Pablo Escobar is as dangerous as Osama Bin Laden, with the ability to regroup his network of followers in the illegal drug business quite similar in many ways to that of a terrorist group, granted that Escobar and his disciples and network of syndicate members are not terrorists nor advocates of the same terrorist plays propagated by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Terrorism has been one of the most debated issues in contemporary times, spawning huge concerns both globally and locally, capturing the minds of countless people who fear not only for their lives but also for the lives of their families as threats loom just about anywhere else. The weight of such concern is drawn from the fact that terrorism has not only brought fear to the lives of many, quite apart from the fact that it has destroyed the lives of thousands of innocent civilians.
Terrorism has also spawned a number of related illegal activities that are bound together by the general idea of a seemingly undying breed of murderers. Its long term effects can also be equally devastating, if not more, noting that the world market and individual economies of countries are, to a certain extent, affected by terrorist activities. Even the mere “presence” of terrorists is enough to spoil the budding hopes of nations seeking peace amidst the growing face of danger.
However, the basis for the growing concern over the fear harbored from the dregs of what we call “terrorism” is yet to be resolved. The reason to this rests on the fact that there is no single definition of terrorism, one that is universal and transcends the differences in ethnicity, culture, religion and political background to name a few. While the rest of the debates center on what to count as terrorism and what acts are to be excluded from the potential list of terrorist organizations, much is left unclear on the very content of the meaning of the word itself.
For the most part, terrorism is held as a form of activity, usually through violent measures, in achieving a certain type of goal where the orientation of the “agents” of terrorism are inclined to sacrifice themselves for the realization of a given mission. Consequently, the objectives being pursued by terrorists can also be drawn out from a set of ideologies that border on several concerns, the widely-known types of which are either from an ethno-religious context or from a political environment.
What sets terrorism apart from any other form of activity engaged upon by individuals or a group of individuals relatively operating from a wide scope to a specified area is the basic fact that terrorism is an organized activity. This is in the sense that the actions of these terrorist groups have to be well plotted, with operations that involve a strong grasp on both physical and mental aspects in order to blow away an entire edifice of crucial importance to a certain nation or community. Moreover, terrorism is not only an organized form of activity.
It is also founded on the principles that serve as the guiding tenet for these organized activities, the means of which range from the most violent down to the crude installment of fear in the lives of civilians or certain groups of individuals. Terrorism can then be taken to mean, to a certain extent, as an organized form of activity wherein the actions they take are rigidly based on a given set of principles that serve as their nihilistic guideline. Nevertheless, these are rough sketches of the concept of terrorism.
The fact that the growing confusion on what to count as terrorism and what to discount as mere isolated cases of violence highlights the observation that there is a growing concern over these issues. With the continued rise in the debates surrounding terrorism in general, and although much is yet to be made clear and known to the understanding of men from the upper ranks down to the lower levels in the social hierarchy, there is little doubt that terrorism is equally dispersed to all these individuals as a destructive force in the existence of humanity.
A call for an international convention so as to arrive at a universal or, at the least, a major agreement on the scopes and definition of terrorism has its advantages and disadvantages. For one, it seeks to eliminate differences in opinion and perception of terrorism thereby ensuring consistency on the efforts aimed at eliminating terrorist activities. It also hampers the possibility of mislabeling certain isolated violent cases as terrorist activities, thus emphasizing the sturdy measures in fanning out terrorism from the various parts of the globe.
However, the feat of establishing a solid and universal definition of terrorism is seen as a daunting task, requiring not only the efforts of the well-versed individuals and political diplomats but the efforts from the international community as well. Since it aims at arriving at a uniform definition of terrorism, there is the imminent possibility of trampling upon ethnic and religious precepts that have in them, as part of their beliefs and perception of the world, a varying degree of violence in the eyes of those who are beyond their “world”.
Pablo Escobar has indeed been a central figure in international crime, taunting the law enforcing authorities from all across the stretch of Colombia and the United States of America. Although we barely have very little knowledge as to what counts as terrorism from otherwise, it is a given fact that Escobar and his group has also claimed the lives of a number of people and has implanted in the minds of the people a sense of fear and a sense of a lacking in terms of security.