This is a kind of thought-experiment game I designed in the Michael Albert model and based on a lot of Noam Chomsky’s hypotheticals that point out hypocrisy. It’s in the tradition of the Socratic method. I teach critical thinking and use it in my classes. I just thought some of you might like it to use with your apolitical or even right-wing friends…

Step 1: Ask your friend(s) for a definition of terrorism. They’ll inevitably give you something like “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes,” but any definition’s OK as long as they really believe it. I do this with large classes and so we vote for the best of many definitions (gathered from various dictionaries and the students’ own feelings).

Step 2: Ask for an example of terrorism. They invariably come up with 9/11. That’s fine. But any other famous example works just as well.

Step 3: If it’s a large group, confirm (with a vote), that the majority think the example given is indeed an example of terrorism.

Step 4 (and this is the big one): Ask if the example (let’s assume it’s 9/11) was an act of terrorism according to the definition we’ve agreed on. Usually 100% will say ‘yes’.

Step 5: Start to pick apart the definition with other examples attacking various parts of possible definitions. For example, with the definition offered above (viz. “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes”), you could ask if cyberattacks are sometimes acts of terrorism. If they say they are, repeat Step 4 (asking if cyberattacks fit the definition we’ve agreed on) and – if your friends don’t notice this themselves – point out that most of what gets called cyberterrorism is non-violent.

Step 6: If they agree that there’s a contradiction between their assumptions (for example, about cyberattacks) and our agreed definition, ask if we should change the definition (in the example, this would involve replacing “violence” with “attacks”).

Step 7: Once you’ve agreed on an adjusted definition (let’s assume it’s “the use of attacks and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes”), go on to another example. There are lots to choose from. But my favorite is Hiroshima. So, you ask if they feel (regardless of the definition) that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was an act of terrorism. Most apolitical or right-wing people will say “no”.

Step 8: Repeat Step 4 (again asking if it fits the definition of terrorism we’ve agreed on, regardless of one’s feelings). If they’re intellectually honest, they’ll answer “yes” (as it was “the use of attacks/violence to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes” – i.e. it was an attack designed to induce surrender, at least according to most people’s beliefs). And thus we’re left with another contradiction between their feelings about what is and what is not terrorism and the definitions they assume to be correct.

Step 9: Repeat Step 6 (again asking if we should change the definition). They’ll invariably suggest one of two revisions: 1) change it to “outside of war” or 2) change it to “by non-state actors”. Whichever revision they choose, don’t fight it. Just accept it and move on to your next example.

Step 10: If the new definition is, for example, “the use of attacks and threats, outside of war, to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes,” the next example you should use is the suicide attacks by Al Qaeda-related groups in the Iraq War. Ask if they assume them (regardless of what any definition says) to have been acts of terrorism. They’ll invariably say “yes”.

Step 11: Repeat Step 4 (again asking if those suicide attacks fit the definition we’ve agreed on, regardless of one’s feelings on the matter) once more. If they somehow say “yes,” point out the contradiction between “outside of war” and “the Iraq War”. (By the way, if they argue that the Iraq War was not a war, you can use the example of the collective punishment of French villages by the Nazis in WWII – the mother of all wars – repeating Steps 3 and 4.)

Step 12: If they agree that “outside of war” needs to be removed from the definition, you might get back to “by non-state actors” as an alternative that would also exonerate the bombing of Hiroshima. As always and with every change to the definition, just accept it and move on to your next example.

Step 13: Assuming the revised definition is now something like “the use of attacks and threats, by non-state actors, to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes,” bring up the Lockerbie Bombing and repeat Steps 3 and 4. If they agree that Lockerbie was state terrorism committed by Libya, then you have to remove “by non-state actors” from the definition.

Step 14: Point out that they’re going in a circle trying to condemn the crimes of enemies while condoning the crimes of friends. The problem has been that, instead of changing their assumptions about what is and what is not terrorism, they’ve been artificially trying to change the definition to match those mistaken assumptions. You might also want to raise the lack of “civilian targets” in many definitions. And here you can close by either joking that the real definition of terrorism is the simple, “what they do” or go into Chomsky’s example (taken from St. Augustine) of the pirate and the emperor, making the point that the difference between 9/11 and Hiroshima is a matter of scale.

Try it out on your friends!

---