Definition

We define terrorism as the exertion or threat of violence to intimidate a civilian population. Furthermore, terrorism is a multifaceted concept that encapsulates a political action that seeks governmental change through violence or threats of violence, exists as a label and provides a reason to communicate hierarchical differences and create fear, and expresses the overly normalized and everyday acts of violence and systemic oppression against gender and racial minorities.

Terrorism can be looked at from varying perspectives and therefore can be defined differently depending on those perspectives. Many political scientists and government agencies define terrorism as a political action that seeks governmental change through violence or threats of violence, which is explored at the beginning of our webpage. However, through this page, we also expand upon this definition to account for the ways terrorism is used as a label to “other” groups based on religion, ethnicity, and race. Finally, we apply the term “terrorism” to forms of abuse and systemic oppression. 

In our page, we primarily explore terrorism through an American lens in a post-9/11 world, though we acknowledge terrorism has a long history and is not confined to American borders. 

A Case Study into 9/11 

To demonstrate how terrorism is more than just a political action, we take a look at the attacks on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks are etched into the minds of many Americans, but September 11 also marked a turning point in the United States and its relationship to the word “terrorism.” 

 On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, 19 people linked with al Qaeda – an militant extremist group – hijacked commercial passenger planes and committed suicide attacks in which two planes were flown into the World Trade Center, one was flown into the Pentagon, and passengers on the fourth plane combatted the attack and the plane drowned in a field in Pennsylvania. Ultimately, 2,996 people died as a result of the 9/11 attacks. 

The motivations behind the attacks often get lost in discourse surrounding the day. In November of 2022, Leader of al Qaeda Osama bin Laden released a manifesto titled Letter to the American people in which he detailed the motivations behind the September 11 attacks. Bin Laden described how the motives for the attacks revolved around the United States’ support for attacks on Muslims in foreign affairs.¹ Bin Laden condemns the US support for Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. He portrays the US as an imperial power against the Muslim world and rationalizes the attacks against civilians by arguing that civilians are complicit in atrocities against Muslims because they pay taxes and democratically elect their officials. It is important to note that although Bin Laden uses Islam and religion as a justification but does not represent the entire Muslim world in his words. 

Significance as a Turning Point

9/11 marked a turning point in contemporary American history. Fear around terrorist attacks among the general American public grew following 9/11. According to the Pew Research Center, in January of 2002, 83% of Americans said “‘defending the country from future terrorist attacks’ was a top priority for the president and Congress, the highest for any issue”.³ In the years following the attacks, the US launched a military response to combat terrorist threats. Countering terrorism became the center of US defense policies, leading to the War on Terror.⁴

The War on Terror is an international military campaign that included strikes on al Qaeda training camps and Taliban military installations.⁵ The government also began a crack-down on terrorism domestically. President George W. Bush signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which created the Department of Homeland Security which handles terrorist threats, border security and disaster relief.⁶ Additionally, in October of 2001, Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, commonly referred to as the USA Patriot Act. The purpose of the Patriot Act was to give law enforcement more tools to use against terrorists.⁷ The act “granted sweeping new power to both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies” and expanded the government’s authority to spy on its citizens.⁸

Rise of Anti-Muslim Discrimination

The Patriot Act reinforced the fear that terrorists lived within the borders of the United States. Muslim, Arab, and South Asian Americans were subject to hate crimes purely because they were perceived as a threat as Americans began incorrectly associating their features with violence. The video below shows a panel of American Muslims who experienced physical and verbal assaults because they were labeled as a threat. One man described how a high school guidance counselor told him “We don’t want your kind here. You have to leave.” One woman described how someone punched her father in the face and told him that “You look like you’re from ISIS.” 

These instances of assault are representative of how the figure of the “terrorist” was used as an excuse to verbally and physically Americans based on their perceived religion and ethnic background. Muslim, Arab, and South Asian Americans still deal with discrimination decades after 9/11. In a March 2016 interview, then presidential candidate Donald Trump said, “Islam hates us”.¹⁰ In the same month, “Soon after three suicide bombings in Brussels tied to a group of French and Belgian Muslims, Trump told Fox Business: ‘We’re having problems with the Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country’”.¹¹ The anti-Muslim rhetoric spewed by Trump shows how Muslim and Arab Americans are still victims of discrimination and unfairly associated with the figure of the terrorist–and how this discrimination is reinforced by political figures of with large platforms and amounts of support.¹²

Terrorism as a Political Strategy

The conventional definition of terrorism, often used by government organizations and political scientists, is political violence by domestic or foreign non-state actors with the intent of altering the political system of a given state. This definition emphasizes how terrorism has political motivations and often seeks to topple a government in power.¹³ We engage with the conventional definition, while also asserting other political-related areas of contestations with an ultimate understanding of the asymmetric influence of the United States in developing this view. In our definition, we aim to analyze the juxtaposition of the conventional definition of terrorism while considering the social implications of terrorism as a label and how it impacts certain communities. Political conceptualizations of terrorism are important because they express what is most commonly recognized as “terrorism.” The main challenge with this definition is its failure to recognize how terrorism is not just an action; the word itself can also be used as a political strategy in order to “other” – or ostracize a group. 

Despite the prevalence of this general conceptualization, scholars have failed to reach an exact definition, debating more complex factors such as the source, methods of violence, legitimacy and motivations, and targets of “terrorism” and “terrorist violence.” A main area of contention relates to whether “terrorism” has to be carried out by non-state actors, or whether government facilitated acts can be classified as “terrorism.” Scholar Ruth Blakely asserts that because definitions of terrorism should be based on the nature of the act instead of the actor, actions by states should be labeled as terrorism if they fit the definition .¹⁴ Her conceptualization of terrorism critiques the distinctions between state and non-state violence that scholars such as Bruce Hoffman posit. Hoffman states that in war from national armed forces, “there are rules and accepted norms of behavior that prohibit the use of certain types of weapons…and proscribe various statics and outlaw attacks on specific categories,” while terrorists tactics and targets violate these common norms for war. ¹⁵The distinction between “terrorism” from war is important because it raises an interesting question; how should acts of violence by states and governments that do not follow the norms of war be classified? This question suggests a different way of defining terrorism – its psychological installation of fear and disregard for established norms and laws of war; the violence itself, rather than the identity of the actor.

Bruce Hoffman focuses on this violence, providing useful distinctions between “terrorism” and other forms of political violence. Unlike guerilla warfare and insurgency, terrorism typically does not use large-scale political mobilization for territorial control or governance over a populace, instead using physical acts of violence to send a political message. “Terrorism” in its conventional definition also does not utilize government or military targets, a defining feature of both guerilla warfare and insurgency. Terrorism differs from what Hoffman describes as the “lunatic assassin” because it is personal yet inherently political, rather than irrational.¹⁶

Hoffman’s distinction connects to another source of contention in defining terrorism; the rationality and legitimacy of actors. According to political scientist Martha Crenshaw, terrorism is “Violent political behavior resulting from the deliberate choice of a basically rational actor”; it is a “logical choice…when the power ratio of government to challenger is high.”¹⁷ While less common, other interpretations claim that  “terrorism” can be personally and psychologically motivated, emphasizing emotion and irrationality over deliberate calculation.¹⁸ This debate is supported by the “Freedom Fighter versus Terrorist narrative, in which “terrorism” functions as a subjective term to either legitimize or delegitimize the actions of a certain actor on the premise of rationality and motivation.¹⁹  

The questions of legitimacy and rationality can be further extended to debates which center on the targets of “terrorist” attacks in its definition. Political theorist Michael Walzer defines terrorism as “the random killing of innocent people, in the hope of creating pervasive fear.”²⁰ The focus on civilians is also reflected in political frameworks, such as those used by the United Nations, in International Humanitarian Law, domestic law, and in the Office of Justice Programs. While terrorism is most commonly defined as being targeted towards civilians, some contend that terrorism can take multiple forms, and thus can have varied targets – including civilians, but also state actors, and public infrastructure. ²¹Along with rationality and legitimacy, these debates reveal how terrorism continues to be contested through normative discernments instead of by the violence itself. 

This lack of a universal definition has manifested on the international stage through the difficulty that governments and international entities have had with addressing “terrorism.” Counterterrorism, as defined by the US Army Field Manual, is “Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorrism.” ²²The lack of an agreed and comprehensive definition makes states and regional organizations open to construct their own definitions and implementation, which causes a legal and institutional gap in addressing terrorism, causing a wide range of groups to be targeted by this regulation.²³ 

Role of Hegemony 

While scholars and theorists have debated what distinguishes terrorism from other forms of political violence, the U.S. government and its agencies have established a rigid definition of terrorism. Using a post-9/11 framework, the the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) describes terrorism in two ways; international “violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored)” and domestic, “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”²⁴ These definitions center on criminalizing non-state actors, while largely omitting state violence – only acknowledging foreign state-sponsored acts – in defining terrorism. 

This U.S.-based conceptualization has come to play a hegemonic role in global understandings of terrorism through selective labeling and the legitimization of state violence. The U.S. obtains significant influence over important international organizations and in international law, thereby shaping how “terrorism” is responded to globally. This idea was apparent through the U.S. actions in Iraq in the broader “War on Terror,” wherein the U.S. justified the lack of organization and civilian casualties on the basis of democracy preservation and a common fight against terrorism. ²⁵

This graphic from the American Foreign Service Association shows how the U.S. recognizes state-sponsored terrorism, while simultaneously failing to acknowledge their own role and counterterrorism measures that could be conceived as forms of “terrorism.” 

The U.S. defines terrorism in a way that hides its own role in that kind of violence. This is achieved through the emphasis on “foreign state-sponsored terrorism,” and the general exclusion of acknowledging any role of the U.S. or its counterterrorism measures. Additionally, the criteria for those receiving financial compensation is based on “both physical and psychological damage….Acts of terrorism are by their very definition extreme and outrageous and intended to cause the highest degree of emotional distress.”²⁷ This is an ironic parallel to the actions of the U.S. in Iraq, wherein a violation of  “prisoners’ and detainees’ rights was another main facet of the war. Most of them were illegally arrested, transferred and killed during the custody.” ²⁸ 

This idea is further demonstrated by Khaled A. Beydoun in On Terrorists and Freedom Fighters, in which he discusses the uneven application of terrorism as a concept. When actions align with U.S. interests, they are defined as originating from “freedom fighters,” and when they come from ideological adversaries, they are categorized as “terrorists,” invalidating certain forms of political struggle. ²⁹ Reflecting Ruth Blakely’s critique on the identities of actors, ³⁰Beydoun’s propositions support the idea that the conventional definition of terrorism is centered mainly around who the people are and less of what they do. 

Below is a quote from President George W. Bush, which describes the U.S. strategy in the War on Terror, further showing an emphasis on the subjectivity in the U.S. definition of terrorism.  

This quote demonstrates hegemony of the U.S. By framing the attacks as on the “heart and soul of the civilized world,” the U.S. globalizes this experience, determining the universal norms in which morality and global security is understood. Bush also presents this issue by subjectively determining foreign governments, typically enemies, as supporting state-sponsored terrorism, while simultaneously legitimizing the counterterrorism strategy of the U.S. as a fight against it.

Terrorism as a Label

Thus, in addition to the conventional understanding of terrorism, it’s important to also consider the implications of the keyword itself; terrorism is, simply put, a label. This label oversimplifies political motives, reinforces racist stereotypes of marginalized groups, and exacerbates the power difference between who is being labeled as terrorists and who is actively labeling them.  

It has been societally normalized that citizens look to the government to make political choices. Thus, when the government says someone is a terrorist, citizens can infer that the group is dangerous, should not be trusted, and must be punished. While normalized, “[The word] serves as a silencer – or a means for not dealing with the reasons why people actually choose, for political and emotional reasons, to engage in terrorism”.³² After the word is applied, there is a tendency to not look beyond why something happened, motivated by the delegitimizing of their actions in media. Thus, the act of just applying the word to a group shuts down their political motivation, suppressing the true intentions of the “terrorist” group and not addressing the underlying causes. Instead, the group is punished and violence is often inflected. 

This political cartoon named “Creating Terrorism” was created by Patrick Chappatte years after 9/11 in response to the War on Terror, which, implemented by former President George W. Bush, was a military attack beginning in Afghanistan with the goal to defeat terrorism and protect the United States. Chappatte’s message aligns with the idea that intentions behind supposed terrorist attacks are rarely acknowledged and quick to be labeled. 

It’s important to note that this cartoon could hold multiple interpretations depending on the viewer. To our group, these “seeds” indicate how the presence of America’s military in foreign countries can create resentment and the desire to fight back and protect their country. Oftentimes, their motives to fight back in response to state sanctioned violence is not validated once the label terrorist is applied, and only their violence and actions are spotlighted and deemed as irrational. Chappatte created this to exemplify how vulnerable populations were the targets of destruction, suppression, and discrimination as a result of the United States military’s violent actions. In essence, this created what is known to be terrorism. 

In addition, the racialized figures explain how entire ethnic groups can be stereotyped as terrorists and violent as a result of the force of military presence. Due to the violent and fear provoking associations of the keyword, once a group is marked as terrorists by the government, there exists violence based on associations of “terrorism” with specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups. In fact, 2001 post 9/11 marked the highest rates of discrimination and violence against Muslim and Arab people: there were 481 attacks against people of Middle Eastern descent, a 1,500% increase compared to the year 2000.³⁴ The graph below showcases the sharp increase in number of reported incidents in 2001; following September 11th 2001, society perceived people who appeared Muslim as violent, increasing their fear of the group and motivating inhumane and violent reactions.

The process of racialization was not coincidental, rather a direct result of the racist media and governmental portrayals of the “terrorist” group. News coverage often labeled enemies as entire racial or religious groups. The constant negative portrayal of Islam and Muslim people told Americans that they were a threat, and soon Muslim appearing individuals were subjected discriminatory actions and comments, violence and hate crimes.  If the label terrorist was not applied and media was not publishing anti-Muslim sentiment, even if the group’s actions remained the same, there would be significantly less fear and stigma toward specific religions and ethnicities. 

When understanding the consequences of the label, one must examine the power dynamics present. The motivation to label a group as terrorists is partially due to the desire to emphasize an existent power imbalance. Theorist Austin Turk explains that only governments or groups that are more powerful can successfully label their threatening opponents as terrorists.³⁶ By contrast, the opponents rarely succeed in labeling a more powerful opponent the same unless a third party supports them. ³⁷ Based on Turk’s exploration of the privilege existing to be able to use the word itself, it’s evident that terrorism is not objective, rather a label that can only be used by groups with power.

The reliance on a power imbalance is clear when comparing Al Qaeda’s action on September 11th and America’s response following. The U.S. was quick to label Al Qaeda as a “terrorist” after the attacks. When the American government responded with violence in Afghanistan  – which also led to large amounts of civilians casualties – , the U.S., many other countries, and mainstream media never considered the actions to be“terrorism”, despite its purpose also being to intimidate a civilian population. Instead, it was known to be a form of defense and protection. Since America was significantly more powerful than the places it was invading, no government or group had the authority to label their actions as terrorism. Consequently, the word is contingent upon power hierarchies, not the actions of either group, and causes the group being labeled as a terrorist to experience violence and discrimination and their intentions not be properly acknowledged.

Everyday Terrorism

Terrorism is not only a description of political violence but is also an apt term to describe systemic oppression and instances of discrimination. Everyday terrorism refers to the small, consistent forms of intimidation and control that happen in daily life that often go unnoticed but reinforce systems of oppression. It shows up in situations where people use violence, intimidation, dominance, or emotional pressure to influence someone else’s behavior and strengthen power imbalances. Although everyday terrorism is not often seen as political, it still creates the same patterns of power and fear. These experiences are normalized, which makes them harder to recognize and talk about. 

As Professor Rachel Pain, a social and political geographer, describes, the purpose of this comparison is not to say domestic violence and forms of discrimination are the equivalent to state terrorism; rather, we aim to draw attention to the horror and severity of systemic oppression and abuse by showing how they fit under our definition of terrorism.³⁸

Senior Lecturer at the School of International Relations at St. Andrews University Caron Gentry helps explain why everyday terrorism often goes unnoticed. She says certain forms of violence get ignored because power structures decide what counts and what does not.³⁹ This is clear in domestic violence, where control and coercion become so normal that people forget how serious it is. The abuser uses fear and unpredictability to stay in control, which is actually really similar to how terrorism works on a larger scale.

Other political scholars also point out how “terrorist” can be used to describe domestic extremist groups that feed into systemic oppression. In an article, Dr. Michael Newell compares the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) to groups who are labeled as “transnational terrorists.”⁴⁰ The KKK exerted violence to intimidate African American civilians to assert white supremacy in the Reconstruction Era of the United States.

The wood engraving above shows how racism and other types of “everyday” discrimination are carried out through acts of violence. Additionally, the setting of a household demonstrates how the threat of violence was prevalent in everyday parts of life for African Americans, and therefore the KKK intimidated a civilian population. The constant threat of violence resembles the trauma inflicted in political terrorism.  

The ideas presented by Newell expands our conceptualization of terrorism because terrorism is typically associated with foreign political bodies, but this article brings up domestic extremist groups that fit into the category of terrorist groups. Furthermore, Newell explains that the perceived “Americanism” of groups like the KKK and their ideologies were widely normalized which is why they are not often labeled as terrorist groups despite exerting violence and intimidation.⁴² He writes “How the American public and American state officials responded to the KKK’s violence was influenced by this shared sense of racial identity.”⁴³ We argue that modern forms of racism, such as police brutality and microaggressions, are simply evolutions of the terrorism committed by domestic extremist groups. 

Overall, political scholars argue that political terrorism and everyday terrorism operate on a similar level. Pain states that everyday and global terrorisms share “foundations and direct points of connection,” which makes it clear that terrorism is not only a global issue but also something that plays out quietly in homes and relationships.⁴⁴ Understanding this helps broaden how we think about violence and what we choose to label as terrorism.

Conclusion

In conclusion, altering ones framework on terrorism – a work and concept that has carried consistent implications throughout historically relevant attacks – is a vital step toward acknowledging that terrorism is not a neutral term, rather one accompanied by blatant discrimination and classism. Thus, by reframing terrorism to this extent, we can better investigate the suffering occurring on all ends of a “terrorist attack” – whether the group committing a violent action, those directly impacted by such actions, and the minority populations experiencing discrimination on a daily basis. 

Footnotes

1. Quintan ​​Wiktorowicz and John Kaltner, “Killing in the Name of Islam: Al-Qaeda’s Justification for September 11.” Middle East Policy 10, no. 2 (Summer, 2003): 76-92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4967.00107. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/killing-name-islam-al-qaedas-justification/docview/203662303/se-2. ↩︎
2. Thomas Nilsson, “PHOTOS: Remembering 9/11.” ABC News, August 26, 2002. https://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/photos-remembering-911-148555. ↩︎
3. Carroll Doherty and Hannah Hartig, “Two Decades Later, the Enduring Legacy of 9/11.” Pew Research Center, September 2, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/09/02/two-decades-later-the-enduring-legacy-of-9-11/ ↩︎
4. Marc Redfield, “War on Terror.” In The Rhetoric of Terror: Reflections on 9/11 and the War on Terror, 49–96. Fordham University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt13x071g.6. ↩︎
5. George W. Bush Library, “Global War on Terror.” National Archives. https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/global-war-terror#:~:text=Research%20menu%20items-,Global%20War%20on%20Terror,Texas%2C%20January%203%2C%202003. ↩︎
6. Thomas C. Johnson and Ronald D. Hunter, “Changes in Homeland Security Activities since 9/11: An Examination of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies’ Practices.” Police Practice and Research 18, no. 2 (2017): 160–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2016.1261253.  ↩︎
7. David Domke, Erica S. Graham, Kevin Coe, Sue Lockett John, and Ted Coopman, “Going Public as Political Strategy: The Bush Administration, an Echoing Press, and Passage of the Patriot Act.” Political Communication 23, no. 3 (2006): 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600600808844. ↩︎
8. Department of Justice, “The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty.” 2003. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/what_is_the_patriot_act.pdf.  ↩︎
9. MS NOW, American Muslims Share Post 9/11 Experiences With Islamophobia. YouTube, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqb1sclGWWg&feature=youtu.be. ↩︎
10. Jenna Johnson and Abigail Hauslohner, “‘I Think Islam Hates Us’: A Timeline of Trump’s Comments about Islam and Muslims.” The Washington Post, May 20, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/20/i-think-islam-hates-us-a-timeline-of-trumps-comments-about-islam-and-muslims/.  ↩︎
11. Johnson and Hauslohner, “‘I Think Islam Hates Us’: A Timeline of Trump’s Comments about Islam and Muslims.”   ↩︎
12. Faiza Patel and Rachel Levinson-Waldman, “The Islamophobic Administration.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/islamophobic-administration. ↩︎
13. Jeff Goodwin, “A Theory of Categorical Terrorism,” Social Forces 84, no. 4 (2006): 2027-46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3844488. ↩︎
14. Ruth Blakeley, “State Terrorism in the Social Sciences: Theories, Methods and Concepts,” in Contemporary State Terrorism: Theory and Practice, ed. Richard Jackson, Eamon Murphy, and Scott Poynting (Routledge, 2009), 12–27, https://kar.kent.ac.uk/30159/1/State%20Terrorism%20in%20the%20Social%20Sciences.pdf. ↩︎
15. Bruce Hoffman, “What Is Terrorism?” in Inside Terrorism, rev. ed. (Columbia University Press, 2006), http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/hoff12698. ↩︎
16. Ibid. ↩︎
17. Martha Crenshaw, “The Causes of Terrorism,” Comparative Politics 13, no. 4 (July 1981): 379–399, https://doi.org/10.2307/421717. ↩︎
18. Martin Slann and Bernard Screechterman, eds., “State as Terrorist,” in Multidimensional Terrorism (Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, 1987), 39-44, NCJ-109023, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/state-terrorist-multidimensional-terrorism-p-39-44-1987-martin. ↩︎
19. Boaz Ganor, “Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?” Police Practice and Research 3, no. 4 (2002): 287-304, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1561426022000032060 ↩︎
20. Michael Walzer, “Terrorism and Just War,” Philosophia 34, no. 1 (2006): 3–12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-006-9004-1 ↩︎
21. Bastian Herre, Veronika Samborska, Hannah Ritchie, and Max Roser, “Terrorism,” Our World in Data, August 30, 2023, https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism. ↩︎
22. Office of Justice Programs, “US Army Counterterrorism Manual,” accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/us-army-counterterrorism-manual. ↩︎
23. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, “The Rise of Counter-Terrorism and the Demise of Human Rights,” Emory International Law Review 39, no. 1 (2024), https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=eilr. ↩︎
24. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Terrorism,” Terrorism Definitions, last modified November 21, 2025, https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism. ↩︎
25. Christine Chinkin, “Rethinking Legality/Legitimacy After the Iraq War,” in Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs, ed. Richard Falk, Mark Juergensmeyer, and Vesselin Popovski (Oxford University Press, 2012), https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1514&context=book_chapters. ↩︎
26. American Foreign Service Association, “The U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund: What You Should Know,” accessed December 11, 2025, https://afsa.org/us-victims-state-sponsored-terrorism-fund-what-you-should-know. ↩︎
27. Ibid. ↩︎
28. Noor-ul-Ain Khawaja, “Human Rights Violations Under US Occupation in Iraq: An Analysis,” Pakistan Horizon 65, no.3 (2012): 59-83, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711413. ↩︎
29. Khaled A. Beydoun, “On Terrorists and Freedom Fighters,” Harvard Law Review Forum 136, no. 1 (October 2022): 1–36, https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/136-Harv.-L.-Rev.-F.-1.pdf. ↩︎
30. Blakely, “State Terrorism in the Social Sciences,” 15. ↩︎
31. George W. Bush Library, “Global War on Terror,” National Archives, https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/global-war-terror. ↩︎
32. Caron E. Gentry, “Intersecting Terrorism Studies,” in Disordered Violence: How Gender, Race and Heteronormativity Structure Terrorism, 59–83 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020), http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv10kmdf6.6 ↩︎
33. Patrick Chappatte, “Creating Terrorism.” Accessed November 9, 2025. https://chappatte.com/en/images/creating-terrorism. ↩︎
34. Darryl Fears, “Hate Crimes Against Arabs Surge, FBI Finds,” The Washington Post, November 25, 2002, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/11/26/hate-crimes-against-arabs-surge-fbi-finds/a3ab0c56-f324-4688-bf4a-872c2ddb0e4a/ ↩︎
35. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. Confronting Discrimination in the Post-9/11 Era: Challenges and Opportunities Ten Years Later. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2011. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2012/04/16/post911summit_report_2012-04.pdf ↩︎
36. Austin T. Turk, “Sociology of Terrorism,” Annual Review of Sociology 30 (2004): 271–86, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737694 ↩︎
37. Turk, “Sociology of Terrorism,” ↩︎
38. Rachel Pain, “Everyday Terrorism: Connecting Domestic Violence and Global Terrorism.” Progress in Human Geography 38, no. 4 (2014): 531–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513512231.  ↩︎
39. Gentry, “Intersecting Terrorism Studies,”   ↩︎
40. Michael Newell, “Comparing American Perceptions of Post-Civil War Ku Klux Klan and Transnational Violence.” Security Dialogue 51, no. 4 (2020): 287–304. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26979812. ↩︎
41. Frank Bellew, “Visit of the Ku-Klux.” Still image. 1872. https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2001695506/. ↩︎
42. Newell, “Comparing American Perceptions of Post-Civil War Ku Klux Klan and Transnational Violence.” ↩︎
43. Newell, “Comparing American Perceptions of Post-Civil War Ku Klux Klan and Transnational Violence.” ↩︎
44. Pain, “Everyday Terrorism: Connecting Domestic Violence and Global Terrorism.” ↩︎

Bibliography

American Foreign Service Association. “The U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund: What You Should Know.” Accessed December 11, 2025. https://afsa.org/us-victims-state-sponsored-terrorism-fund-what-you-should-know.

Bellew, Frank. “Visit of the Ku-Klux.” Still image. 1872. https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2001695506/.

Beydoun, Khaled A. On Terrorists and Freedom Fighters. 136:1 (October 2022): 1–36. https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/136-Harv.-L.-Rev.-F.-1.pdf.

Blakely, Ruth. “State Terrorism in the Social Sciences: Theories, Methods and Concepts.” In  Contemporary State Terrorism: Theory and Practice, edited by Richard Jackson, Eamon Murphy, and Scott Poynting, 12–27. Routledge, 2009. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/30159/1/State%20Terrorism%20in%20the%20Social%20Sciences.pdf

Boyle, Tara. “When Is It ‘Terrorism’? How The Media Cover Attacks By Muslim Perpetrators.” NPR, June 19, 2017. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/19/532963059/when-is-it-terrorism-how-the-media-covers-attacks-by-muslim-perpetrators.

Chinkin, Christine. “Rethinking Legality/Legitimacy After the Iraq War.” In Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs. Oxford University Press, 2012. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1514&context=book_chapters.

Crenshaw, Martha. “The Causes of Terrorism.” Comparative Politics 13, no. 4 (July 1981): 379–399. https://doi.org/10.2307/421717

Department of Justice. “The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty.” 2003. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/what_is_the_patriot_act.pdf. 

Doherty, Carroll, and Hannah Hartig. “Two Decades Later, the Enduring Legacy of 9/11.” Pew Research Center, September 2, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/09/02/two-decades-later-the-enduring-legacy-of-9-11/. 

Domke, David, Erica S. Graham, Kevin Coe, Sue Lockett John, and Ted Coopman. “Going Public as Political Strategy: The Bush Administration, an Echoing Press, and Passage of the Patriot Act.” Political Communication 23, no. 3 (2006): 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600600808844. 

Fears, Darryl. “Hate Crimes Against Arabs Surge, FBI Finds.” The Washington Post, November 25, 2002. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/11/26/hate-crimes-against-arabs-surge-fbi-finds/a3ab0c56-f324-4688-bf4a-872c2ddb0e4a/.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Terrorism.” Terrorism Definitions, November 21, 2025. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism.

Ganor, Boaz. 2002. “Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?” Police Practice and Research 3 (4): 287–304. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1561426022000032060

Gentry, Caron E. “Intersecting Terrorism Studies.” In Disordered Violence: How Gender, Race and Heteronormativity Structure Terrorism, 59–83. Edinburgh University Press, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv10kmdf6.6.

George W. Bush Library. “Global War on Terror.” National Archives. https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/global-war-terror#:~:text=Research%20menu%20items-,Global%20War%20on%20Terror,Texas%2C%20January%203%2C%202003. 

Globecartoon – Political Cartoons – Patrick Chappatte. “Creating Terrorism.” Accessed November 9, 2025. https://chappatte.com/en/images/creating-terrorism.

Goodwin, Jeff. “A Theory of Categorical Terrorism.” Social Forces 84, no. 4 (2006): 2027–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3844488. 

Herre, Bastian, Veronika Samborska, Hannah Ritchie, and Max Roser. “Terrorism.” Our World in Data, August 30, 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism.

Hoffman, Bruce. “What is terrorism?” Inside Terrorism. REV-Revised, 2. Columbia University Press, 2006. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/hoff12698.

Johnson, Jenna, and Abigail Hauslohner. “‘I Think Islam Hates Us’: A Timeline of Trump’s Comments about Islam and Muslims.” The Washington Post, May 20, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/20/i-think-islam-hates-us-a-timeline-of-trumps-comments-about-islam-and-muslims/. 

Johnson, Thomas C., and Ronald D. Hunter. “Changes in Homeland Security Activities since 9/11: An Examination of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies’ Practices.” Police Practice and Research 18, no. 2 (2017): 160–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2016.1261253. 

Khawaja, Noor-ul-Ain. “Human Rights Violations Under US Occupation in Iraq: An Analysis.” Pakistan Horizon 65, no. 3 (2012): 59–83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711413.

Miller, Gregory D. “Blurred Lines: The New ‘Domestic’ Terrorism.” Perspectives on Terrorism, vol. 13, no. 3, 2019, pp. 63–75. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26681909. 

MS NOW, prod. American Muslims Share Post 9/11 Experiences With Islamophobia. YouTube, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqb1sclGWWg&feature=youtu.be.

Newell, Michael. “Comparing American Perceptions of Post-Civil War Ku Klux Klan and Transnational Violence.” Security Dialogue 51, no. 4 (2020): 287–304. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26979812. 

Ní Aoláin, Fionnuala. “The Rise of Counter-Terrorism and the Demise of Human Rights.” Emory International Law Review 39, no. 1 (2024). https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=eilr.

Nilsson, Thomas. “PHOTOS: Remembering 9/11.” ABC News, August 26, 2002. https://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/photos-remembering-911-148555.

Office of Justice Programs. “US Army Counterterrorism Manual.” Accessed December 7, 2025. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/us-army-counterterrorism-manual.

Pain, Rachel. “Everyday Terrorism: Connecting Domestic Violence and Global Terrorism.” Progress in Human Geography 38, no. 4 (2014): 531–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513512231. 

Patel, Faiza, and Rachel Levinson-Waldman. “The Islamophobic Administration.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/islamophobic-administration. 

Petraglia, Alexandre. Islamophobia Surges in the U.S. Due to Global and National Tensions – New York State Bar Association. December 12, 2023. https://nysba.org/islamophobia-surges-in-the-u-s-due-to-global-and-national-tensions/.

Redfield, Marc. “War on Terror.” In The Rhetoric of Terror: Reflections on 9/11 and the War on Terror, 49–96. Fordham University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt13x071g.6. 

Schuurman, Bart. “Research on Terrorism, 2007–2016: A Review of Data, Methods, and Authorship.” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 32, no. 5, 3 July 2020, pp. 1011–1026. Taylor & Francis, https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1439023

Slann, Martin and Bernard Schechterman, eds. Multidimensional Terrorism. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, 1987. “State as Terrorist,” 39-44. NCJ-109023. Accessed December 11, 2025.https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/state-terrorist-multidimensional-terrorism-p-39-44-1987-martin.

Turk, Austin T. “Sociology of Terrorism.” Annual Review of Sociology 30 (2004): 271–86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737694.

Walzer, Michael. “Terrorism and Just War.” Philosophia 34, no. 1 (2006): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-006-9004-1.

Wong, Kam. “The USA Patriot Act: A Policy of Alienation.” Michigan Journal of Race and Law 12, no. 1 (2006): 161–202. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol12/iss1/5. 

Contributors

Addison Bergin, Caroline Choi, Lauren Cousino, Talia Polish