Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, the
International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding,
criminal law definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those
violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political
or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants
(civilians).[citation needed]

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist
organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4]
Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other
members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are
often murky and undefined.[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, [5] and this greatly compounds
the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of
“terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by
state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the
state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as
"terror" by opponents of the state).[8][9]

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their
objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties,
nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. [10] One form is
the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group,
cause, or individual.[11]

Definition
Main article: Definition of terrorism

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government
agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the
International community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding
definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is
politically and emotionally charged.[19] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian
Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an
accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United
Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between
various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation
and self-determination."[20] These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations
to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a
single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism. [21] Nonetheless,
the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and
criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations
General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political
description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in
the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any
circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify
them."[22]

Pejorative use
The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong
negative connotations.[43] These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence
or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to
condemn an entire segment of a population.[44] Those labeled "terrorists" by their opponents
rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their
situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant,
paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and
cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the
English lexicon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.
[45]

On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing civilians, can be justified
as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views:
while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in
which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could not be achieved in a less
morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-
combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts
of terrorism".[46] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that
terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community
faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by
intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".[46][47]

In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term
terrorism becomes distorted:

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word

“ with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies
and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer
to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to
depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if
one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has
indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to
call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably
subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the
person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence,
for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the
perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or,
at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.[48][49][50] ”
The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".[45] This is exemplified when a group using
irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with
the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally. During World War II, the
Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan
Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded
"terrorists" by the British.[51][52] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American
administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" during their war
against the Soviet Union,[53] yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men are
fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks
are labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush.[54][55] Groups accused of terrorism
understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action. [56][57][58]
Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of
Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as
attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and said:

Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called "terrorists" by the
Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations,
are called "statesmen" by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the
Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.[60][61][62][63][64][65]

Sometimes states which are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can
disagree over whether or not members of a certain organization are terrorists. For instance,
for many years, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of
the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was using methods against one
of the United States' closest allies (Britain) which Britain branded as terrorism. This was
highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.[66][67]

For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality try
to be careful in their use of the term.[68][69]

Types of Terrorism
In early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the
National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five
volumes that the committee wrote was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the
Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction of H.H.A. Cooper, Director of the
Task Force staff.[70] The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories.

 Civil disorder – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security,
and normal functioning of the community.
 Political terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear
in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes.
 Non-Political terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which
exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive
purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a
political objective.”
 Quasi-terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence
that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack
its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce
terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-
terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces
similar consequences and reaction.[71] For example, the fleeing felon who takes
hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine
terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.
 Limited political terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a
revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to “acts of terrorism which
are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a
concerted campaign to capture control of the state.
 Official or state terrorism –"referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and
oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions.” It may also be referred
to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by
governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.
Several sources[72][73] have further defined the typology of terrorism:

 Political terrorism
o Sub-state terrorism
 Social revolutionary terrorism
 Nationalist-separatist terrorism
 Religious extremist terrorism
 Religious fundamentalist Terrorism
 New religions terrorism
 Right-wing terrorism
 Left-wing terrorism
 Single-issue terrorism
o State-sponsored terrorism
o Regime or state terrorism
 Criminal terrorism
 Pathological terrorism

Democracy and domestic terrorism

The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is very complex. Terrorism is
most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and is least common in the
most democratic nations.[74][75][76][77] 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.[78] The study suggests that concessions awarded to
terrorists during the 1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks increased their frequency.[79]

Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democracies include ETA in Spain under Francisco

Franco,[80] the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto Fujimori,[81] the Kurdistan Workers Party
when Turkey was ruled by military leaders and the ANC in South Africa.[82] Democracies,
such as the United Kingdom, United States, Israel, Indonesia, India, Spain and the
Philippines, have also experienced domestic terrorism.

While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground
than other regimes, an act of terrorism within such a state may cause a dilemma: whether to
maintain its civil liberties and thus risk being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the
problem; or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk delegitimizing its claim of
supporting civil liberties.[83] This dilemma, some social theorists would conclude, may very
well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state.[84]

Religious terrorism
Main article: Religious terrorism

Religious terrorism is terrorism performed by groups or individuals, the motivation of

which is typically rooted in the faith based tenets. Terrorist acts throughout the centuries have
been performed on religious grounds with the hope to either spread or enforce a system of
belief, viewpoint or opinion.[85] Religious terrorism does not in itself necessarily define a
specific religious standpoint or view, but instead usually defines an individual or a group
view or interpretation of that belief system's teachings.

Perpetrators
 The perpetrators of acts of terrorism can be individuals, groups, or states. According to some
definitions, clandestine or semi-clandestine state actors may also carry out terrorist acts
outside the framework of a state of war. However, the most common image of terrorism is
that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause
and many of the most deadly operations in recent times, such as the September 11 attacks, the
London underground bombing, and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a
close clique, composed of close friends, family members and other strong social networks.
These groups benefited from the free flow of information and efficient telecommunications to
succeed where others had failed.[86]

Over the years, many people have attempted to come up with a terrorist profile to attempt to
explain these individuals' actions through their psychology and social circumstances. Others,
like Roderick Hindery, have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by
terrorists. Some security organizations designate these groups as violent non-state actors.[87]
A 2007 study by economist Alan B. Krueger found that terrorists were less likely to come
from an impoverished background (28% vs. 33%) and more likely to have at least a high-
school education (47% vs. 38%). Another analysis found only 16% of terrorists came from
impoverished families, vs. 30% of male Palestinians, and over 60% had gone beyond high
school, vs. 15% of the populace.[88]

To avoid detection, a terrorist will look, dress, and behave normally until executing the
assigned mission. Some claim that attempts to profile terrorists based on personality,
physical, or sociological traits are not useful. [89] The physical and behavioral description of
the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.[90] However, the majority of terrorist
attacks are carried out by military age men, aged 16–40.[90]

Terrorist groups

There is speculation that anthrax mailed inside letters to U.S. politicians was the work of a
lone wolf terrorist.
Main articles: List of designated terrorist organizations and Lone wolf (terrorism)

State sponsors

Main article: State-sponsored terrorism

A state can sponsor terrorism by funding or harboring a terrorist organization. Opinions as to

which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism vary widely. When states
provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them
as such.

State terrorism

Main article: State terrorism

Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often
“ unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those
lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully
rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is
unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the
fetishization of the victims. ”
  — Derrick Jensen[91]

As with "terrorism" the concept of "state terrorism" is controversial. [92] The Chairman of the
United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious
of 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism,
which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be
judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights
and international humanitarian law.[93] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by
states is already thoroughly regulated under international law" [94] However, he also made
clear that, "regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of
terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent
civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of
terrorism."[95]

State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts by governmental agents or forces. This
involves the use of state resources employed by a state's foreign policies, such as using its
military to directly perform acts of terrorism. Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl
cites the examples that include Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic
destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that “the use of terror tactics is
common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer
of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." They also cite the First strike
option as an example of the "terror of coercive diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the
world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management." They
argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took
place following World War II. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign
policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the
legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this state
behavior.[96][97][97]

Some theorists suggest genocide is a type of terrorism as committed by Adolf Hitler.[citation

needed]

State terrorism has also been used to describe peacetime actions by governmental agents such
as the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.[98] Charles Stewart Parnell described William Ewart
Gladstone's Irish Coercion Act as terrorism in his "no-Rent manifesto" in 1881, during the
Irish Land War.[99] The concept is also used to describe political repressions by governments
against their own civilian population with the purpose to incite fear. For example, taking and
executing civilian hostages or extrajudicial elimination campaigns are commonly considered
"terror" or terrorism, for example during the Red Terror or Great Terror.[100] Such actions are
often also described as democide or genocide which has been argued to be equivalent to state
terrorism.[101] Empirical studies on this have found that democracies have little democide. [102]
[103]

Tactics
The Wall Street bombing at noon on September 16, 1920 killed thirty-eight people and
injured several hundred. The perpetrators were never caught.

Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional
warfare won't be effective because forces vary greatly in power.[106]

The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political
conflict. The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include:

 Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state or become part of a different

state
 Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups
  Imposition of a particular form of government
 Economic deprivation of a population
 Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army
 Religious fanaticism

Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity, usually using explosives
or poison.[107] There is concern about terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass
destruction. Terrorist organizations usually methodically plan attacks in advance, and may
train participants, plant undercover agents, and raise money from supporters or through
organized crime. Communications occur through modern telecommunications, or through
old-fashioned methods such as couriers.

Responses
Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political
spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values.

Specific types of responses include:

 Targeted laws, criminal procedures, deportations, and enhanced police powers

 Target hardening, such as locking doors or adding traffic barriers
 Preemptive or reactive military action
 Increased intelligence and surveillance activities
 Preemptive humanitarian activities
 More permissive interrogation and detention policies

The term counter-terrorism has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at

terrorist actors.

Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs
related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations
across the United States.[108]

History
Number of terrorist incidents 2009 (January–June)

The history of terrorism goes back to Sicarii Zealots — jewish extremist group active in
Iudaea Province at the begining of CE. After Zealotry rebellion in the 1st century AD, when
some prominent collaborators with Roman rule were killed [113][114], according to contemporary
historian Josephus, in 6 AD Judas of Galilee formed a small and more extreme offshoot of
the Zealots, the Sicarii[115]. Their terror also was directed against jewish "collaborators",
including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and other wealthy elites[116].

The term "terrorism" itself was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club
during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice,
prompt, severe, inflexible," said Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund
Burke denounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell-hounds called
Terrorists...loose on the people" of France.[117]

In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in an attempt to assassinate
French Emperor Napoleon III.[118] Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured. [118] The
incident played a crucial role as an inspiration for the development of the early Russian
terrorist groups.[118] Russian Sergey Nechayev, who founded People's Retribution in 1869,
described himself as a "terrorist", an early example of the term being employed in its modern
meaning.[17] Nechayev's story is told in fictionalized form by Fyodor Dostoevsky in the novel
The Possessed. German anarchist writer Johann Most dispensed "advice for terrorists" in the
1880s.[119]