From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Terrorism General
Definitions
Conventions
Counterterrorism
War on Terrorism
Lists
Organizations
Incidents
Types
Nationalist
Religious
State
State-sponsored
Racist
Narcoterrorism
Anarchist
Political
Eco-terrorism
Agro-terrorism
Tactics
Hijacking
Assassination
IED (bomb)
Car bombing
Suicide bombing
Kidnapping
Bioterrorism
Nuclear terrorism
Cyber-terrorism
Configurations
Fronts
Lone-wolf
This box: view • talk • edit

Terrorism is the systematic use, or threatened use, of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change.^[1][2] Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured or taken hostage but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong.

Modern terrorism has come to be defined in part by the influential power of the mass media that terrorists co-opt in their efforts to amplify and broadcast feelings of intense fear and anger. As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism is designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence as opposed to subversion or direct military action.

"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate", "targeting of civilians" or executed "with disregard for human life". The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton and unjustified. According to the definition of terrorism—typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts and non-governmental organizations—"terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces or who don't adhere to the laws of war and who are, therefore, regarded as "rogue actors".

Those accused of being "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as such and, instead, typically use terms that refer 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 one of similar-meaning words in a number of languages.

Terrorism has been used by a broad array of organizations to further their objectives. They including both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.^[1]

Contents 1 Definition 2 Pejorative use 3 Contrast with associated terms 4 Key criteria 5 Democracy 6 Perpetrators 6.1 Terrorist groups 6.2 State sponsors 7 Tactics 7.1 Methods of attack 7.2 Training 7.3 Preparation 7.4 Cover 7.5 Funding 7.6 Communication 8 Responses to terrorism 8.1 Terrorism and immigration in Europe 8.2 Target-hardening 8.3 Preemptive neutralization 8.4 Domestic intelligence and surveillance 8.5 Military intervention 8.6 Non-military Intervention 8.7 Terrorism and human rights 9 History 9.1 Origin 9.2 Precursors 9.3 French Revolution 9.4 Nineteenth century 9.5 Twentieth century 10 Examples of major incidents 11 Footnotes 12 See also 13 External links

Definition

Main article: Definition of terrorism

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army ^[3] found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants" and so on.

Terrorism is a crime in many countries 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. ^[4]

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."^[5]

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 judgement; 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.^[6]

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 these other terms are often complex and controversial, with some suggesting that there is little substantive difference and the choice of usage propagandistic.^{[citation needed][7]}

The difference between the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the terms above can be summed up by the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is exemplified^{[citation needed]} when a group that uses irregular military methods is formally 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^[8], 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 (this time the USA and NATO in response to 9/11, who invaded to "fight Islamic terrorism", the same claim made by the Soviets), their attacks are labelled terrorism by President Bush^[9].

Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called terrorist by the Western media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called statesmen by the same media. Two examples are Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.^{[citation needed][10][11]}

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 Quinn v. Robinson case^[12][13]

For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality are extremely careful in their use of the term. ^[7][14]

Contrast with associated terms

Armed military conflict is sometimes associated with terrorism when its objectives are to produce shock and awe for the purpose of forcing capitulation. For the purpose of weakening or destroying the opponent's military force, however, armed military conflict is a form of conventional warfare.

Guerrilla warfare is sometimes associated with terrorism in that a relatively small force attempts to achieve large goals by using organized acts of directed violence. Against military targets, these acts can be a form of conventional warfare designed to negate the opponent's military ability. However, guerrilla tactics are more often associated with forms of unconventional warfare designed to be either coercive or subversive to a political body. In its subversive context, a guerrilla unit provides clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict. In its coercive context, a guerrilla unit seeks to augment pronounced states of fear and overwhelming feelings of imminent danger.

Hate Crimes – An attack against an individual because of hatred toward their ethnic, national, or religious background does not qualify as terrorism because it lacks the complex political and psychological intent behind terrorist attacks. For example, the attack by a Muslim man of Israeli airline employees in Los Angeles in 2002 may seem terrorist because it fits into the larger milieu of Israeli/Islamic violence, but in reality, the attack was just a disgruntled supremacist lashing out violently.^[15] However, hatred toward a specific group of people may motivate violence intended to either suppress the political will of the group or to cause the group to leave a region, in which case the violence qualifies as terrorism.

Mentally Ill Criminals – Studies suggest that, compared with the general public, terrorists do not exhibit unusually high rates of clinical psychopathology, irrationality, or personality disorders. Because terrorist cells require secrecy, terror organizations frequently screen out unstable individuals who might compromise their security ^[16]

"Lone Wolves"– Some political groups do not allow for the possibility of a "lone wolf" being a terrorist. For instance, the FBI 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. Donatella Della Porta writes that a single individual committing a violent act is not a terrorist because his/her attack is not against an enemy that is legitimized and sedimented in a larger social context.^[17] Eric Boehlert notes that social construction theory describes "lone wolves" as having different motivations, committing different types of attacks, and being prevented from carrying out attacks by different methods. ^[18]

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 increasinging the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act. ^[19] 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 interreltionship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic" ^[20] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Palestine/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 accomplishs the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their political end.^[21]

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.[2] [3] [4] 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.^[22]

Some consider examples of "terrorism" in nondemocracies to 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.^{[citation needed]}

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.^[23]

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. ^[24] 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

Main article: Terrorist groups

State sponsors

Main article: State terrorism

See also: False flag

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. For example, United States has been linked to a number of organizations ^[25], but maintains that where funds have been transferred, these have been legitimate.

Tactics

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. ^[26]

Often damage is done with an improvised explosive device, sometimes by chemical or biological weapons. A source of concern is also a possible use of a nuclear weapon. 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 terror 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, wheras 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

Main article: Terrorist Financing

Terrorist organizations do not usually have only one means of funding, but many.^{[citation needed]} 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-millionaires. ^{[citation needed]}

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 triangluation of its source. When the media published the information, the U.S. government was tracking Osama bin Laden by monitoring his phone calls. He then ceased using this method to communicate ^[27].

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.

Much of Europe has not experienced a domestic religious threat since the Wars of Religion. As a result, in Europe, some now see the issues of Islam, immigration, and terrorism as linked. 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". [5]

Target-hardening

Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark. One method is to place concrete barriers sufficiently distanced 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. English train stations removed their waste bins in response to the Provisional IRA threat, as convenient locations for depositing bombs. Scottish stations removed theirs after the 7th of July bombing of London as a precautionary measure.

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.

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 subjects himself is guilty of terrorist involvement. Sometimes more extreme methods are used to increase suggestibility, such as sleep deprivation or drugs. Such methods may lead captives to offer false information in an attempt to stop the treatment, or due to the 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. It was also a stated justification for the second Russian invasion of Chechnya.

History has shown that military intervention has rarely been successful in stopping or preventing terrorism. Although military action can disrupt a terrorist group's operations temporarily, it rarely ends the threat. ^[28] 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, American in Iraq).

Non-military Intervention

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 and human rights

One of the primary difficulties of implementing effective counter-terrorist measures is the waning of civil liberties and individual privacy that such measures often entail, both for citizens of, and for those detained by, states attempting to combat terror. At times, measures designed to tighten security have been seen as abuses of power or even violations of human rights.

Examples of these problems 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 principles of non-discrimination. ^[29] 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. Critics claim that the laws put 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. ^[29]
• 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. ^[29]
• In December 2003, Colombia's 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. ^[29]
• Images of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in US custody in Iraq and other locations have jeopardized the legitimacy of the US' war on terror and brought on international scrutiny. ^[30]
• Hundreds of foreign nationals remain in prolonged indefinite detention without charge or trial in Guantánamo Bay, despite international and US constitutional standards outlawing such practices. ^[30]
• 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. ^[30]
• China has used the "war on terror" to justify its repression policies in the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region to stifle Uighur identity. ^[30]
• 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. ^[30]
• Until 2005, 11 men remained in high security detention in the UK under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. ^[30]

Many would argue that such violations exacerbate rather than counter the terrorist threat. ^[29] Human rights advocates argue for the crucial role of human rights protection as an intrinsic part to fight against terrorism. ^[30] 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.". ^[30]

While international efforts to combat terrorism have focused on the need to enhance cooperation between states, proponents of human rights (as well as human security) have suggested that more effort needs to be given to the effective inclusion of human rights protection as a crucial element in that cooperation. They argue that 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. ^[29]

History

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

Origin

The term "terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, which is based on the Latin verb terrere (to cause to tremble), ^[31] 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.

Precursors

In the 1st century, Zealots conducted a fierce and unrelenting terror campaign against the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. The Zealots enlisted sicarii to strike down rich Jewish collaborators and others who were friendly to the Romans. These terrorists were eventually defeated by the Romans in a series of conflicts (First Jewish-Roman War - Kitos War - Bar Kokhba's revolt), culminating in Hadrian edicts against Judaism and the reestablishment of Jerusalem as the Roman pagan polis of Aelia Capitolina. ^{[citation needed]}

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.

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

The current use of the term "terrorism" 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 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). Though in some instances, the label of terrorist may not follow the standard sense which requires the targeting of non-combatants.

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 ([6]), much like that for wars and also natural disasters like earthquakes, floods and forest fires.

Examples of major incidents

The U.S. State Department describes the following incidents as domestic and international terrorism: the Munich Massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972; 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 bombing of Air India Flight 182 originating from Canada; the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988; the 1993 Mumbai bombings; the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh on April 19, 1995; the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996; the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998; the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland (August 15, 1998); the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, and Washington D.C.^{[32] [33]}  ; the 2001 Indian Parliament attack on December 13, 2001; the Passover Massacre on March 27, 2002 in Netanya, Israel; the Moscow theatre siege and the Beslan school siege in Russia; the Bali bombing in October 2002; the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid; the July 7, 2005 bombings in London; the second Bali bombing on October 1, 2005; and the Mumbai train bombings on 11 July 2006.

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 and especially the bombing of Dresden by the Royal Air Force, or the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings by the United States Air Force (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, the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, and Somerset County, Pennsylvania with a death toll of around 3000.

Some terrorist attacks or plots were designed to kill thousands of people, but either failed or fell short. Such plans include the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Operation Bojinka, and possibly the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot.

Footnotes

1. ^ ^a b Terrorism. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved on 2006-08-11.
2. ^ Terrorism. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Retrieved on 2006-08-11.
3. ^ Dr. Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism(PDF)
4. ^ Ali Khan, A LEGAL THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM Published in 19 Connecticut Law Review 945-972(1987)
5. ^ In a comentary issued by the UN it states that The second part of the report [titled "Larger Freedom." by Kofi Annan, Secretary General, United Nations at the Security Council Meeting on 17 March, 2005], entitled "Freedom from Fear backs the definition of terrorism - an issue so divisive agreement on it has long eluded the world community - as any action "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."
6. ^ Hoffman, Bruce "Inside Terrorism" Columbia University Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0. Page 32. See review in The New York TimesInside Terrorism Google cached copy
7. ^ ^a b GuardianUnlimited style guide
8. ^ Ronald Reagan, speech to National Conservative Political Action Conference 8 March, 1985. On the Spartacus Educational web site
9. ^ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-2.html President Discusses Progress in War on Terror to National Guard White House web site February 9, 2006
10. ^ Theodore P. Seto The Morality of Terrorism Includes a list in the Times published on July 23 1946 which were described as Jewish terrorist actions
11. ^ Lord Desai Hansard, House of Lords 3 Sept 1998 : Column 72, "However, Jomo Kenyatta, Nelson Mandela and Menachem Begin--to give just three examples--were all denounced as terrorists but all proved to be successful political leaders of their countries and good friends of the United Kingdom."
12. ^ Quinn v. Robinson (pdf), 783 F2d. 776 (9th Cir. 1986)(PDF), web site of the Syracuse University College of Law
13. ^ Page 17, NORTHERN IRELAND: TP , T , S 11 (PDF) Queen's University Belfast School of Law
14. ^ BBC editorial guidelines on the use of language when reporting terrorism
15. ^ Boehlert, Eric. 2003. "Terrorism or Hate Crime?" Salon.com, April 17 2003. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/17/terrorist_act/
16. ^ Plous, Scott. 2004. "How Social Science Can Reduce Terrorism". Washington: Vol. 51, Iss. 3; p. B. 9
17. ^ della Porta, Donatella. 1995. "Left-Wing Teorrorism in Italy". University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press. ch. 4 pp. 105-159.
18. ^ Boehlert, Eric. 2003. “Terrorism or Hate Crime?” Salon.com, April 17
19. ^ Juergensmeyer, Mark. 2000. Terror in the Mind of God. University of California Press. Ch. 7 pp. 125-135
20. ^ Juergensmeyer, Mark. 2000. Terror in the Mind of God. University of California Press. Ch 8-10.
21. ^ Juergensmeyer, Mark. 2000. Terror in the Mind of God. University of California Press. Ch. 7 pp. 127-128
22. ^ Pape, Robert A. "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," American Political Science Review, 2003. 97 (3): pp. 1-19.
23. ^ shabad, goldie and francisco jose llera ramo. "Political Violence in a Democratic State," Terrorism in Context. Ed. Martha Crenshaw. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1995. pp467.
24. ^ Sageman, Mark. 2004. "Social Networks and the Jihad". Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ch. 5 pp. 166-167
25. ^ Chomsky, Noam: "Internation Terrorism: Image and Reality" in Alexander George (ed.), Western State Terrorism, Routledge, 1991 [1]
26. ^ Garrison, Arthur. 2004. "Defining Terrorism". Criminal Justice Studies. Vol 17. pp. 259-279
27. ^ Sageman, Marc. 2004. Social Networks and the Jihad. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ch. 5 pp. 158-161
28. ^ Pape, Robert A. 2005. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.. New York: Random House. Ch. 12 pp. 237-250
29. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Human Rights News (2004): "Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism", in the Briefing to the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. online
30. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h} Amnesty International (2005): "Counter-terrorism and criminal law in the EU". online
31. ^ Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God. University of California Press. Ch. 1 pp. 5
32. ^ During the 9-11 attacks a fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757-222, crashed in a field in southwest Pennsylvania just outside of Shanksville (Somerset County), Pennsylvania, about 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C., at 10:03:11 a.m. local time (14:03:11 UTC), with parts and debris found up to eight miles away. The crash in Pennsylvania is believed to have resulted from the hijackers either deliberately crashing the aircraft or losing control of it as they fought with the passengers. It is also believed that the hijackers intended to crash the plane into the White House, or the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.
33. ^ The Pentagon Building is actually across the Potomac River in Arlington County, Virginia, but is generally considered to be a part of the greater Washington D.C. area

See also

• Agent provocateur
• False flags Operations
• Indoctrination
• Propaganda
• Hate group
• Hate crime
• Strategy of tension
• Unconventional warfare
• Religious terrorism
• State-sponsored terrorism
• State Terrorism

External links

• Most Wanted Terrorists- Rewards for Justice
• The Terrorism Index - Terrorism "scorecard" from Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress
• Noam Chomsky: The New War on Terror
• RAND Terrorism Experts Guide
• MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base
• Terrorism Research Center - Terrorism research site started in 1996.
• Terrorism Research - International Terrorism and Security Research
• 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
• 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)
• C.O.D.E. : Center for the Observation and Deterrence of Extremism
• The Institute for Counter-Terrorism
• A reliable and daily updated Open Sources Center that includes a "Terrorism" section. by ISRIA.
• 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
• Diplomacy Monitor - Terrorism
• 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
• Jihad Monitor
• Israel Global Terror desk
• Commentary Blog on Latest Terrorism Issues