|
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals. As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism means to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. "Terrorist attacks" usually are characterized as "indiscriminate", the "targeting of civilians", or as executed "with disregard for human life". The term "terrorism" often is used to assert that the enemy's political violence is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. Per the most common definition of terrorism— typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and civil, non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who do not belong to any recognized armed forces or who don't abide the laws of war, and who, therefore, are regarded "rogue actors". Those labeled "terrorists" rarely identify themselves so and, instead, typically use terms referring to their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin, or fedayeen, or any similar-meaning word in other languages. Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.• Some persons and governments believe that the term "Terrorism", as defined in dictionaries, now has a negative connotation, under the theory that a person who attacks the civilian population is, instead, a militant, regardless of the status of the victims of terrorism. Definition One 1988 study by the US Army found that more than one hundred (100) definitions of the word "terrorism" exist and have been used. Some news sources refuse to use the term "terrorism"; others use the term in context. For example, the BBC has described the Northern Irish IRA as "terrorists", but describes Palestinian armed groups who fight against the state of Israel as "militants". Terrorism is a crime in all countries where such acts occur, and is defined by statute—see the wikipedia article definition of terrorism for particular definitions. Common principles among legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country and would, thus, label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment. In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." 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, that does not endanger life, is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as terrorism. Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act. The September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon are examples of this. Attacking the World Trade Center symbolizes that the terrorists can threaten the economic foundation of America and its capitalist ideals, and attacking the Pentagon symbolizes that America's great and prided military strength is yet vulnerable at its very core to the terrorists power. Perpetrated for a Political Goal – Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose. This is often the key difference between an act of terrorism and a hate crime or lone-wolf "madman" attack. Terrorism is a political tactic, not unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by activists when they believe no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the interrelationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic" struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians. Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their political end. Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some definitions of terrorism give weight to a distinction between the actions of a legitimate government and those of non-state actors, including individuals and small groups. In this view, government actions that might be violent, operate through fear, aim at political ends, and target civilians would not be terrorism if they are being pursued by agents who are accountable to legitimate governmental authority. Governmental accountability, presumably, would operate to limit and restrain the violence, both in volume and tactics. Furthermore, taking this approach to the definition of terrorism would help prevent some of the analytic problems associated with characterizing some military tactics (such as firebombing of cities) which are designed to affect civilian support for the enemy war effort. However, governments which repeatedly resort to these kinds of tactics tend to lose legitimacy, whether philosophically or politically. Loss of legitimacy erodes the distinction between governmental and non-governmental violence where there is a consistent practice of targeting civilians. Pejorative use In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism that 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. Groups called "terrorist" often prefer terms 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 the terms above can be summed up by the subjective aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is exemplified when a group that uses irregular military methods is an ally of a State against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the State and starts to use the same methods against its former ally. During World War II the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor, the Malayan Races Liberation Army, were branded terrorists by the British. More recently, President Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters during their war against the Soviet Union, 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 labeled terrorism by President Bush. Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called terrorist by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called statesmen by similar organizations. 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 for many years some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists, while it was using methods against one of United States closest allies, that, that ally (Britain), branded as terrorist attacks. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality are extremely careful in their use of the term. Democracy The relationship between 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. However, one study suggests that suicide terrorism may be an exception to this general rule. Evidence regarding this particular method of terrorism reveals that every modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracy- a state with a considerable degree of political freedom. The study suggests that concessions awarded to terrorists during the 80s and 90s for suicide attacks increased their frequency. Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democracies to include ETA under Francisco Franco, the Shining Path under Alberto Fujimori, and 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 outside 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 delegitimize 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 London underground bombing, and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a close clique, comprised of close friends, family members and other strong social networks. 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. 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. Terrorist groups State sponsors 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. State-sponsored terrorism is widely denounced by the international community. When states do provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such. Methods of attack Terrorists seek to demoralize and paralyze their enemy with fear, and also to pressure governments into conceding to the terrorist's agenda. While they act according to different motivations and goals, all terrorist groups have one tactic in common: to achieve maximum publicity in order to intimidate and generate a message as a means to attain its objectives. Terrorism uses violence on one part of society to instill fear in the larger part of society to make a change. Terrorism employs propaganda as a tactic to ensure the attention of the public through the attention from the media. The term Propaganda of the Deed, coined by Malatesta, Cafiero, and Covelli, states that the message is most strongly conveyed through violence. Often damage is done with an improvised explosive device although chemical weapons have been used on occasion. A source of concern is also a possible use of a nuclear weapon or biological weapons. In the September 11, 2001 attacks, planes were used as guided incendiary devices. 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) device that was meant to release cyanide-gas during the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and a second car bomb that detonated 20 minutes after the December 1, 2001 Ben Yehuda Street Bombing by Hamas in Jerusalem. Training There are and have been training camps for terrorists. For the September 11, 2001 attacks, the pilots also took flying courses. The range of training depends greatly on the level of support the terrorist organization receives from various organizations and states. In nearly every case the training incorporates the philosophy and agenda of the groups leadership as justification for the training as well as the potential acts of terrorism which may be committed. State sanctioned training is by far the most extensive and thorough, often employing professional soldiers and covert operatives of the supporting state. The training generally includes physical fitness, combat or martial arts, firearms, explosives, intelligence/counterintelligence, and field craft. More specialized training may include mission specific subjects such as, language, cultural familiarization, communications, and surveillance techniques. In every instance the quality of training is extremely high and well organized. Preparation Preparation of a major attack such as the September 11, 2001 attacks may take years, whereas a simpler attack, depending on the availability of arms, may be almost spontaneous. 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 may be ethnically distinct from the counter-terrorist forces, is either sympathetic to their cause, indifferent, or acts under duress. Terrorists preparing for the September 11, 2001 attacks changed their appearance to avoid looking radical. Funding Terrorist organizations do not usually have only one means of funding, but many. Funding can be raised in both legal and illegal ways. Some of the most common ways to raise funds are through charities, well funded organizations, or a non violent organization with similar ideologies. In the absence of state funding, terrorists may rely on organized crime to fund their activities. This has included kidnapping, drug trafficking, or robbery. Additionally, 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- billionaires. Communication The revolution in communication technology over the past 10-15 years has dramatically changed how terrorist organizations communicate. E-mails, fax transmissions, websites, cell phones, and satellite telephones have made it possible for organizations to contemplate a global strategy. However, too great a reliance on this new technology leaves organizations vulnerable to sophisticated monitoring of communication and triangulation of its source. When the media published the information that the U.S. government was tracking Osama bin Laden by monitoring his phone calls, he ceased using this method to communicate. 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. Specific types of responses include: History Terrorist tactics were used in the 1st century by Zealots in a fierce and unrelenting terror campaign against the Roman Empire. The modern English term "terrorism" 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". 19th century terrorist groups included the anarchists in Europe and the United States (including Narodniks in Tsarist Russia), militant members of the turn-of-the-century Zionist movement, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and groups seeking independence for Armenia and Macedonia. Terrorism in Popular Culture There are numerous examples of terrorist and terrorism in popular culture, and terrorism has been discussed in every kind of text in every conceivable cultural outlet. The way that these texts depict terrorism is indicative of the social values from the time and place these texts were created. In Western especially American texts, terrorism is almost always given negative treatment. However, some texts give terrorist and terrorism ambiguous treatment, and there are many texts that give characters who are labeled as terrorist positive treatment. In the film Brazil, the character Tuttle is labeled a terrorist by the government. In both the graphic novel and film versions of V for Vendetta, V is labeled a terrorist by the government, but in the graphic novel version he does not strongly dispute this claim and allows it to become part of his mystique. Also in the television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the character Kira Nerys is often referred to by other characters as a terrorist, and she considers the actions she took during the Cardassian occupation as terrorist actions, though she has mixed feeling about them, and audiences today may consider her as having been a freedom fighter. Examples of major incidents
See also Further reading UN conventions News monitoring websites specalizing on articles on terrorism Papers and articles on global terrorism Papers and articles on terrorism and the United States (War on Terror and Homeland Security) Papers and articles on terrorism and Israel Other Footnotes | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
 |
|
| |