines terrorism as "an action or threat designed to influence the government or intimidate the public. Its purpose is to advance a political, religious, or ideological cause." The difference between these two is the association. In the US definition, you have to be associated with a terrorist organization to be considered a terrorism, whereas the UK definition, you can be apart of a radical religious group that tries to influence the government or influence the public. I think that the UK definition is better because it covers a lot more of a wide variety of reasons someone could potentially be a terrorist. The potential problem I can see with multiple definitions of terrorism would mostly come from a legal standpoint. If someone was on trial for acts of terrorism, the definition can be argued if it does not cover a wide range of reasons someone is a terrorist. This could also aid the alleged terrorist in convincing the public that they are not actually a terrorist, but rather a good person using these same methods. This could affect the Department of Homeland Security when it comes to domestic terrorism because if someone does not fit the definition of terrorism, they cannot be labeled as such, making it difficult to make stopping their actions a top priority. The benefits of having a single definition for terrorism are that everyone is on the same page. There's no legal back and forth, and no technicalities as to whether or not someone is a terrorist. Another benefit of having only one definition would be that if the definition was specific enough, the people who are trying to convince you that they are not terrorists would have a much more difficult time doing so. My definition of terrorism would be something along the lines of "Any group of people or one individual that seeks to influence the government or intimidate the people of a country through the use of force or violence that stems from a known or unknown terrorist group or an extremist group with religious, political, social, racial, or environmental motivation." Gebelhoff, R. (n.d.). Terrorism. fbi.gov. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism Terrorism and Extremism. educateagainsthate.com. (n.d.). https://www.educateagainsthate.com/terrorism-definition/