Types of terrorism and their linguistic techniques and strategies
Abstract
This paper aimed at a minimal definition of terrorism. Forms of terrorism were also distinguished. The linguistic techniques employed by some terrorist organizations were discussed using the Critical Discourse Analysis Theory. The purpose was to find out to what extent these linguistic techniques enhanced the recruitment of members in the various terrorist groups. The findings revealed that terrorists’ speeches and narratives were mainly through the Social Media; through this channel, they have recorded great successes at recruiting many youths.
Introduction
An Overview of Terrorism and Language
Terrorism has now become a global problem and issue. If it is not Boko Haram, Niger Delta Militants and Cattle Herdsmen in Nigeria and its neighbouring countries, it is Al-Shabaab in Somalia, or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or ISIS in Syria.
In fact, attacks by terrorists have been reported the world over. On August 25, 2011, the United Nations building in Abuja was bombed leaving many people dead and many others seriously injured. On October, 1, 2011, Boko Haram launched twin bomb blasts which claimed eleven lives in Abuja. (Newswatch PP 10–21). Prior to this period, on October 1, 2010, two cars loaded with bombs exploded near the Eagle Square venue of Nigeria’s 50th independence anniversary celebration killing over ten people. What about the abductions/kidnapping of people and destruction of pipe lines by Niger Delta Militants? On the international scene, terrorists’ attacks have been reported. In the United States; for example:
On September 11, 2001, the United States became victim of the most deadly and devastating act of terrorism with the destruction of the Twin Towers of New York’s World Trade Centre by means of hijacked passenger aircraft, and a similar onslaught on the country’s military HQ, the Pentagon (qtd. In Omego, 83).
In 2008, Mumbai, the largest city of India was coloured with blood when Islamic terrorists from Pakistan took the whole world by storm. The attack which drew widespread condemnation across the world came between November 26th and 29th of the same month, killing at least one hundred and seventy three (173) people and wounding about three hundred and eight (308). The attack was said to have witnessed the display and application of the latest information and communication technology gadgets (Senam et al, 99). There are indications that the world all over is now bedeviled by this menace. No wonder governments around the world have come to see this evil phenomenon as a major threat to global security. In the words of Crenshaw:
… the rise of ISIS and associated Jihad violence taking place in Syria and Iraq have reverberated widely. The effects can be felt not just in the horrific attacks that took place in Paris in January, 2015, but across the Asia — Pacific region as well, including Australia (en.wikipedia).
No matter the reasons/ideologies, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, referred to this ideology as “conspiracy theories, of Extremist” … championed by “violent extremists”.
Nevertheless, terrorism is not a recent phenomenon in the world. Its history goes back to 48. A.D, when a Jewish sect called the Zealots carried out terrorist campaigns to force insurrection against the Romans in Judea. These violent revolts included the use of assassins (Sicarii or dagger men) to infiltrate Roman legionaries with a sica (dagger), kidnap members of staff of the temple guard to hold to ransom in exchange for money or use poison on a large scale to eliminate them. The zealots’ justification for their killing of other Jews was that these killings demonstrated the consequences of the immorality of collaborating with the Roman invaders and, by implication, to discredit the Romans for inability to protect their Jewish collaborators. Eguavoen explains that:
This basic principle has so far informed the strategies in all boiling terrorists’ zones of the world today. Such terrorist groups, as will be listed later often create a sense of insecurity and fear amongst citizenry and give the impression that their government is unable to protect them. The aggression is not only towards the offending government as it were, but also government that supports their target government. (29)
According to the findings of this writer, the first terrorist to wear the label proudly were French revolutionaries. After 1789, Maximilian Robespierre, the radical leader in the post revolutionary period, famously said that “virtue is powerless without terrorists” (qtd in Imobighe and Eguavoen eds. 30). More recent examples of terrorists groups apart from those operating in the Middle East, include the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Ulster Volunteer Force in Northern Ireland, Basque Fatherland and liberty (EFA) in Spain, the Shinrikyo cult in Japan, the Shining Path Guerrillas in Peru and Al-Qaeda which later gave birth to Boko Haram Sect in Nigeria and ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
It is no doubt that language, being a social phenomenon, a multipurpose and an indispensable instrument whose major function is to make communication possible among its users is extensively employed by all terrorists. The use of language cuts across all facets of life — politics, education, religion; the media-man, the Engineer, the Educationist, the Politician and the Terrorist. With language, one can build or burn a city. God knows the potentiality and power that is in language and so “confounded their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech” (Gen. 11:7 KJV). This was when men in their nature of mischief planned to build a tower otherwise “Tower of Babel.”
Terrorists also, understand well this efficacious power of language and so employ it strongly to get people by their sides.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to find out the linguistic techniques employed by terrorists and the extent to which these linguistic techniques enhanced the recruitment of members.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study.
- What are the various language strategies used by terrorists?
- To what extent have these language strategies helped in the achievement of their objectives?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The grounding of this study or the approach adopted is Critical Discourse Analysis Theory (CDA). CDA’s major concern is to explore “the ways language is used to persuade and manipulate both individuals and social groups” (Bloor and Bloor, 1) it is also concerned with studying and analyzing written texts and spoken words, to reveal the discursive sources of power, vehemence, inequality and bias and how these sources are initiated, maintained, reproduced and transformed with specific social, economic, political and historical contexts (Van Dijk, 1988). CDA is developed out of Functional Linguistics which stresses the importance of context in the interpretation of language. Functional Linguistics refused to see language as a collection of bald words and sentences, but as symbols of communication manipulated by users to achieve social goals. The idea is to illuminate ways in which dominant forces in the society construct versions of reality that favour their interests. This paper examined how these dominant forces within a framework of discourse access and discourse structures that have created bias in the society. In this case recruitments and terrorism sympathizers.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Studies have shown that there are at least two hundred definitions of terrorism. In fact, Simon reports, that at least two hundred and twelve (212) definitions of terrorism exist across the world (6); ninety (90) of them are recurrently used by governments and other institutions. The term is so loaded with conceptual problems that a totally accepted definition of it still does not exist. The irony is that the recurrent theme of terrorism has become the daily part of the political drama of modern times. One just needs to turn on the TV to hear about it constantly. Nevertheless, below is a list of definitions of terrorism by some of the most distinguished scholars and institutions on the matter as compiled by Hoodman (www.realitymacedonia.org.mk.). For Walter Laqueur, “Terrorism is the use or the threat of the use of violence, a method of combat, or a strategy to achieve certain targets. It aims that is ruthless, to induce a state of fear in the victim, that is ruthless, and does not conform with humanitarian rules. Publicity is an essential factor in the terrorist strategy.
Bruce Hoffman: “Terrorism is ineluctably political in aims and motives, violent or equally important, threatens violence, designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target, conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia), and perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity”.
Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi) clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby in contrast to assassination the direct targets of violence are not the man targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators”.
David Rapoport: Terrorism is “the use of violence to provoke consciousness, to evoke certain feelings of sympathy and revulsion”.
Yonah Alexander: Terrorism is “the use of violence against random civilian targets in order to intimidate or to create generalized pervasive fear for the purpose of achieving political goals”.
Stephen Sloan: the definition of terrorism has evolved over time, but its political, religious, and ideological goals have practically never changed.
League of Nations Convention definition of terrorism (1937): terrorist acts are “all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.”
U.S Department of Defence definition of terrorism: terrorism refers to “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological”.
U.S Department of State: terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine state agents.
Terrorism is “any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources”.
Terrorism is a violence or the threat of violence calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm — in a word, to terrorize — and thereby bring about some social or political change. (Kegley, 16).
As one can see, there are problems about attaining an all-inclusive definition. As Yasser Arafat, the late chairman of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organizaiton), notably said in a 1974 speech before the United Nation, “Nobody is a terrorist who stands for a just cause”.
The difficulty in defining terrorism has led to the cliché that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The phrase implies that there can be no objective definition of terrorism, that there are no universal standard, of conduct in conflict. However, civilized nations have through law identified modes of conduct that are criminal. Homicide, kidnapping, threats to life, and the willful destruction of property appear in the criminal codes of every country (Kegley, Jr. 17).
In conclusion, terrorism can be objectively defined by the quality of the act, but not by the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of their cause: All terrorist acts are crimes. All involve violence or the threat of violence, coupled with explicit demands. The violence is to create fear (i.e terror, psychic fear) and is frequently directed against civilian targets. The purposes are for (1) political (2) religious, or (3) ideological reasons. Ideologies are systems of belief derived from world views that frame human social and political conditions. (http://www.foxitsoftware.com). The actions are often carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. The terror is intentionally aimed at noncombatant targets (i.e civilians and iconic symbols), and the objective is to achieve the greatest attainable publicity. The perpetrators are usually members of an illicit clandestine organization. Terrorists often claim credit for the acts. Finally, their acts are intended to produce psychological effects beyond the immediate physical damage and that is the hallmark of terrorism.
Concept of Language
Language is among the human natural phenomena that has attracted extensive consideration from scholars. However, one recurring feature in most scholarly views is that language is a means of communication. No doubt, language is important to man in social survival as water and food are to man for biological and chemical sustenance. McLaughlin has defined language, for instance, as “the system of arbitrary verbal symbols (and non-verbal means) that speakers put in order, according to a conventional code to communicate ideas and feelings or to influence the behaviour of others” (19). It is the means that is readily available to human beings in the communication of ideas and feelings. Language is one of the features that distinguishes human social life from other animal creatures. According to Fromkin et al, “the possession of language, perhaps more than any other attribute, distinguishes humans from other animal. To understand our humanity, one must understand the nature of language that makes us human” (3). Thus, language is very important because it enables one to speak and be understood by others who are intelligible in the same language. The functions of language in human social life are enormous. It is a binding force, a unifying and cohesive mechanism. In fact, there is society because there is language. Remove language and society will disintegrate and collapse.
The efficacy of language lies in its meaning potentials. Halliday in Webster, has submitted that language is “meaning potential: a system and process of choice which typically goes on below the threshold of attention, but can be attended to and reflected on under certain circumstances most typically, though exclusively associated with the evolution of writing” (404). Language expressively manifests as compendium of words, phrases, clauses and sentences, but are chosen by users, and stringed together systematically, to express meanings that are appropriate in a particular context. Essentially, language use is interpreted against the background of its context. Borrowing from Finegan, “people use language principally as a tool to do things: request a favour, make a promise, report a piece of news, give directions, offer a greeting, seek information, extend an invitation, request help and do hundreds of other things… ” (302).
What one does with language could produce positive or negative consequences. Therefore, knowing the use of language is not simply a matter of knowing how to structure words into phrases and sentences to encode messages and transmit them to a second party, who then decodes them in order to understand what is intended. Similarly, language use does not simply involve encoding and decoding of messages or just attaining grammatical competence where every sentence would have a fixed interpretation irrespective of its context of use. It also embodies our ability to use language accurately, appropriately and flexibly to reflect context and message. It involves the ability to make language perform the intended need of the user within the given context. Every situation expects peculiar mode of language use, just as every occasion expects a fitting dress mode. A mode of language use that is at odds with its context is likely to be counter productive, igniting misunderstanding: confusion and sometimes reprehension. (Okeke et al www.ca-journals.org).
Concept of Communication
Communication as a word is derived from the Latin word communicare which means to share (Jain et al. 135). Its interpretation receives various interpretations depending on field or discipline. For instance, Cherry, a psychologist describes it as “the discriminatory response of an organism to stimulus. (It includes the) relationship set up by the transmission of stimuli and the evocation of responses” (qtd in Anyachonkeya 344). Such definition as this restricts communication to the mental or psychological process of stimulus — response relationship, how the internal mind responds to an external stimulus. But to a linguist like Crystal, communication extends to a process of “transmission and reception of information (a message) between a source and a receiver using a signaling system: in linguistic contexts, source and receiver are interpreted in human terms, the system involved is a language, and the notion of response to (or acknowledgement of) the message becomes of crucial importance” (qtd in Ndimele 123). Thus, to a linguist, communication is a process of social interaction that has the potential of bringing people together, the essence of which is to share knowledge. Again, this is not the end of it all, as the definition of communication could be expanded to incorporate an interaction process that involves sharing information, experience and culture.
Culture is necessary in communication because man is never different from the culture that shapes his identity and perception. Communication as a mental response to stimulus or social interaction is incidental on culture. Objects, concepts, ideas and images communicate differently according to people’s culture, and this is transferred through generations as part of learning and socialization. Notably, communication is not limited to the verbal language use. Other non-verbal forms like proxemics (use of space), kinesics (body movement), dress pattern and other manners of personal appearance, tone, pauses etc. are all forms of communicating messages. Incidentally, people often ignore the nonverbal aspect of communication, concentrating only on the words of speech and writing, Leech’s remark that speakers often “mean more than they say” must be taken seriously (qtd in Mey 69). Often times, the emotional aspect of communication comes from the non-verbal. What may bring quarrel between interlocutors could be how a thing is said, and not what is said. The how is the non-verbal and may be the tone used, the facial construction of the speaker, the posture of the speaker, the emotional consideration of the social or economic space between the interlocutors and so on. Thus, both the verbal and the nonverbal aspects of communication are important in any interlocution.
METHODOLOGY
This work is a qualitative descriptive/survey research design. According to Anaekwe “Descriptive research is concerned with the collection of data for the purpose of describing and interpreting existing conditions on practice, beliefs, attitudes etc”. (34). It is an empirical inquiry that uses multiple sources of evidence to investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context (qtd. in Wimmer and Dominick, 136).
The researcher made use of wide variety of sources which included Newspapers, news magazines, books from libraries, social media, journals, diaries, speeches of some people. The study involved the analyses of the speeches (narratives of the terrorists using the linguistic theory discussed above.