Terrorism is the systematic use of terror,
especially as a means of coercion.
In the international, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally
binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer
only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are
perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately
target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now
include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar
tactics by criminal organizations for protection
rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism
though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically
motivated group.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally
charged, and this greatly
compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found
over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. The
concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state
authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize
political or other opponents,[] and potentially legitimize the state's
own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be
described as "terror" by opponents of the state).
Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political
organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by right-wing
and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups,
revolutionaries, and ruling governments. An
abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity
for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism
of terrorism can leverage human
fear to help achieve these goals.
Origin of Term
"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorism,[10] and originally referred specifically
to state terrorism as practiced by the French government
during the Reign of terror. The
French word terrorism in
turn derives from the Latin verb terror meaning “I frighten”.[11] The terror
cimbricus was a panic and
state of emergency in Rome
In November 2004, a United
Nations Secretary General report
described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily
harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a
population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or
abstain from doing any act"
Definition
The definition of
terrorism has proved
controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their
national legislation. Moreover, the community
has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of
this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism"
is politically and emotionally charged.[19] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing
the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has
never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of
terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define
the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members
about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation
and self-determination."[1]
These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on
International Terrorism that
incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law
definition terrorism.[20] Nonetheless, the international
community has adopted series ofsectoral conventions that define and criminalize various
types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist
acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal
acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public,
a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any
circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political,
philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that
may be invoked to justify them."[21]
Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:
It is not only individual agencies within
the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of
terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally
incapable of reaching a consensus.
In the first edition of his magisterial survey, “Political terrorism: A
Research Guide,” Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining
more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a
broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four
years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his
quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the “search
for an adequate definition is still on” Walter Laqueur despaired of defining
terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining
that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.”[22]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify
some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:
The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other
types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to
appreciate that terrorism is :
§
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 or conspiratorial cell structure(whose
members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
§
perpetrated
by a sub national group or non-state entity.[23]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European
Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of
terrorism:
Terrorism is defined as political
violence in an asymmetrical
conflict that is designed to
induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the
violent victimization and
destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts
are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The
purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable
publicity as an amplifying force
multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach
short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end
states."[24]
Oslo, Norway immediately after the 2011 terrorist attack in Norway perpetrated byAnders Behring Breivik.
Walter Laqueur, of the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general
characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves
violence and the threat of violence". This
criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it
includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[ Property destruction that does not
endanger life is not usually considered a violent
crime but some have described
property destruction by the Earth
Liberation Front[25] and Animal
Liberation Front[] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.
Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to
maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[27] Each act of terrorism is a
“performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists
also attack national symbols, to
show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society
they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing
the prestige of the given terrorist
organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.
Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose. Terrorism is a
political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists
when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.
The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a
worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.
This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is
integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic" struggle, such as over the control of
an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem,
failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual
failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the
deaths of innocent civilians.
Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they
are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or
corrupt beings"[ that
tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their
suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their
message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often
radical religious and political agendas.
A collection of photographs of those
killed during the terrorists attacks on September.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the
criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act. to distinguish between actions
authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other
actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions
that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if
they were government sanctioned.[ For
example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a
cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently
problematic and is not universally accepted because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[35] the same act may or may not be classed
as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a
"legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and
"lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one
government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning
and origin of the term.
Among the various definitions there are several that do not
recognize the possibility of legitimate
use of violence by civilians
against an invader in an occupied
country. Other definitions would
label as terrorist groups only the resistance
movements that oppose an invader
with violent acts that indiscriminately kill or harm civilians and
non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of
violence. According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimately in apolitical judgment.
An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[40] The semantic scope of this term
includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals
or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and
also explicitly excludes state. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful
use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of
political or social objectives
Pejorative
The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism)
carry strong negative connotations.[41] These terms are often used as
political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain
actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment
of a population.[42] Those labeled "terrorists"
by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other
terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning
word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have
entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to
describe each other as terrorists.[43]
On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as
killing civilians, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular
circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to
David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive
of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could
not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful
effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to
outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism".[44] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers,
Michael argued that terrorism can
be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or
community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it
can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is
morally entitled to do so".
In his book Inside
Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:
On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word
with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's
enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise
prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian
Jenkins has written, 'thus seems
to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and
if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has
indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision
to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective,
depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the
person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the
violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies
with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not
positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.
The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is
another man's freedom fighter".[43] This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later
falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former
ally. During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but
during the Malayan Emergency,
members of its successor (the Malayan
Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British. More recently, Ronald Reaganand others in the
American administration frequently called the Afghan
Mujahideen "freedom
fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union,[51] yet twenty years later, when a new generation
of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed
by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush. Groups accused of terrorism
understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological
action. Leading terrorism
researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of
Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton
University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for
political or other ideological goals, and said:
There is the famous statement: 'One man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It
assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a
perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is
terrorism regardless.[57]
Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle,
have been called "terrorists" by the Western governments or media.
Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called
"statesmen" by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon
are the Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson
Mandela. WikiLeaks whistleblower Julian Assange has been called a
"terrorist" by Sarah
Palin and Joe Biden.
Sometimes states which are close allies, for reasons of history,
culture and politics, can disagree over whether or not members of a certain
organization are terrorists. For instance, for many years, some branches of the
United States government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was
using methods against one of the United States' closest allies (the United
Kingdom) which the UK branded as terrorism. This was highlighted by the Robinson case.
For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a
reputation for impartiality try to be careful in their use of the term.
Types
of terrorism
A view of damages to the U.S. Embassy in
Beirut caused by a terrorist bomb attack,
April 1983
Sbarro pizza restaurant bombing in Jerusalem,
in which 15 Israeli civilians were killed and 130 were
wounded by a Hamas suicide bomber.
In early 1975, the Law
Enforcement Assistant Administration in
the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was
entitled Disorders and
Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the
direction of H.H.A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.[70] The Task Force classified terrorism
into six categories.
§
Civil
disorder – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of
the community.
§
Political
terrorism – Violent criminal behavior designed primarily
to generate fear in the community, or substantial
segment of it, for political purposes.
§
Non-Political
terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious
design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or
collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective.”
§
Quasi-terrorism – The activities incidental to the
commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to
genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is
not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate
victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the
modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences
and reaction.[71] For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods
are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite
different.
§
Limited
political terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is
characterized by a revolutionary
approach; limited political terrorism refers to “acts of terrorism which are
committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a
concerted campaign to capture control of the state.
§
Official
or state terrorism –"referring to nations whose rule is
based upon fear and oppression
that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions.” It may also be referred
to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts
carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of
their foreign policy.
Number of failed, foiled or successful
terrorist attacks by year and type within the European
Union. Source: Europol. 1 person
died in terrorist attacks from a separatist group in 2010.[72]
Several sources have further defined the typology of terrorism:
Political terrorism
Sub-state
terrorism
Social
revolutionary terrorism
Nationalist-separatist
terrorism
Religious
extremist terrorism
Religious
fundamentalist Terrorism
New
religions terrorism
Right-wing
terrorism
Left-wing
terrorism
Single-issue
terrorism
State-sponsored
terrorism
Regime
or state terrorism
Criminal terrorism
Pathological terrorism
Motivation
of terrorists
Attacks on 'collaborators' are used to intimidate people from
cooperating with the state in order to undermine state control. This strategy
was used in the USA in its War of
Independence and in Ireland, in Kenya, in Algeria and in Cyprus during their independence struggles.
Attacks on high profile symbolic targets are used to incite
counter-terrorism by the state to polarise the population. This strategy was
used by Al Qaeda in its attacks on the USA in September
2001. These attacks are also used to draw international attention to struggles
which are otherwise unreported such as the Palestinian
airplane hijackings in 1970 and
the crises in the Netherlands in 1975.
Abrahm suggests that terrorist organizations do not select
terrorism for its political effectiveness.[78]Individual
terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with
other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic
objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[78]
Democracy
and domestic terrorism
Demonstration in Madrid against ETA,
January 2000. Roughly a million people met there.
The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is very
complex. Terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political
freedom, and is least common in the most democratic nations. However, one study
suggests that suicide terrorism may be an exception to this general rule.
Evidence regarding this particular method of terrorism reveals that every
modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracy–a state with a considerable
degree of political freedom.[ The study suggests that concessions
awarded to terrorists during the 1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks increased
their frequency.
Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democracies include ETA in
Spain under Francisco
Franco(although the group's terrorist activities increased sharply after
Franco's death), the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto Fujimori, the Kurdistan
Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders and the ANC in
South Africa.[87] Democracies, such as the United
Kingdom, United States, Israel, Indonesia,
India, Spain and the Philippines,
have also experienced domestic terrorism.
While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a
sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an act of terrorism within
such a state may cause a dilemma: whether to maintain its civil liberties and
thus risk being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem; or alternatively
to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk delegitimizing its claim of
supporting civil liberties.[ For this reason, homegrown terrorism has started to be seen as a greater
threat, as stated by former CIA Director Michael Hayden.] This dilemma, some social theorists
would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting
terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state.
Religious
terrorism
Main article: Religious terrorism
Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. Some
35,000 Pakistanis have died from terrorist
attacks in recent years.[91]
Religious terrorism is terrorism performed by groups or
individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted infaith-based tenets.
Terrorist acts throughout the centuries have been performed on religious
grounds with the hope to either spread or enforce a system of belief, viewpoint
or opinion.[92] Religious terrorism does not in itself
necessarily define a specific religious standpoint or view, but instead usually
defines an individual or a group view or interpretation of that belief system's
teachings.
Perpetrators
The perpetrators of acts of terrorism can be individuals,
groups, or states. According to some definitions, clandestine or
semi-clandestine state actors may also carry out terrorist acts outside the
framework of a state of war. However, the most common image of terrorism is
that it is carried out by small and secretive cells,
highly motivated to serve a particular cause and many of the most deadly
operations in recent times, such as the September
11 attacks, the London
underground bombing, and the 2002
Bali bombing were planned and
carried out by a close clique, composed of close friends, family members and
other strong social networks. These groups benefited from the free flow of
information and efficient telecommunications to succeed where others had failed.[93]
Over the years, many people have attempted to come up with a terrorist profile to attempt to explain these
individuals' actions through their psychology and social circumstances. Others,
like Roderick Hindery, have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda
tactics used by terrorists. Some security organizations designate these groups
as violent non-state actors.[94] A 2007 study by economist Alan B. Krueger found that terrorists were less likely
to come from an impoverished background (28% vs. 33%) and more likely to have
at least a high-school education (47% vs. 38%). Another analysis found only 16%
of terrorists came from impoverished families, vs. 30% of male Palestinians,
and over 60% had gone beyond high school, vs. 15% of the populace.[95]
To avoid detection, a terrorist will look, dress, and behave
normally until executing the assigned mission. Some claim that attempts to
profile terrorists based on personality, physical, or sociological traits are
not useful.[96] The physical and behavioral
description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.[97] However, the majority of terrorist
attacks are carried out by military age men, aged 16–40.[97]
Terrorist groups
There is speculation that anthrax mailed inside letters to U.S.
politicians was the work of a lone
wolf terrorist.
Main articles: organizations and Lone wolf (terrorism)
State sponsors
Main article: State-sponsored terrorism
A state can sponsor terrorism by funding or harboring a terrorist
organization. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of
state-sponsored terrorism vary widely. When states provide funding for groups
considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such.
State terrorism
Main article: State terrorism
Civilization is based on a clearly
defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by
those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that
is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by
those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does
occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the felicitation of the victims.
—Derrick Jensen[98]
This terrified baby was almost the only
human being left alive in Shanghai's
South Station after brutal Japanese bombing, August 28, 1937
As with "terrorism" the concept of "state
terrorism" is controversial.[99] The Chairman of the United Nations
Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of 12
international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State
terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their
power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international
humanitarian law.[100] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set
aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under
international law"[101] However, he also made clear that,
"regardless of the differences between governments on the question of
definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any
deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is
unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."
State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts by
governmental agents or forces. This involves the use of state resources
employed by a state's foreign policies, such as using its military to directly
perform acts of terrorism. Professor of Political
Science Michael Stohl cites the
examples that include Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic
destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that “the use of
terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and
remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system
than insurgents." They also cite the First
strike option as an example of
the "terror of coercive diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the
world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis
management." They argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism has
occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War II. In this
analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that
the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form
of this state behavior.
Some theorists suggest genocide is a type of terrorism as committed by Adolf Hitler.
State terrorism has also been used to describe peacetime actions
by governmental agents such as the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Charles Stewart Parnell described William's Irish Coercion Act as terrorism in his "no-Rent
manifesto" in 1881, during the Irish
Land War. The concept is also used to describe political repressions by governments against their own
civilian population with the purpose to incite fear. For example, taking and
executing civilian hostages or extrajudicial
elimination campaigns are
commonly considered "terror" or terrorism, for example during the Red Terror or Great
Terror. Such actions are often
also described asdemocide or genocide which has been argued to be equivalent
to state terrorism. Empirical
studies on this have found that democracies have little democide.
Funding
Main article: Terrorist financing
State sponsors have
constituted a major form of funding; for example, Palestine Liberation Organization, Democratic Front for the Liberation of
Palestine and some other
terrorist groups were funded by the Soviet
Union. The Stern Gang received funding from Italian Fascist officers in Beirut to undermine the British Mandate for Palestine.[113] Pakistan has created and nurtured terrorist
groups as policy for achieving tactical objectives against its neighbors,
especially India.
"Revolutionary tax" is another major form of funding,
and essentially a euphemism for "protection money". Revolutionary taxes are typically
extorted from businesses, and they also "play a secondary role as one
other means of intimidating the target population".[111]
Other major sources of funding include kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling, fraud and robbery.[111]
The Financial Action
Task Force is an
inter-governmental body whose mandate, since October 2001, has included combating terrorist financing.[115]
Tactics
Main article: Tactics of terrorism
The Wall
Street bombing at noon on
September 16, 1920 killed thirty-eight people and injured several hundred. The
perpetrators were never caught.
Terrorism is a form of asymmetric
warfare, and is more common when direct conventional
warfare will not be effective
because forces vary greatly in power.[116]
The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a
large-scale, unresolved political conflict. The type of conflict varies widely;
historical examples include:
§
Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign
state or become part of a different state
§
Dominance
of territory or resources by various ethnic
groups
§
Imposition
of a particular form of government
§
Economic
deprivation of a population
§
Opposition
to a domestic government or occupying army
§
Religious
fanaticism
Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and
publicity, usually using explosives orpoison.[117] There is concern about terrorist
attacks employing weapons of mass
destruction. Terrorist organizations usually methodically plan attacks in
advance, and may train participants, plant undercover agents, and raise money
from supporters or through organized
crime. Communications occur through modern telecommunications,
or through old-fashioned methods such as couriers.
Responses
X-ray backscatter technology (AIT) machine used by the TSA to
screen passengers. According to the TSA, this is what the remote TSA agent
would see on their screen.
Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include
re-alignments of the political
spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values.
Specific types of responses include:
§
Targeted
laws, criminal procedures, deportations, and enhanced police powers
§
Target
hardening, such as locking doors or adding traffic barriers
§
Preemptive
or reactive military action
§
Increased
intelligence and surveillance activities
§
Preemptive
humanitarian activities
§
More
permissive interrogation and detention policies
The term counter-terrorism has a narrower connotation, implying
that it is directed at terrorist actors.
According to a report by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin in the Washington Post, "Some 1,271
government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related
to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000
locations across the United States."[118]
Mass
media
Media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out
terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise be ignored by the media. Some
consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media.[119]
The internet has created a new channel for groups to spread their
messages. This has created a cycle of measures and counter measures by groups
in support of and in opposition to terrorist movements. The United Nations has
created its own online counter-terrorism resource.[120]
The mass media will, on occasion, censor organizations involved in
terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further
terrorism. However, this may encourage organizations to perform more extreme
acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media. Conversely James F. Pastor explains the significant relationship
between terrorism and the media, and the underlying benefit each receives from
the other.[121]
There is always a point at which the
terrorist ceases to manipulate the media gestalt.
A point at which the violence may well escalate, but beyond which the terrorist
has become symptomatic of the media gestalt itself. Terrorism as we ordinarily
understand it is innately media-related.
—Novelist William Gibson[122]
History
Main article: History of terrorism
Number of terrorist incidents 2009
(January–June)
The history of terrorism goes back to Sicarii Zealots — Jewish extremist group active in Iudaea Province at the beginning of the 1st century
AD. After Zealotry rebellion in the 1st century AD, when
some prominent collaborators with Roman rule were killed,[123][124] according to contemporary historian Josephus, in 6 AD Judas of Galilee formed a small and more extreme
offshoot of the Zealots, the Sicarii.[125] Their terror also was directed against
Jewish "collaborators", including temple priests, Sadducees,
Herodians, and other wealthy elites.[126]
The term "terrorism" itself was originally used to
describe the actions of the Jacobin
Club during the "Reign of
Terror" in the French
Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe,
inflexible," said Jacobin leader Maximilien
Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund
Burke denounced the Jacobins for
letting "thousands of those hell-hounds called Terrorists...loose on the
people" of France.[127]
In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice
Orsini threw three bombs in an
attempt to assassinate French Emperor Napoleon
III.[128] Eight bystanders were killed and 142
injured.[128] The incident played a crucial role as
an inspiration for the development of the early Russian terrorist groups.[128] Russian Sergey, who founded People's
Retribution in 1869, described himself as a "terrorist", an early
example of the term being employed in its modern meaning.[16] Newhaven’s story is told in
fictionalized form by Fyodor
Dostoevsky in the novel The Possessed. German anarchist
writer Johann Most dispensed "advice for
terrorists" in the 1880s
No comments:
Post a Comment