Who is a terrorist expert - an opinion

[Ray]

I wonder if any one claim to be an expert.

Terrorism is not any operation organised on set principles or doctrine or tactics.

It all depends on the group that is organising the terrorist act.

For instance, in India, the terrorists from different organisations (foreign or domestic) have different procedures. Therefore a terrorist in J&K may not have the same tactics as that of a Maoist!

It is difficult to be an expert in a generalised meaning of the word!

[Stan]

We could barely agree on what constitutes a terrorist act and how to even define one that does said, yet alone conclude we have an expert in the field.

The Subcommittee has found that practically every agency of the United States Government (USG) with a counterterrorism mission uses a different definition of terrorism. All USG agencies charged with the counterterrorism mission should agree on a single definition, so that it would be clear what activity constitutes a terrorist act and who should be designated a terrorist. Without a standard definition, terrorism might be treated no differently than other crimes. The Subcommittee supports a standard definition as follows: "Terrorism is the illegitimate, premeditated use of politically motivated violence or the threat of violence by a sub-national group against persons or property with the intent to coerce a government by instilling fear amongst the populace."

The only expert that I'm aware of is a real terrorist, and, as Ray pointed out, that expert may work fine say in Africa, but would know next to nothing in the Middle East.

[Fuchs]

"Terrorism is the illegitimate, premeditated use of politically motivated violence or the threat of violence by a sub-national group against persons or property with the intent to coerce a government by instilling fear amongst the populace."

LOL, it would probably NOT be wise of the US to make such a definition official. It's danger close.

[Bob's World]

True, but the US sees "legitimate" as meaning the same thing as "legal," and as we determine what is legal or illegal, then there is no risk that our actions are ever "illegitimate." Pretty convenient, not sure if anyone else buys it, but we seem to think they do.

Reality is that organizations of every ilk tend to employ "terrorism" when they feel it meets their ends. Certainly all state parties in WWII employed terrorism on a massive scale. The US Air Force is largely dedicated to the delivery of state-sanctioned terror onto others (but only in legitimate ways..).

It is indeed a fine line. All the more reason to back away from our obsession on the tactic of terror, and to become more focused on the issues behind the organizations that resort to it. Mitigate the organizations in a supporting effort, but make the main effort one of working to understand and resolve the underlying provocations. This also means we'll have to stop blaming convenient foils, such as religious, cultural, ethnic and ideological differences.

Easier to just focus on tactics and attempt the defeat of those who employ certain tactics. Attack the symptoms, ignore the causes.