Terrorism is a controversial, tricky, complicated subject, and thus it has a multitude of definitions. Although the majority of these definitions are sensible and working definitions, none of them are free from flaws. Each definition of terrorism has its own unique pros and cons which all ultimately come down to which groups and historical information it includes and which groups and historical information it excludes. For many definitions, what they include is one of their largest pros. In particular, definitions that pull from historical context help contextualize terrorism. Because in discussions of terrorism, history has largely been ignored in favor of current events (Gage 81), the terrorist acts facing the world today are often viewed …show more content…
The elimination of any potential grey area creates a stark contrast between a supposed hero and a supposed villain, a depiction that is often not only quite erroneous but also unfair. Specifically, although the exclusion of “state terror” may make discussion easier (Gage 78), it also hinders important conversation with regards to government oppression and potentially justified retaliation on the part of “rebels” (Gage 78). With this limitation of discussion comes about an inherent stifling of questioning, particularly with regards to the status quo. This, thus, enables not only violent actions of the state to be largely left out of discussion, but also violent actions that encourage the status quo and reactionary sentiment. Right-wing violence that seeks to protect a status quo receives less reaction and intervention from governments than left-wing violence that seeks change (Gage 89). Thus, in the black and white discussions that are created by definitions that are too simple and limited, only left-wing agitators are seen as “terrorists”. The violent political actions of those on the right such as Timothy McVeigh and the KKK should rightfully be called terrorism, and any definition that decreases their likelihood of being called such is horrendously