Terrorism

"Terrorist" redirects here. For other uses, see Terrorist (disambiguation).

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, social threats, or coordinated attacks, in order to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, bring about compliance with specified political, religious, or ideological demands. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is designed to subvert existing political atmospheres, often with the aid of the mass media's influence. Other intended effects of terrorist activities on targeted societies include the curtailment of civilian standards of living and civil liberties associated with greater security demands, economic hardship linked to the costs of war, hopelessness to defend against assaults, depression, and disintegration of morale. These objectives are parallel to the objectives of unconventional warfare.

State terrorism more specifically refers to violence and threats of violence, embargoes and other forms of terrorism against civilians by the government of a state. The civilians, in such case, may be nationals or foreigners.

Pejorative Use

The term is often used pejoratively to assert that the violence against civilians is immoral, wanton, and unjustified, that the terrorist attacks are "indiscriminate", "targeting civilians", or executed "with disregard for human life". According to some definitions of terrorism used by states and governments, terrorists are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".

Due to the term's pejorative connotations, groups that are called "terrorist" by the popular media typically do not accept that identity for themselves. Instead, terms may be used that reflect ideological or ethnic struggle. Examples include: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla (Spanish for "small war"), rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin ("one engaged in holy war"), or fedayeen ("prepared for martyrdom"). The difference between the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" and these other terms are often complex and controversial, with some suggesting that there is little substantive difference and the choice of usage propagandistic.

Since World War II, there have been many groups who, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called terrorist by the Western media. Later, these same militants, as leaders of the liberated nations, have been called statesmen by the same news media. Two examples are Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela. Sometimes states that are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether members of a certain organization are terrorists. For example, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the IRA as terrorists, even though the IRA used violent methods against one of the Untied States' closest allies, (Britain). They were described as terrorist attacks by Quinn v. Robinson

Etymology

Main article: Definition of terrorism

Although the term is often used imprecisely, there have been many attempts by various law enforcement agencies and public organizations to develop more precise working definitions of terrorism.

The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention has proposed a short legal definition: that an act of terrorism is "the peacetime equivalent of a war crime." [1] A United States court found that "the malice associated with terrorist attacks transcends even that of premeditated murder." [2]

More precise definitions of terrorism tend to be relativist, because views toward particular acts of political violence are often subjective. For example, according to the United States Department of Defense, terrorism is:

"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

The extent of disagreement on a single definition of terrorism is illustrated by contradictions between different agencies in a single national entity. While the DOD definition stresses the effects on institutions, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition [3] highlights the unlawfulness of terrorism, and the State Department emphasizes the politcal motivations behind a terrorist act [4]. The use of different definitions by different agencies could hinder a concerted effort to understand and prevent terrorist acts, since an interested party could fail to consider the same act as terrorist that another party does.

These definitions are open to several points of criticism. First, they fail to make mention of who the targets of terrorism are and who terrorist agents may be. Second, definitions of what precisely constitutes "unlawfulness" will vary with the law and precedent of each nation. The ambiguity does, however, leave open the possibility that violent actions by state actors can qualify as terrorism.

The words "terrorism" and "terror" originally referred to methods employed by factions and regimes to control populations through violent reprisals and fear. Prominent historical examples of the use of these methods include the Russian pogroms and the Great Purge, Kristallnacht and the Holocaust, and various genocides.

The term "terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, which is based on the Latin verb terrere (to cause to tremble), It dates back to 1795 when it was used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror". Jacobins are rumored to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves. The English word "terrorism" was popularized in English when it was used by the conservative Edmund Burke, an outspoken opponent of the French Revolution in general, as well as the Terror. Acts described as Jacobin Club "terrorism" were mostly cases of arrest or execution of opponents as a means of coercing compliance in the general public. According to Juegensmeyer, they were public acts of destruction which inflicted a public sense of fear due to the lack of military objectives.

Until comparatively recently, people who would now be known as "terrorists" were called "incendiaries," due to the fact that they started fires and set off incendiary devices. One such example is the 18th-century arsonist John the Painter, who has been described as the first modern terrorist, but was labelled as an "incendiary" in contemporary accounts. [5]

The current use of the term is broader and relies more on the example of the 19th-century revolutionaries who used the technique of assassination, particularly the anarchists and Narodniks in Tsarist Russia, whose most notable action was the assassination of Alexander II. An early example of its use in the current sense is in Joseph Conrad's 1907 story "The Secret Agent", where it is used to describe anarchists attempting to cause terror and forment social disruption by blowing up Greenwich Observatory: "The venomous spluttering of the old terrorist without teeth was heard." Ch.3:

"What is one to say to an act of destructive ferocity so absurd as to be incomprehensible, inexplicable, almost unthinkable; in fact, mad? Madness alone is truly terrifying, inasmuch as you cannot placate it either by threats, persuasion, or bribes." (Ch.2)

In response to the September 11 attacks, political leaders from Europe, North America, Asia, and the Middle East have placed the phenomenon of terrorism within the context of a global battle against systems of government perceived by those accused of using terrorist tactics as harmful to their interests. The European Union includes in its 2002 definition of "terrorism" the aim of "destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country." [6]

The United States defines "international terrorism" as activities that:

1. involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
2. appear to be intended:
   1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
   2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
   3. to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
3. occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. (50 U.S.C. § 1801(c))

In a landmark roundtable of strategic thinkers from the Middle East, North America, Europe and Asia organised by Strategic Foresight Group in New Delhi in June 2004, it was proposed to make a distinction between terrorism and acts of terror. While terrorism refers to both motives and acts of terror by a group or an individual for a political or ideological reason, the act of terror is a crime under the jurisdiction of most countries in the world as well as various United Nations protocols. Also, in 2004, UN High Level Panel proposed that acts of terror should be defined as those which are executed with an intention to cause bodily harm to non-combatants for the objective of influencing public policy. Thus, these developments have clarified the definition of terrorism, though its formal acceptance by the UN General Assembly still remains illusive.

The United States does not have one definition, but rather multiple ones as defined by organizations such as the FBI, the US State Department, and the US Department of Defense. When trying to define the term terrorism in black and white, it becomes nearly impossible. However, if we focus on the grey area between, we can place each act of terrorism on a continuim between two polar opposites-terrorism or non terrorism. In reality, a vast majority of acts are in between these two poles.

Key criteria

Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy and are often developed to serve it. Most official definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators.

• Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic [of terrorism] generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as terrorism.
• Target – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist organization possesses. This definition excludes attacks on military targets, but pertains regardless of whether the attackers made an attempt to reduce civilian casualties. For example, the Zionist organization Irgun preceded many 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 terrorists by the British. ETA and the Provisional IRA are also known for issuing warnings. In contrast, groups such as Hamas, al-Qaeda, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades seek to maximize casualties with suicide bombings, and therefore never issue warnings.
• Objective – As the name implies, terrorism is understood as an attempt to provoke fear and intimidation in the main target audience, which may be a government, a whole society, or a group within a society. Terrorist acts are therefore designed and may be deliberately timed to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, and fear. The intention may also be to provoke repression from governments ("provocation"), or to encourage support from the terrorist group's potential constituency by striking at an unpopular target ("endorsement terrorism" or "Propaganda of the deed").
• Motive – Terrorist acts may be intended to achieve political or religious goals, which include the spread of fear and mayhem. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact of many large audiences. They hope that their actions will make a difference, whether it is in a direct strategic sense or in an indirect way as a dramatic performance so powerful that it will change people's perceptions of the world. Terrorist acts can be both "performance events", in which a symbolic statement is made (e.g. 9/11), and "performance acts", in which goals are strategic and lean more towards immediate political achievements. Many times the symbolic statements, or "performance events" are aimed to demonstrate the vulnerability of a nation's most stable entities (e.g. Oklahoma City Bombing), and also a government's power. This both weakens the power of the government to a certain degree, and creates the impression that the terrorist organizations and ideology behind the acts have enormous power and importance.
• Perpetrator – Most definitions of terrorism do not include legitimate governments as terrorist actors, unless acting clandestinely and in the absence of a state of war. Acts of war, including war crimes, are regarded as distinct from terrorism, as are overt government repressions of civilians, genocides, and other crimes against humanity. This definition does not rule out "state-sponsored terrorism", in which a government supports terrorist activity in another state, though this might instead be regarded as low-intensity warfare between sovereign states. Those who disagree with these definitions may use the term "state terror" to describe the actions of official groups such as the Gestapo, the KGB, the CIA and the Stasi of East Germany against dissidents, political opponents or ethnic minorities among their own citizens.
• Legality – Many official state definitions include that the act must be unlawful.
• Claims of responsibility – Although not found in state definitions of terrorism, a statement from the perpetrators can be an identifying characteristic of a terrorist act. Several themes recur in these statements:
  • Reference to the ideals of the group, implying that the ideals justify the actions; separatist groups, for instance, often emphasize 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 military campaigns. Islamist groups, for instance repeatedly refer to the occupation of Iraq.
  • There may also be a specific demand related to the above factors; for instance the demand that troops be withdrawn from Iraq.

Frequently, a number of unassociated groups may claim responsibility for the action; this may be considered "free publicity" for the organization's aims. Because of its anonymous nature, it is not uncommon for the reasons for a terrorist action to remain unknown for a considerable period.

Technique may also be used to identify terrorism. Placing a time bomb on a civilian airliner, for example, would normally be considered a terrorist act, whatever the motivation and whoever the perpetrator.

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.

Causes

Theories on the causes of terrorism include:

• The Sociological Explanation, utilizes social construction theory to explain how terrorism arises from a process of enemy making and constructed conflict. This explanation includes the factors of:

Conflict Theory, Which examines the perpetrators' relationship to those in power and recognizes social phenomena can be explained by conflict between opposing parties over finite resources.

Ideology, Which examines the ideological differences between parties and how conflict can result from these differences.

The Media, Which examines how the interrelationship between terrorists and the media is symbiotic, giving the terrorists a voice as well as the media a 'scoop.'

All these factors come into play in the sociological explanation. Proposed by James Aho in This Thing of Darkness terrorism is the result of a five step process where some group or organization is made into an enemy. First, the group is 'named', using a stigmatizing term such as "enemy," "terrorist," "infidels," etc. Then this name is 'legitimized,' and validated in the society using appropriate means such as court trials of those named as terrorists, speaches condeming

• 'Last Resort' Explanations: Some theories assume that groups resort to terrorism when other avenues for change, including economic campaigns, protest, public appeal, and standard warfare, hold no hope of success. This is related to the criterion of ultima ratio (last resort), in just war theory. From this perspective, terrorist acts are calculated to disrupt the existing order and provoke conflicts, in the expectation that the outcome will be a new order, more favourable to their interests. Applied to anti-terrorism policy, this approach suggests policies that will create and sustain an alternative, peaceful, avenue of problem resolution, particularly in the case of marginalized and oppressed populations. Ideological theories, on the other hand, often imply that nothing can be 'resolved', because the conflicting ideologies are logically incompatible.

Separatism

During much of the 20th century, the term terrorism was primarily applied to radical nationalist movements of various types. Most of them were separatist movements, seeking to create a new independent nation-state on the territory of a larger, existing state. There were also some cases of non-state irredentist violence, seeking to annex territory. Classic counter-terrorist operations were a feature of the decolonization in Africa and the Middle East. Some of these campaigns, such as the Mau Mau and the FLOSY, were well known in the Western media, but unlike Al-Qaeda, their violence was remote and confined to the disputed colony.

Irish republican groups consistently targeted England, the Basque ETA often targeted Madrid and other non-Basque parts of Spain, and the felquistes targeted English-speaking parts of Québec. The motives of these groups derive from their nationalist ideology, and an underlying territorial conflict about which state should control what. In this respect, no separate theory of the causes is required, since violence is the standard instrument of geopolitical change.

Democracy

The relationship of terrorism and democracy is complex. Research shows that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom and that the nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations.[7] [8] [9] 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 terrorists were rewarded by concessions during the 80s and 90s for such attacks which increased their frequency.

Examples of "terrorism" (insurgency) in nondemocracies include ETA under Francisco Franco, the Shining path under Alberto Fujimori, the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Another the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders.

While a nation espousing democratic ideology may claim a sense of legitimacy or higher moral ground than regimes that promote terrorism, any act of terrorism within the former creates a dilemma for the democratic state. On one hand, a state that prides itself in its tolerance of peaceful demonstration may choose to approach the problem of terrorism in ways outlined by its constitution; this may render that state ineffective in dealing with the problem, which could reflect upon its citizens a sense of impotency in a time of crisis. On the other hand, should that same terrorized state go above its constitution to deal with the problem, the very notion of democracy itself pales in meaning. This, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to deligitimize democracy.

Perpetrators

Acts of terrorism can be carried out by 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. The most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause. However, many of the most successful operations in recent time, such as 9/11, the USS Cole, and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a close clique, comprised of close friends and family members. These groups benefited from the free flow of information, and were able overcome the obstacles they encountered where others failed due to lack of information and communication. Additionally, some acts have been committed by individuals acting alone, while others are alleged to have had the backing of established states. 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.

Terrorist groups

Main article: Terrorist groups

Lone wolves

Main article: Lone-wolf terrorism

A single individual commits an act of terrorism if the target is civilians and the purpose is to effect a political or ideological change. Such an individual may or may not identify himself with some group.

Criticism of the Lone Wolf position

It should be noted that one possible key to linking together commonalities among seemingly different violent acts (and thereby begin to understand the causes of those acts) is the social nature of terrorism. This is contrary to the idea of lone-wolf terrorism as it is conceieved by the FBI, and asserts that for an act to be considered terrorist, it must be perpetrated by a like-minded group, and not a single individual acting alone. This helps to tie together the other key criteria of terrorism and separate true terrorist acts from the acts of insane or selfishly motivated criminals.

Additionally, the idea of a single individual acting alone constituting terrorism is in conflict with the sociological explanation of terrorism above. A single individual committing a violent act is not a terrorist because his/her attack is not against an enemy that is legitmized and sedimented in a larger social context. His/her attack is simply an expression of a personal grievance of some kind. Should an individual name an enemy, and then somehow succeed in the other four stages of enemy-making, he/she would have had to gained the support and involvement of a great many others, making the act socially originated and appropriatley called terrorism. In support, 100% of those invovled in a terrorist organization have reported knowing at least one member in the organization or having some sort of connection before joining.

When we understand that acts comitted by individuals are not to be considered terrorist alongside attacks perpetrated by groups, we can begin to see the relevance of social construction theory in examining and defining terrorism. So-called "lone wolves" are acting out of completely different motivations, committing different types of attacks, and are subject to different effective means of prevention than terrorists as we are defining them here. In order to understand and prevent both types of attacks, we must deconstruct them and look only at what is truly similar and empiracally distinguishable between lone wolves and terrorists. This sort of distinction is described effectively in an article by Eric Boehlert that shows how two attacks are incorrectly deemed terrorist or non-terrorist based on the constructions conjured by various aspects of the attack.

State sponsors

Main articles: State sponsored terrorism and state terrorism

See also: False flag

Some states have been accused of sponsoring terrorist actions in foreign countries, usually as an alternative to carrying them out directly and risking an open declaration of war. A state can sponsor terrorism by funding a terrorist organization, harboring terrorism, and also using state resources, such as the military, to directly perform acts of terrorism (e.g. El Mozote). State-sponsored terrorism is widely denounced by the international community, most notabley by the United States.

When states do provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such. For example, Iran has been linked to a number of organizations, including Hezbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, but maintains that where funds have been transferred, these have been legitimate. Iran itself has accused the British military, stationed in southern Iraq, of involvement in bombings in Iran; such claims have been denied by the British government.

When proof of state sponsorship of a terrorist act is obtained, the response may include economic sanctions. Sometimes state sponsors are forced to back down by offering incentives. An example is that of Pakistan, which supported the Taliban until it was forced to sever its links after pressure from the U.S. However, India accuses Pakistan of continuing to incite, train, and support terrorist organizations that target India.

Institute for Policy Studies scholar Professor Noam Chomsky and others have described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state," for example, for the CIA's alleged support of death squads in Guatemala and of the Baathists in the violent overthrow of the government of Iraq in the 1960s. Chomsky insists on a universal moral standard which defines terrorism based on the action not the identity of the actor, and thus does not exempt some terrorists because they are "favored" states. After George W. Bush declared a "War on Terrorism", Chomsky stated:

The U.S. is officially committed to what is called "low–intensity warfare". If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of "terrorism" in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same (see [10]).

Some of the former Communist states directly supported claimed terrorist groups. Examples include the PFLP, the Red Army Fraction, and the Japanese Red Army. North Korea has been implicated in several terrorist acts, like Korean Air Flight 858.

Common characteristics of terrorists

Although terrorists come from varying backgrounds, the majority of recruits to most terrorist organisations have shared some or all of a group of certain sociological and psychological features in common. Terrorists are almost overwhelmingly male and between their late teens and early thirties, but there are some exceptions. Victor, in Army of Roses depicts how women and children play a part in suicide bombings.

Sociological factors

• Poverty It is often believed that all terrorism stems from poverty. However the available evidence appears to contradict this perception. E.g. In a survey of Palestinians that questioned justifying the use of terrorism to achieve political goals, professionals and students had the highest percentage of support (43% and 41%) for terrorism compared to unemployed and laborers (38% and 35%)
• Cross-cutting cleavages is a sociological term that refers to a person or group's connections to other persons and groups with different ideologies and backgrounds. It has been found (citation?) that the use of violent tactics for a political agenda is far more likely to be committed by groups with few cross cutting cleavages. For example, the al-Qaeda network is comprised of men who met while fighting Soviets in Afghanistan during the cold war, and all share the same religious and political beliefs. Thus an organization of like-minded individuals with little connection to opposing thoughts become "extremist" and use violence against their enemies. Research has also shown (citation?) that people become involved in terrorist organizations through their social networks, their social ties to others. It is then more important who one knows than what one things in becoming a terrorist. Combining these two ideas, we can begin to predict when terrorist organizations will form and who will be a part of them. If persons with few outside connections but many friends within their closed community, violent action on a political ideology is possible.
• Discontent with society Militant groups frequently express the idea that society is "decadent" and contrary to their values, or the values of the wider group to which they belong. This may appeal to disaffected youths, who may experience feelings of isolation or have faced actual or perceived discrimination. For example, the rhetoric of Ulster loyalist paramilitary groups frequently appeals to the idea that Catholics have been given special privileges and status in Northern Ireland, and that "there is nothing left" for Protestants. WN terrorist groups may appeal to popular discontent about affirmative action, feminism, immigration and political correctness, and the dissatisfaction which some young white men may feel personally about these issues.
• Discontent with own community As in the case of the 7 July London bombers, the community to which the individual belongs may be a source of disaffection, since they may be viewed as too strict, and on the other hand too accepting of wider society.
• Isolation of society Many times individuals are isolated from the various views, opinions, and networks in a society. An attraction to a violent movement, such as the jihad, which is based on tangible ties to a specific community, is much more likely happen to those who have a lack of embeddedness in their society. It is common for young men who are socially alienated to experience this temporary loss of embeddedness, which makes them vulnerable, and in turn, become embedded with ideology and bonds of a specific militant or terrorist organization.
• Political situation The individual may perceive that his or her group may be under threat, either from the government, a neighboring country, or another group in the same country. The Iraq war is seen by many Muslims, for example, as a war against Islam.
• Exposure to criminal activity Many Irish paramilitary groups are involved in petty crime, and Hasib Hussain, one of the London suicide bombers, had a history of theft and other misdemeanors before his conversion to radical Islam. Germaine Lindsay, another bomber, had been involved in drugs offences in his life before he joined the terror cell. At least two of the Madrid bombers had also been involved in criminality.
• Upbringing There are suggestions that many terrorists may have suffered from neglect or even child abuse during their early years, however, this notion is refuted by a Krueger and Meleckova study, Education, Political Violence, and Terrorism: Is there a causal connection?, that compared members of the terrorist organization Hezbollah and the general Lebanese population it was a part of. Krueger and Meleckova found that the terrorists were better educated, less impoverished, more literate, and more likely to be from an urban area than the population at large. This suggests that terrorists are, in fact, experiencing many of the conditions of a "good upbringing" more frequently than non-terrorists.

Psychological factors

We know that terrorists can come from a wide variety of backgrounds, ages, races, genders, and educational and economic histories . Also, as in the Lone Wolf section of this article, violent acts committed by an insane or fanatical individual should not be considered terrorist. Therefore, in defining, examining the origins of, and endeavoring to prevent terrorism, relevant factors are found in the analysis of terrorism as a social phenomenon, and as related at its core to the phenomena of indoctrination and propaganda.

Tactics

Attack tactics

Terrorists seek to demoralize and paralyze their enemy with fear, and also to pressure governments into conceding to the terrorist's agenda.

While acting under different motivations and goals, all terrorist groups have one tactic in common: maximum publicity in order to intimidate and generate a message in order to attain its objectives. Terrorism uses violence on one part of society in order to instill fear in the larger part of society in order to make a change in that society. Terrorism employs propaganda as a tactic, in order to ensure the attention of the public. The term Propaganda of the Deed, coined by Malatesta, Cafiero, and Covelli, states that the message is most strongly conveyed through violence.

Terrorist groups may 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.

Cover

Where terrorism occurs in the context of open warfare or insurgency, its perpetrators may shelter behind a section of the local population. Examples include the Intifada on Israeli-occupied territory, and insurgency in Iraq. This population, which is usually ethnically distinct from the counter-terrorist forces, is either sympathetic to their cause, indifferent, or acts under duress.

Funding

Main article: Terrorist Financing

In the absence of state funding, terrorists may rely on organized crime to fund their activities. This could include kidnapping, drug trafficking, or robbery. However, terrorists have also found many more sources of revenue. Osama bin Laden, for example, invested millions in terrorism that his family made in the construction industry building luxury mansions for Saudi Arabia's oil-millionaires. The diamond industry emerged early in the twenty-first century as an important new source of funding for terrorism. However, as with Islamist terrorist groups in particular, funds are likely procured through well-funded organizations for whom terrorist efforts are but a small part of their operations. Hamas, for example, spends but a fraction of their budget on violent attacks, with the rest going towards charitable efforts in the middle east, including education and food aid to the area. A terrorist organization may also recieve funds from a non-violent organization with a similer ideology, as in the case of PETA's donations to the Earth Liberation Front

Communication

Traditionally, religous terrorism has been based on face-to-face intercations. However, the revolution in communication technology over the past 10-15 years has dramatically changed the situation, transceding the limitations of face-to-face communicatoin. E-mails, tax transmissions, websites, cell phones, and satellite telephones have made it possible for organizations such as al Qaeda to contemplate a global strategy. However, too great a reliance on this new technology leaves organizations vulnerable to sophisticated monitoring of communication and triangluation of its source. When the media published the information the U.S. government was tracking Osama bin Laden by tracking his phone calls, he ceased using that method to communicate . Terrorists have successfully used the internet to communicate messages and coordinate attacks. According to terrorism expert Christopher Brown, al-Qaeda signal attacks through video messages. After a pair of videos are released, a major attack is said to occur within 30 days. [11]

Responses to terrorism

Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values. The term counter-terrorism has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors.

Terrorism and immigration in Europe

Recent developments have seen a divergence in social and political responses to terrorism between the United States and western Europe. The September 11, 2001 attacks were carried out by foreigners who entered the USA for that purpose, on behalf of a foreign organization, operating from bases in a remote country. Western European countries, on the other hand, are now confronted with a domestic terrorism based within a domestic religious minority, some recent immigrants, but many native-born citizens.

Much of Europe has not experienced a domestic religious threat since the Wars of Religion. As a result, in Europe, the issues of Islam, immigration, and terrorism have become linked. The Dutch populist Pim Fortuyn was the first to show that the electorate may see Muslim immigrants as a fifth column at war with the country in which they live. Terrorism, according to this view, is a failure of multiculturalism and not simply a security issue. Aggression against sections of the population regarded as associated with the perpetrators is an increasingly important issue in these communities. Defusing potential backlash is now a standard item of European counter-terrorism policy.

The direction of European responses to terrorism is indicated by new policies, proposed by Tony Blair in August 2005:

• deportation and exclusion on grounds of fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person's beliefs or justifying or validating such violence;
• a criminal offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism;
• refusal of asylum to anyone with a connection to terrorism;
• new pre-trial procedures and extending detention pre-charge of terrorist suspects;
• extended use of control orders for those who are British nationals and who cannot be deported, with imprisonment for any breach of the order;
• new power to order closure of a place of worship which is used as a "centre for fomenting extremism". [12]

Target-hardening

Common targets of terrorists are areas of high population concentration, such as mass transit vehicles (metro, bus, and trains), aircraft, office buildings, and crowded restaurants. 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 only effective if it is conducted before the search subjects enter an area of high population concentration.

Another method is to place concrete barriers a sufficient distance outside buildings to prevent truck bombing. Aircraft cockpits are kept locked during flights, and have reinforced doors, which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening.

Suicide terrorism often uses democracies as their target. Democracies tend to have a public that has a low threshold of cost tolerance-in which the loss of civilian lives has a very large impact and will normally coerce or affect state policy. Also, suicide terrorism is a tactic of the weak where its target state will most likely have a much stronger retalitory defense. Democracies are more likely to be restrained in their response or retaliation than other governing styles.

Preemptive neutralization

Some countries see pre-emptive attacks as a legitimate strategy. This includes capturing, killing, or disabling suspected terrorists before they can mount an attack. Israel, the United States, and Russia have taken this approach, while western European states generally do not.

In July 2005, Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by police at Stockwell underground station in London, because he was misidentified as a suspected suicide bomber, and police feared he had a bomb ready for detonation. The shooting led to public concern and diplomatic protest.

Another major method of pre-emptive neutralization is interrogation of known or suspected terrorists to obtain information about specific plots, targets, the identity of other terrorists, and whether the interrogation subject himself is guilty of terrorist involvement. Sometimes methods are used to increase suggestibility, such as sleep deprivation or drugs. Human rights objections apart, such methods may lead captives to offer false information in an attempt to stop the treatment, or because of confusion brought on by it.

Domestic intelligence and surveillance

Most counter-terrorism strategies involve an increase in standard police and domestic intelligence. The central activities are traditional: interception of communications, and the tracing of persons. New technology has, however, expanded the range of such operations. Domestic intelligence is often directed at specific groups, defined on the basis of origin or religion, which is a source of political controversy. Mass surveillance of an entire population raises objections on civil liberties grounds.

Military intervention

Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries where terrorists are said to be based. That was the main stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and one reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was also a stated justification for the second Russian invasion of Chechnya. History has shown that military intervention has not been successful in stopping or preventing terrorism (source?). Provoking repression is actually a key goal of terrorism, as most of the time it increases the popularity of the terrorist cause (source?). Repression by a state military usually leads to short term victories, but tend to be unsuccessful in the long run (e.g. French and the FLN).

Non-military Intervention

Military violence can be seen to exacerbate terrorist activity over time resulting in further retaliation and retribution. The human security paradigm outlines a non-military approach which aims to address the enduring underlying inequalities which fuel terrorist activity. Causal factors need to be delineated and measures implemented which allow equal access to resources and sustainability for all peoples. Such activities empower citizens providing 'freedom from fear' and 'freedom from want'. This can take many forms including the provision of clean drinking water, education, vaccination programs, provision of food and shelter and protection from violence, military or otherwise. Successful human security campaigns have been characterised by the participation of a diverse group of actors including governments, NGOs, and citizens.

Terrorism & Human Rights

One of the primary difficulties of implementing effective counter-terrorist measures is the violation of human rights such measure often entail. Such abuses can include prolonged, incommunicado detention without judicial review; risk of subjecting to torture during the transfer, return and extradition of persons between or within countries; and the adoption of security measures that restrain the rights or freedoms of citizens and breach the principal of non-discrimination. Examples include:

• In November 2003, Malaysia passed new counter-terror laws that were widely criticized by local human rights groups for being vague and overbroad. This puts the basic rights of free expression, association, and assembly at risk. Malaysia persisted to hold around 100 alleged militants without trial, including five Malaysian students detained for alleged terrorist activity while studying in Karachi, Pakistan.
• In November 2003, a Canadian-Syrian national, Maher Arar, alleged publicly that he had been tortured in a Syrian prison after being handed over to the Syrian authorities by U.S.
• In December 2003, Colombia congress approved legislation that would give the military the power to arrest, tap telephones and carry out searches without warrants or any previous judicial order.
• Images of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in US custody in Iraq and other locations illustrated how the US government has disregarded human rights and fundamental freedoms in the name of security and the “war on terror”.
• Hundreds of foreign nationals remain in prolonged indefinite detention without charge or trial in Guantánamo Bay, in blatant contravention of international and US constitutional standards.
• Hundreds of people suspected of connections with the Taliban or al Qa'eda remain in long-term arbitrary detention in Pakistan or in US-controlled centres in Afghanistan.
• China has used the "war on terror" to justify its repression policies in the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region to stifle Uighur identity.
• In Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen and other countries, scores of people have been arrested and arbitrarily detained in connection with suspected terrorist acts or links to opposition armed groups.
• Until 2005, 11 men remained in high security detention in the UK under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Many would argue that such violations exacerbate rather than counter the terrorist threat. Human rights advocates argue for the crucial role of human rights protection as an intrinsic part to fight against terrorism. This suggests, as proponents of human security have long argued, that respecting human rights may indeed help us to incur security. Amnesty International included a section on confronting terrorism in the recommendations in the Madrid Agenda arising from the Madrid Summit on Democracy and Terrorism (Madrid 8-11 March 2005):

"Democratic principles and values are essential tools in the fight against terrorism. Any successful strategy for dealing with terrorism requires terrorists to be isolated. Consequently, the preference must be to treat terrorism as criminal acts to be handled through existing systems of law enforcement and with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. We recommend: (1) taking effective measures to make impunity impossible either for acts of terrorism or for the abuse of human rights in counter-terrorism measures. (2) the incorporation of human rights laws in all anti-terrorism programmes and policies of national governments as well as international bodies.".

While international efforts to combat terrorism have focused on the need to enhance cooperation between states, human rights (as well as human security) proponents argue that more effort needs to be given to the effective inclusion of human rights protection as a crucial element in that cooperation. International human rights obligations do not stop at borders and a failure to respect human rights in one state may undermine its effectiveness in the international effort to cooperate to combat terrorism.

History

Although there are earlier related examples, terrorism in the modern sense seems to have emerged around the mid 19th-century.

Precursors

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 Hashshashin (this word, derived from the word "Hashish," which the Hash-Ishiim reputedly used to drug their victims, 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 assaults on Muslim civilian populations.

French Revolution

During the French Revolution (1789 - 1799), the most severe period of the rule of the Committee of Public Safety (1793 - 1795) was labelled "The Reign of Terror" (1793 - 1794) to describe rule through a systematic use of terror exemplified especially by extensive use of the guillotine. Historic references to the term "terrorism" first appeared during the Reign of Terror.

Nineteenth century

In 1867 the Irish Republican Brotherhood, a revolutionary nationalist group with support from Irish-Americans, carried out attacks in England. These were the first acts of "republican terrorism", which became a recurrent feature of British history, and these Fenians were the precursor of the Irish Republican Army. The ideology of the group was Irish nationalism.

In Russia, by the mid-19th century, the 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.

At about the same time, Anarchists in Europe and the United States also resorted to the use of dynamite, as did Catalan nationalists such as La Reixa and Bandera Negra.

Two groups within the Ottoman Empire also resorted to techniques considered by some historians to be in the same category as those used by the People's Will and the Anarchists. One group was those fighting for an independent Armenia, divided into two parties, the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party and the Dashnaks or Armenian Revolutionary Federation. The other group was those fighting for an independent Macedonia, divided into two organizations, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) and the External Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (EMRO).

The IMRO was founded in 1893 in Thessaloniki, now in Greece but then part of the Ottoman Empire. The organisation was driven by Slavic nationalism, and later acquired a reputation for ferocious attacks, including the 1934 assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia during a state visit to France.

The Fenians/IRA, the Hunchaks and Dashnaks, and the IMRO may be considered the prototype of all 'nationalist terrorism', and equally illustrate the (itself controversial) expression that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". At least one of these groups achieved its goals: an independent Ireland came into being. So did an independent Macedonia, but the original IMRO probably contributed little to this outcome. The territories of today's Armenia, however, are all in the former Russian empire.

Twentieth century

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 gone on to become dedicated peace activists (Uri Avnery), respected statesmen (Yitzhak Shamir) or even Nobel Peace Prize laureates (Nelson Mandela, Yasser Arafat).

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 since the late 1980s, then rose to 3,295 in 2001, mainly as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which took about 3 thousand lives. 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.

Data from the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base showed a similar decline since the 1980s, especially 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. Statistically, distribution of the severity of terrorist attacks follows a power law, much like that for wars and also natural disasters like earthquakes, floods and forest fires.

Examples of major incidents

Further information: List of terrorist incidents

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

The U.S. State Department describes the following incidents as domestic and international terrorism: the October 1984 bombing in Brighton, England, by the PIRA in an unsuccessful but lethal attempt to kill then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; the June 1985 double-bombing of Air India jets originating from Canada; the 1993 Mumbai bombings; the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh on April 19, 1995; the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland (August 15, 1998); the USS Cole bombing on October 12, 2000; the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, and Washington D.C.; the Passover Massacre on March 27, 2002 in Netanya, Israel; 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; the attack on the Indian Parliament (December 13, 2001); the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996; the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid; the July 7, 2005 bombings in London; and the second Bali bombing on October 12, 2005.

According to definitions of terrorism which focus on the killing of innocents and the intention of affecting morale, there could be examples of state terrorism such as the bombings of London by the Luftwaffe, of Berlin by the Royal Air Force or the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings by the United States Air Force, the largest state terror attacks in history (though of course, the main difference being that under the Laws of Armed Conflict, a formal declaration of war had been made for each of the WWII incidents).

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 contemporary 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.

Other plots, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, were designed to kill thousands but failed to do so.

See also

• Agent provocateur
• False flags
• Indoctrination
• Propaganda
• Strategy of tension
• Unconventional warfare
• Religious terrorism

External links

• Propaganda vs Critical Thought
• MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base
• Terrorism Research Center - Terrorism research site started in 1996.
• Strategic Foresight Group- a think tank known for its roundtables on deconstructing terror
• Law, Terrorism and Homeland Security. A collection of articles compiled by Greg McNeal, Fellow in Terrorism and Homeland Security at the Institute for Global Security Law and Policy.
• Israeli Counter Terror at isayeret.com
• Richard Clarke speech Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
• [13], The New York Times, Terrorists in Europe find a base in Belgium (discussed at MajorityRights), [14])
• Basics about Terrorism
• Terrorism Visits Israel - Again
• Scale invariance in global terrorism
• Security NewsLine: Global Terrorism and Counterterrorism www.debriefed.org
• Nuclear Facilities and Sabotage: Using Morphological Analysis as a Scenario and Strategy Development Laboratory (PDF)
• Protection against Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities: Using Morphological Analysis in Revising the Design Basis Threat (PDF)
• C.O.D.E. : Center for the Observation and Deterrence of Extremism
• The Institute for Counter-Terrorism
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Terrorism
• A reliable and daily updated Open Sources Center that includes a "Terrorism" section. by ISRIA.
• Genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka
• Paradise Poisoned: Learning About Conflict, Development and Terrorism from Sri Lanka's Civil Wars by John Richardson
• "The Security Constitution," UCLA Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 29, 2005
• SourceWatch article on the War on Terror
• Help the world againt terrorism
• International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism
• Islam Denounces Terrorism by Harun Yahya
• What Some Don’t Get About Terrorism by Tibor R. Machan
• Terrorist fighting is one of the political statements of president George W. Bush
• Definition of ‘Terrorism’ in International Law, By Sinan Fidanci
• Jihadism Monitor
• Diplomacy Monitor - Terrorism
• Terminology of TerrorismA Cynical Article by Rachel Inbar
• The Evolution of Terrorism in 2005. A statistical assessment An article by Rik Coolsaet and Teun Van de Voorde, University of Ghent
• Polish Terrorism Center
• ["The Anatomy of Propaganda within Religious Terrorism," by Roderick Hindery, The Humanist, March-April 2003, 16-19; summarized at http://www.public.asu.edu/~sheilrod/.]

Multimedia

• Child victims of Terrorism - 28 die and 7 are injured when a terrorist organization mines explosives on a civilian road in Pakistan