Terrorism

Objective Definition

Subjective Definition

Terrorism is the systematic use of intimidation for the purpose of governing, opposing government, or as a type of warfare. Terrorism used for governing is often called State Terrorism. Terrorism used for opposing government is often called an Insurgency until it becomes overwhelming, in which case it is called a Revolution. Terrorism as a type of warfare is the opposite of Conventional warfare in that Terrorism relies on the target’s willingness to give up its freedom while conventional warfare assumes the target will fight until it no longer possesses the capability of fighting.

The word "terrorism" is controversial and has many definitions, none of which are universally accepted. According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence." For most of the 20th century, the word was primarily used to describe the attacks of "a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects" (OED). However, it was always a derogatory term, and its use has broadened considerably since the declaration of the War on Terror, now covering almost any enemy action perceived as being an immoral use of violence. The word is used exclusively to refer to others. No known group self-identifies as 'terrorist'. 21st century definitions of the word range very widely. They typically involve some subset of the following criteria: The motive is political or religious The target is civilian The objective is to intimidate The intimidation is directed at government or society The perpetrator is non-governmental The act was unlawful None of these are universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficent.

Definition

Main article: Definitions of terrorism

The term "terrorism" comes from the French 18th century word terrorisme based on the Latin language verbs terrere (to tremble) and deterrere (to frighten from). It dates to 1795, and originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobins in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror". The Jacobins are even said to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves, although that is not certain. Note that the method employed was in most cases simply the arrest, and sometimes execution, of opponents. Terrorism and terror therefore originally referred to methods employed by regimes to control their own populations through fear, a tactic seen again in many totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The terms did not refer to bomb attacks, but rather to what is now called a police state. The current use of the term state terrorism, and the use of the term "terrorist", have much broader meanings.

Objective

Many definitions of terrorism exist. Most outline primary criteria: the target, objective, motive, perpetrator and legitimacy of the act.

• Target – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as targets. Furthermore, an act is more likely to be considered terrorism if it targets a general populace than if it purposefully targets a specific individual or group. See also Noncombatant and Collateral damage.

This criterion excludes: conventional warfare in accordance with the laws of war, any attacks on military targets (such as the bombing of the USS Cole), guerilla warfare and revolution when limited to military targets, and assassination of a head of state or other leader of comparable stature (such as Martin Luther King, Jr.).

This criterion may also be held to exclude actions where the attackers make at least some attempt to reduce civilian casualties. For example, the Zionist organization Irgun preceded many, though not all, of its attacks (notably the 1946 King David Hotel bombing) with warnings to the press, the target, or the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine. They were nevertheless considered to be terrorists by the British. The Basque ETA group is also known for pre-emptive warnings. By contrast, groups who use suicide bombing attacks against civilians (such as Hamas, al-Qaida and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades) rely on the element of surprise in order to maximize casualties, and therefore never issue warnings.

• Objective – As the name implies, terrorism is understood as an attempt to provoke fear and intimidation. Hence, terrorist acts are designed and intended to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, and/or fear. The intent may be to provoke disproportionate reactions from states.

This criterion excludes: the Holocaust and other cases of genocide, which are undertaken to exterminate rather than to intimidate, and which are usually hidden rather than publicized. Also, any violence against targets unlikely to attract public notice and having little effect on the populace at large.

• Motive – These acts are intended to achieve political or religious goals, not for personal gain. For example, a gang of bank robbers who kill a bank manager, blow up his vault and escape with the contents would normally not be classed as terrorists, because their motive was profit. However, if a gang were to execute the same assault with the intent of causing a crisis in public confidence in the banking system, followed by a run on the banks and a subsequent destabilization of the economy, then the gang would be classed as terrorists.

This criterion excludes: organized crime (the Mafia, etc.)

• Perpetrator – Some hold that a legitimate government cannot, by definition, commit terrorism of any kind. In this view, a state can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity, but these actions are distinct from terrorism.

This criterion excludes: warfare between states, government repression of its own civilians, the Holocaust, the Hiroshima bombing.

• Legitimacy – Many definitions include a proviso that the action must be "unlawful" or "illegitimate". This is by far the least objective of the criteria, in the absence of any objective interpreter of international law. For example, the laws of war generally exclude the deliberate targeting of civilians, yet in World War II it is unquestioned that acts such as the bombing of Hiroshima or Dresden were carried out with the knowledge that civilian casualties would greatly exceed military ones. Whether the actions were legally justified, either in self-defense or on the grounds that they actually minimised civilian suffering by bringing the war to an earlier end, is not a question that can be objectively determined.

No definition of terrorism has been accepted as authoritative by the United Nations. However, the "academic consensus definition", written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, defines terrorism as follows:

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 main 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. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought." [1]

Schmid has also proposed a short legal definition of terrorism to the UN, namely that an act of terrorism should be defined as "the peacetime equivalent of a war crime". This brings the question of legitimacy to the front.

Subjective

The saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is older than the War on Terror. However, since the September 11th attacks, the term "terrorist" has become much more heavily politicized. Because the term has strong negative connotations without having any widely-accepted definition, there is a definite tendency to use the term only when politically convenient. Indeed, the actual definition of terrorism is not as much debated as which parties and which acts of violence are to be labeled "terrorist".

Noam Chomsky, a prominent historian and linguist at MIT, states that "the term 'terrorism' is used, standardly, to refer to the terrorism that they carry out against us, whoever 'we' happen to be. Even the worst mass murderers—the Nazis for example—adopted this practice. [...] Since the rich and powerful set the terms for discussion, the term 'terrorism' is restricted, in practice, to the terror that affects the US and its clients and allies." [2] Chomsky, along with many others, argues that "terrorism" is used not objectively to describe any particular type of behavior, but as a characterization that demonizes a perceived enemy in order to promote moral repulsion and outrage.

Groups accused of terrorism, and their supporters, invariably use neutral or positive terms to describe their actions, such as "freedom fighters" or paramilitaries. Even terms like "guerilla" or "rebel" are considered much less pejorative than "terrorist".

Causes

The existing order within countries or internationally depends on compromises and agreements between various groups and interests that were made to resolve past conflicts. Over time, these arrangements may become less relevant to the current situation. Some believe that individuals or groups resort to terrorism when other avenues for change, including economics, protest, public appeal, and organized warfare, hold no hope of success. Terrorist acts are therefore calculated to disrupt the existing order and provoke conflicts, in the expectation that the outcome will be a new order more favorable to their interests.

Therefore some argue that one approach to reduce terrorism is to ensure that where there is a population feeling oppressed, some avenue of problem resolution is kept open, even if the population in question is in the minority.

On the other hand, Noam Chomsky believes that terrorism is typically sponsored by governments through the organisation, funding or training of death squads and similar paramilitary groups, often under the banner of counter-terrorism. In his view the causes of terrorism include attempts to gain or consolidate power either by instilling fear in the population to be controlled, or by stimulating another group into becoming a hardened foe, thereby setting up a polarizing us-versus-them paradigm (also see nationalism and fascism). (Nicaragua v. United States is often cited by Chomsky as an example). Iranian support of the Hizbullah in Lebanon is also relevant in this context.

The modern term "eco-terrorist" was coined to describe those environmentalists who damage or destroy property as a symbolic act of resisting activities and policies that negatively impact the environment. Some dispute this definition, claiming that the companies and policy makers responsible are negatively impacting the environment (engaging in "terrorism against ecology") and should be the ones labeled as "eco-terrorists" instead.

Stated motives of groups

Actions defined as ‘terror’ are sometimes followed by statements or communiques by the perpetrators. They often issue additional information, and may even have representative offices in countries which sympathise with them. Several themes recur, and they can be considered as categories, without implying that they are true or not. The stated motives include:

• reference to the ideals of the group, implying that they justify, in themselves, the actions. Separatist groups, for instance, often emphasise the name and flag of their future independent state.
• reference to historical grievances - usually the oppression of an ethnic or religious group.
• retaliation for specific acts, including ongoing military campaigns. Islamist groups, for instance, repeatedly refer to the occupation of Iraq in this context.
• a specific demand related to the above factors, for instance the demand to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Some other attributed motives of terrorists, such as ‘nihilism’, are never quoted in these statements or communiques.

Perpetrators

The most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by relatively small and highly secretive groups. However, some acts have been committed by individuals acting alone, while others are alleged to have the backing of established states.

Acts of terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states, They are often carried out by groups who otherwise feel passionate about the statement they want to make.

"Lone wolves"

Main article: Independent terrorist actor

Law enforcement agencies such as the FBI have identified a pattern of "lone wolf" terrorism resulting in unannounced attacks on civilians. These individuals appear to operate independently, but only become terrorists due to early indoctrination, training, and support by organized groups. They function under the tacit approval of the group, and protect it by operating alone. This stands in contrast to more "conventional" terrorist operations carried out by groups following a more or less consistent chain of command: not only indoctrination, but also logistics, timing, and direction of operatives to perform attacks. Terrorists cited as "lone wolves" include Cave of the Patriarchs gunman Baruch Goldstein (1994), Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (1995), Centennial Olympic park bomber Eric Robert Rudolph (1996), "London Nailbomber" David Copeland (1999), and North Valley Jewish Community Center gunman Buford O. Furrow, Jr. (1999).

States

Main article: State terrorism

The violence committed by state combatants in conventional wars is often considered more acceptable than that of the "terrorist", who by definition refuses to follow the established laws of war, and hence cannot share in the acceptance given to establishment violence. The common public distinction between state violence and terrorism is based on a perception that terrorism targets noncombatants as a consistent policy, and therefore more irrational than state violence, which is assumed to be more considerate of human life, or at least does not consistently pursue unarmed civilian targets with the same zeal. Of course, this does not mean that acts of conventional warfare cannot be condemned. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour in 1941, the level of outrage from the Americans was similar to what one might expect from a terrorist incident, even though the bombing is not usually classified as terrorism.

However, history does not always bear out the above generalization. States who engage in warfare often do so outside of the laws of war and carry out violence against civilian populations, yet rarely receive the label of "terrorist". Those for whom "terrorism" is a term characterising the violence of an enemy as being immoral, often claim that deliberate attacks on civilians have no right to be portrayed as more justifiable than similar attacks by non-governmental groups. As the attacks are attempts to achieve political goals through "terror" inflicted on civilians, they designate them "state terrorism".

State sponsors of terrorism

Some states have been accused of sponsoring terrorist actions in foreign countries, as an alternative to carrying them out directly and risking an open declaration of war. State sponsored terrorism is widely denounced by the international community, and all but a few isolated countries have subscribed to protocols denouncing terrorist sponsorship or activity, the exceptions being Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, and until recently, Iraq.

When states do provide funding for such groups, they rarely acknowledge them as terrorist. For example, Iran has been linked to a number of organisations, but maintains that where funds have been transferred, these have been legitimate.

When comprehensive proof has been mounted, the reaction is usually open criticism, from which sanctions (in the form of money or trade) follow. Sometimes state sponsors of terrorism are forced to back down by offering incentives. An example is that of Pakistan that supported the Taliban which in turn nurtured Al-Qaeda. After much pressure Pakistan was forced to severe its links with Afghanistan, though it still maintains its covert relationship with Kashmir terrorits.

Methodology

Terrorists often seek to demoralize and paralyze their enemy with fear, using their acts as a form of blackmail to apply pressure on governments for goals the terrorists could not achieve by other means.

Terrorism relies heavily on surprise. Terrorist attacks can trigger sudden transitions into conflict or war. Frequently, after a terrorist attack, a number of unassociated groups may claim responsibility for the action; this may be considered "free publicity" for the organization's aims or plans. Because of its anonymous and sometimes self-sacrificial nature, it is not uncommon for the reasons behind the terrorist action to remain unknown or murky for a considerable period.

A common characteristic of terrorism is that its perpetrators may take shelter behind the local population (either sympathetic to their cause, indifferent, or under duress) in an attempt to impede opposing state forces from retaliating. The prospect of high civilian casualties often blocks large-scale (or as state forces would claim, efficient) responses in such situations. If civilian casualties damage the state's public image and earn publicity to the terrorist cause, this can be thought as an objective indication of which side is exploiting civilian deaths and which side is impaired by them.

Terrorist groups sometimes arrange for secondary devices to detonate at a slightly later time in order to kill emergency response personnel attempting to attend to the dead and wounded. Repeated or suspected use of secondary devices can also delay emergency response out of concern that such devices may exist. Examples include a (failed) cyanide gas device that was meant to explode shortly after the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and a second car bomb that detonated 20 minutes after the December 1, 2001 Ben Yehuda bombing by Hamas in Jerusalem.

In general, retribution against terrorists can result in escalating tit-for-tat violence. It is often felt that if the consequences of engaging in terrorism are not swift and punitive, the deterrent to other terrorist groups is diminished.

In the absence of state funding, terrorists often rely on organized crime to fund their activities. This can include kidnapping, drug trafficking, or robbery. But terrorists have also found many more legitimate sources of revenue. Osama bin Laden, for example, invested millions in terrorism that his family made in the construction industry building luxury castles for those making their money from selling the country's oil. The diamond industry emerged early in the twenty-first century as an important new source of funding for terrorism, and Islamist terrorist groups in particular have been very effective at procuring funding through a system of charitable contributions.

Guerrilla warfare is sometimes confused with terrorism, in that a relatively small force attempts to achieve large goals by using organized acts of directed violence against a larger force. But in contrast to terrorism, these acts are almost always against military targets, and civilian targets are minimized in an attempt to increase public support. For this reason, guerrilla tactics are generally considered military strategy rather than terrorism, although both terrorism and guerrilla warfare could be considered forms of asymmetric warfare.

Counter-terrorism

Main article: Counter-terrorism

Emergency preparedness

Acts of terrorism typically cause a significant number of civilian casualties. To protect against such attacks, there is a need for increased vigilance on the part of governments. Examples include more thorough inspection of baggage in airports.

Preparing for terrorism includes the construction of hospitals with a large surge capacity, as well as of alternative care facilities to handle a huge influx of patients and displaced persons. In order to reduce the spread of infection, decontamination during a release of chemical or biological agents is an important element of emergency planning.

Another important issue to maintain a quick first response force, which can be called instantly whenever there is an alert and react quickly to thwart terrorist attack (before a strike) and to treat wounded (after a strike). Such quick response force needs to include paramedics, rescue forces, firefighters and counter-terror fighters.

In Israel, Magen David Adom and ZAKA are usually the first to arrive to a scene of a bombing and attend the wounded. Counter-terror units such as YAMAM and LOTAR Eilat are on constant alert and have rapid deployment capability. The Israeli Police and Border Police can seal an area with roadblocks and checkpoints in response to alerts regarding terrorists in transit for an attack.

In the USA, local polices established similar teams, with EOD experts, paramedic and counter-terror fighters, based on the SWAT teams.

Prevention

Many different methods have been used to fight terrorism. There are generally 2 types of anti-terrorism measures, which are target-hardening and preemptive neutralization (neutralization meaning identifying, capturing, killing, or disabling terrorists).

Target-hardening

Common targets of terrorists are areas of high population concentration, such as mass transit vehicles (buses, airplanes, and trains), office buildings, and crowded resturants. Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets so as to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark. Perhaps the single most effective of these is bag-searching (for explosives), which is obviously only effective if it is conducted before the search subjects enter an area of high population concentration. It certainly would have prevented the Madrid train bombing, which utilized 10 backpack bombs that were left on trains, and the London transit bombing (July 2005), which utilized 3 backpack bombs, 2 of which were left on trains and the other on a double-decker bus.

Another method is to place concrete barriers a sufficient distance outside of buildings, so as to prevent truck bombing. There is also the method of keeping airplane cockpits locked throughout every flight, and with reinforced doors, in which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening the doors (as distinguished from other airplane personnel). That would have prevented the 9-11 attack.

Preemptive neutralization

It is probably impossible to harden every potential terrorist target enough to stop all attacks, so an alternative strategy is capturing, killing, or disabling suspected terrorists before they can mount an attack. Aside from routine police work, this may involve military action against countries where terrorists are said to originate (the main stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan), or monitoring immigrants who have come from those countries. These techniques often raise objections on civil libterties grounds.

Another major method of preemptive neutralization is interrogation of known or suspected terrorists, so as to learn of specific plots, specific targets, the identity of other terrorists, and whether the interrogation subject himself is guilty of terrorist involvement. Sometimes torture is used, or milder means of increasing suggestibility such as sleep deprivation or drugs. Apart from the human rights objections, such methods carry a risk that the captive will give false information, either in an an attempt to stop the treatment or from confusion brought on by it.

History

In the 1st century, Zealots conducted a fierce and unrelenting terror campaign against the Roman occupiers of the eastern Mediterranean. The Zealots enlisted sicarii to strike down rich Jewish collaborators and others who were friendly to the Romans.

In the 11th century, the radical Islamic sect known as the Hash-Ishiim (This word translates directly to the word "Assassin" in the english language) employed systematic murder for a cause they believed to be righteous. For two centuries, they resisted efforts to suppress their religious beliefs and developed ritualized murder into a fine art taught through generations. Political aims were achieved through the power of intimidation. Similarly, the Christian warriors of the Crusades pursued political aims by means of genocidal assaults on Muslim civilian populations.

During the French Revolution (1789 - 1799), the most severe period of the rule of the Committee of Public Safety (1793 - 1795) was labelled "The Terror" (1793 - 1794) and described Jacobin extensive use of death penalty by guillotine. Some argue that this period is an example of state terrorism. Certainly, it induced fear and outrage not only in the domestic population of France, but also throughout the European aristocracy. This period is the first known use of the term "terrorism".

By the mid-19th century, Russian intelligentsia grew impatient with the slow pace of Tsarist reforms, and sought instead to transform peasant discontent into open revolution. Anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin maintained that progress was impossible without destruction. Their objective was nothing less than complete destruction of the state. Anything that contributed to this goal was regarded as moral. With the development of sufficiently powerful, stable, and affordable explosives, the gap closed between the firepower of the state and the means available to dissidents. Organized into secret societies like the People's Will, Russian terrorists launched a campaign of terror against the state that climaxed in 1881 when Tsar Alexander II of Russia was assassinated. Also, a revolutionary Irish-American group called the Fenian Brotherhood planted explosive devices around the city of London in particular and the British mainland in general in the mid 1800's, in protest to the British occupation of Ireland. This is often seen as the first act of 'republican Terrorism'.

Today, modern weapons technology has made it possible for a "super-empowered angry man" (Thomas Friedman) to cause a large amount of destruction by himself or with only a few conspirators. It can be, and has been, conducted by small as well as large organizations.

Some people considered at some point in their lives to be terrorists, or supporters of terrorism, have have gone on to become dedicated peace activists (Uri Avnery), respected statesmen (Yitzhak Shamir) or even Nobel Peace Prize laureates (Nelson Mandela, Yasser Arafat). This illustrates the plasticity of the term.

Global trends

Data from the US Department of State shows that, since the late 1980s, there has been a decline in the number of international terrorist attacks. Data from the Terrorism Knowledge base show a similar decline since the early 1980s.

The major decline in international terrorist attacks was in Western Europe. On the other hand, Asia experienced an increase in international terrorist attacks. Other regions experienced less consistent patterns over time.

From 1991 to 2003, there was a consistent increase in the number of casualties from international terrorist attacks in Asia, but few other consistent trends in casualties from international terrorist attacks. Three different regions had, in three different years, a few attacks with a large number of casualties.

Examples

Main article: List of terrorist incidents

"International Terrorist Incidents, 2000" by the US Department of State

The following incidents have been described as domestic and international terrorism: the Oklahoma City bombing in the USA (April 19, 1995); the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland (August 15, 1998); the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, and Washington DC, USA; the Munich Massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972; the Bali bombing in October 2002, the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, attack on Indian Parliament (December 13, 2001), the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, and the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid.

The deadliest events described as terrorism and not known to have been sponsored by a state were the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon, in Arlington County, Virginia. So far as is known, the deadliest attack planned but not executed was Operation Bojinka, which aimed to murder Pope John Paul II and blow up 11 airliners. The plot was aborted after an apartment fire in Manila, Philippines on January 5, 1995 exposed the operation to police. The militants who were planning it were just over two weeks away from implementing their plot.

Since 1968, the U.S. State Department has tallied deaths due to terrorism. In 1985, it counted 816 deaths, the highest annual toll until then. The deaths decreased over the years, then rose to 3,295 in 2001, most as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2003, more than 1,000 people died as a result of terrorist acts. Many of these deaths resulted from suicide bombings in Chechnya, Iraq, India and Israel. It does not tally victims of state terrorism.

See also

• Asymmetric warfare
• List of terrorist incidents
• War on Terror
• Terrorism in India
• Terrorism in Iraq
• Terrorism in Kashmir
• Developmental Smuggling Model (DSM)
• Cyber-terrorism

References

• Global Social Change Reports One of the reports shows global terrorism trends.

External links

• MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base
• The Birth of Suicide Bombings as a Popular Weapon
• One historian's attempt at a comprehensive and neutral definition
• American Domestic Terrorists and Assassins
• Terrorism and the effect on Privacy
• International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings at Law-Ref.org - fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents
• International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism at Law-Ref.org - fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents

Etymology (history and first use of "terrorism")

• Etymology of "terrorism" (Etymonline)
• Britannica Encyclopedia entry on the origins and first use of "terror" to achieve political ends (French Revolution, Reign of Terror)

Analysis

• Reporting a New Delhi Bias? A Content Analysis of AP Wire Stories on the Conflicts in Sri Lanka and Kashmir
• An open-source database of information about threat networks. Also, software to enable Social Network Analysis in 3D
• Social Network Analysis software to make sense of complicated networks such as terror networks

Information

• Most Wanted Terrorists
• MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base
• Calling Terror by its Name
• The Terrorism Research Center
• The Counter Terrorist Financing Open Source Project
• Historical Dictionary of Terrorism (1995)
• The U.S. Department of State's Guide on terrorism
• CNN list of terrorism attacks targeting the US
• MEMRI's Jihad and Terrorism Studies Project
• Terrorism Research
• Terrorism Directory
• Terrorism - Made in the USA
• UNODC Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
• Shoebat -Site belonging to ex-terrorist Walid Shoebat
• Hamas Wins Elections in Gaza
• List of Terror Attacks on Israelis since the Oslo accords
• Privacy International

Essays

• The BBC's Allan Little - Analysis of Terrorism
• Christian Science Monitor : Exactly what is terrorism? High Bandwidth | Low Bandwidth
• Beinin, Joel, Is Terrorism a Useful Term in Understanding the Middle East and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict?, Radical History Review, Issue 85 (Winter 2003): 12-23. [PDF]
• INA's Objection to BBC policy
• Netanyahu, Benjamin, "On Terrorism"
• Boaz Ganor Defining Terrorism: Is One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter?
• Gerald A. Juhnke, When Terrorists Strike: What School Counselors Can Do
• Leon Trotsky (1909), Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism
• Galak, Michael and Vaknin, Sam Terrorism as a Psychodynamic Phenomenon - A Dialog
• Terminology of Terrorism - A Cynical Article by Rachel Inbar
• Terrorists and Freedom Fighters in the Balkans
• Terrorism/Antiterrorism - A sociological essay

Video

• Benjamin Netanyahu on the definition of terror. (BBC) (5 min.)
• Mullah Krekar, Ansar al-Islam

Further reading

• International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict by Brian Jenkins, Crescent Publications, 1975, ISBN 0891440003
• The Terrorism Reader by Walter Laqueur and Yonah Alexander, New American Library, 1987, ISBN 0452008433
• Inside Terrorism by Bruce Hoffman, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998, ISBN 0575065095
• The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden and the future of terrorism, by Simon Reeve, NUP, 1998, ISBN 1555535097
• Responding to the Terrorist Threat by Richard Schultz and Stephen Sloan, Pergamon Press, 1981, ISBN 0080251064