The Scope of Contemporary Terrorism

2017

Conclusion Bibliography 'frighten and coerce a large number of others' (1977: 11). Lasswell believes that terrorism arouses 'acute anxieties' (1978: 255). For Laqueur, Wilkinson and Hoffman, terrorism intends to create a climate of fear. Claridge believes that terrorism aims to alter the behaviour of an audience through generation of fear (1996: 50). Crenshaw points out that terrorism intends to 'shock, frighten, excite, or outrage' (2011: 2). Walter explains the terror of terrorism as 'the psychic state-extreme fearand on the other hand, the thing that terrifies-the violent event that produces the psychic state' (1969: 5). Simply put, there is generally no academic disagreement on terror (of terrorism) being understood in terms of fear.

2014

Terrorism – conceptualization and development. The core of terrorism is systemic violence usage to terrify people and spread fear. Fear serves as a policy tool for terrorists. The definition of terrorism that would be widely acceptable is an issue for discussion. The existing definitions vary according following criteria: the amount of definition characters, the orientation of institutions backing those definitions and as well according individual scholars and their orientation. Development of terrorism from radicalism towards extremism is influenced by two accredited indicator groups: Terrorism as a state policy tool in the sense of defence against enemies was born during the Great French Revolution and as a tool of revolutionaries – intellectuals wanting to destroy the existing society. This was born in Russia during Tsarist regime. Anarchists – terrorists created first terrorist international. The point of view of the modern terrorism predecessors emphasizes the organizational st...

This article examines various problems in defining and building consensus on the most controversial term—terrorism—in contemporary politics. The objective is to clarify the relativist enmesh to be able to distinguish between what constitutes freedom fighting and what would fall under the category of terrorism. The article attempts to authenticate the legitimacy of freedom movements which the states against which these are launched dub as terrorism. It is, therefore, argued that liberation movements which are recognized by the UN should not be termed as terrorism. However, the use of violence against noncombatants puts the legitimacy of such movements in doubt. Moreover, in order to come out of the relativist confusion regarding the popular saying—“one man’s terrorist, another man’s freedom fighter”—it is necessary to evolve a clear definition to separate the two activities.

Security Dialogues /Безбедносни дијалози, 2015

Introduction The topic of terrorism is both complex and emotive. It is complex because it combines so many different aspects of human experience, including subjects such as politics, psychology, philosophy, military strategy, and history, to name a few. Terrorism is also emotive both because experiences of terrorist acts arouse tremendous feelings, and because those who see terrorists as justified often have strong feelings concerning the rightness of the use of violence. Without a doubt, terrorism evokes strong feelings whenever it is discussed. A key challenge of understanding terrorism is both acknowledging the moral outrage at terrorist acts, while at the same time trying to understand the rationale behind terrorism. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in human experience. Violence has been used throughout human history by those who chose to oppose states, kings, and princes. This sort of violence can be differentiated from what is termed as terrorism. Violence in opposition to a government is often targeted against soldiers and those who govern. Terrorism, however, is characterized by the use of violence against civilians, with the expressed desire of causing terror or panic in the population. Terrorism is not unique to the 20th and 21st centuries. Terrorism existed in 18th century revolutionary France during the reign of terror, as well as among the Zealots of Palestine in opposition to Roman rule some 2000 years ago. Arriving at a consensual definition of the phenomenon of terrorism has been a particularly difficult undertaking. Some definitions are either too specific or too vague, concentrating on some essential “terrorist” aspect of the actions, strategies, or types of non-state organizations that engage in terrorism. In this paper we draw on global approaches from international relations and world systems theories to propose a definition of terrorism that skirts these issues by concentrating on terrorist actors rather than terrorist behavior. Arguing that this approach has several advantages, including the dissolution of several empirical and analytical problems produced by more essentialist definitions, and the location of terrorism within a two dimensional continuum of collective-violence phenomena in the international system which discloses important theoretical insights. We proceed to examine the characteristics of terrorism by comparing it with other forms of violence in the international system. I propose that terrorism may be defined as being part of the cycles and trends of unrest in the world system, responding to the same broad families of global dynamics as other forms of system-level conflict. It is no secret that arriving at a consensual definition of terrorism is a difficult task. Some might say that constructing a characterization of terrorism that would be satisfactory for everyone is a downright impossible undertaking. It is much easier to point out the flaws in extant conceptions and usages of the term than to come up with a definition that would be free of those same faults, while being comprehensive enough to be both acceptable to most lay observers and useful for the conduct of academic research on the subject. Taking a birds-eye view of the field, it is clear what is wrong with current characterizations of terrorism: they are either too specific or too vague, they concentrate on particular (and theoretically arbitrary) aspects of the phenomenon while de-emphasizing others, or are too normatively oriented, mixing up descriptive and prescriptive terminology.

2017

Redefining Terror and Terrorism Concepts, 2025

Terror and terrorism have different definitions that are similar but complementary. Although terrorism is derived from the word terror, there are some differences between them. Terror is an act of violence created by the uncontrolled masses. Terrorism, on the other hand, is the conscious and deliberate use of methods of violence to achieve a political goal. There is a specific will and a purpose. With the influence of the modern age, the facilities provided by technology, communication, and transportation have helped spread terrorism quickly and reach global dimensions. This process reveals the changing dimensions and different approaches to terrorism at national, regional, and global levels. These different approaches emerge as a problem in understanding the concept of terrorism when used interchangeably. From this point of view, the study aims to create a new definition by explaining the concepts of terror and terrorism and other concepts derived from them. Thus, historical and descriptive research methods will be applied, as well as document-based analysis, and the result will be reached. The study's hypothesis is centred on the misuse of the concepts of terror and terrorism and their concepts.

Since the September 9 2001 attacks in the United States, better known as 9/11, both civilians and governments, have been trying to understand the rationale behind such attacks. In trying to understand the rationale behind such actions, justifications and criticism of such actions arise. There are several definitions and descriptions of terrorism. Ganor (2002) defines terrorism as 'the deliberate use or the threat to use violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological, and religious aims'. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'terrorism as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion' (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Examples of such acts of terrorism are as follows; the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US that left almost 3,000 peole dead and thousands more injured; 2014 Boko Haram attack in Gomboru Ngala Town, Borno, Nigeria-over 300 civilians were killed; a series of coordinated attacks by the National Liberation Army of Colombia, which spanned for two days killing 275 and leaving several wounded. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) attack on a town in Iraq that left 500 people killed and 300 women abducted in 2014 (Global Terrorism Databse, n.d.). This essay seeks to argue that the justification or condemnation of terrorism can only be done depending on what definition of terrorism is used. Thus, the essay will take the following structure; a brief history on terrorism will be given, differentiating terrorism into ideological lines, arguments justifying terrorism will explained, examples will be employed to further strengthen the arguments, arguments against the justification of terrorism will then follow, examples will also be employed to further strengthen the arguments, then I will conclude by stating reasons why I believe terrorism can be justified.

Terrorist insurgencies, in all their configurations and local conflicts, constitute the primary warfare threat facing the international community. This is especially the case following September 2001, when al Qaida demonstrated that it had world class ambitions to inflict catastrophic damages on its adversaries. In other conflicts, such as the Palestinian-Israeli arena, terrorist rebellions are primarily localized. Because of the worldwide reach of al Qaida and its affiliates, including the spontaneous emergence of al Qaida-inspired groupings and cells in Western Europe, North America, and elsewhere, many nations have been upgrading their homeland security defenses and calling on their academic communities to provide analytical understanding of the nature and magnitude of the threat and how to counteract and resolve it. As a result, terrorism courses, research institutes and certificate programs have been proliferating at universities and other academic institutions around the world. Despite the great attention being devoted to terrorism studies; however, there is no consensus about the most fundamental starting point in terrorism studies: how to define terrorism.

2010

In this article we intend to highlight some problems that must be considered within the framework of an approach aiming to comprehend the terrorist phenomenon, an investigation conducted both at a scholarly level, and a at general audience one. In the opening part we identify several difficulties that emerge from any attempt to specify the conceptual meaning of „international terrorism”. This is a concept that involves a great deal of subjectivity and is highly contested, and consequently it cannot grasp the corresponding phenomenon in a universal and objective manner, especially since a large number of actors in the international arena make use of violence in order to advance their political aims. This is why it is imperative to acknowledge the particular interests and the strategic objectives involved in any „construction” of the terrorist phenomenon. Thus we open the way for an analysis, conducted in a critical manner, of the theoretical and empirical issues raised by this approa...

Criminal Justice Studies, 2004

The idea that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' has led to the erroneous conclusion that defining terrorism is, in the final analysis, a subjective activity about assigning negative connotations to one's opponents and positive connotations to one's proponents. Terrorism, both as practiced and justified by terrorist themselves, is a tool used to achieve a specific outcome by using force or violence on one segment of society with the primary goal of causing fear in the larger society to make change in that society. This article will review the historical development of the use of terror and demonstrate that regardless of the actor, all terrorists share the common belief that terror is a tool of change. The desired change, the chosen target, and the justification of the use of terror can be specific to the society and the perpetrators. The goal of this paper will be to show the common strands of uniformity of the understanding of terror as a tool of change through history. Though there are differences between terrorists and waves of terror, the utility of terror is not different.

This article attempts to have a world wide view about Terrorism. It depicts the modus operandi of terror groups and elucidates the history of terrorism. The writer goes further to unearth the reasons why terrorism is an escalating worry despite the billions of dollars voted as security budget globally by various countries. Finally, it is recommended that various steps including training and re-training of security forces with regards to terror related activities, increased intelligence gathering and international coalition support be taken to end the raging scourge of violence.

Global Society, 2009