Terrorism

The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized." Additional constraints are added depending on the context of the usage.

Political Terrorism adds a constraint that terrorism is used to further a political cause. Whereas Conventional Warfare seeks to reduce an opponent's physical ability to fight, Political Terrorism seeks to coerce compliance in an opponent, either directly through fear of losing life and luxury, or indirectly by prompting the opponent to reduce liberties and increase military/police spending.
State Terrorism is terrorism overtly used by a government to intimidate or coerce its own citizens, or the populace of an opposing force.
State-sponsored Terrorism is a tactic of Unconventional Warfare that seeks to bring the complacent citizenry of an opposing force into a conflict through the covert support of third-party terrorist groups.:
Criminal Terrorism is terrorism used for personal enrichment rather than for the more common purpose of political gain.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, updated by the USA Act of 2001, defines terrorism as something that appears to intimidate or coerce, breaks criminal laws, and endangers human life. This definition was used to create the USA PATRIOT Act, the War on Terrorism and, historically, the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State.

Definition

Etymology

The term "terrorism" comes from the French 18th century word terrorisme based on the Latin language verbs terrere (to frighten) and deterrere (to frighten from). It dates to 1795, and originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobins in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror". The Jacobins are even said to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves, although that is not certain. Note that the method employed was in most cases simply the arrest, and sometimes execution, of opponents. Terrorism and terror therefore originally referred to methods employed by regimes to control their own populations through fear, a tactic seen again in many totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The terms did not refer to bomb attacks, but rather to what is now called a police state. The current use of the term state terrorism, and the use of the term "terrorist", have much broader meanings. The current usage relies more on the example of the nineteenth-century revolutionaries who used the technique of assassination, particularly the anarchists and Narodniks (populists) in Tsarist Russia whose most notable action was the assassination of Alexander II.

Official definitions

Many definitions of terrorism exist. Definitions are produced by the media, politicians, other political actors such as think-tanks, by academics, but above all by government. Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies formulated most of these official definitions. Official definitions have the most impact, because they determine anti-terrorism policy. Most of them outline primary criteria: the target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act.

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. This criterion excludes cyberterrorism and economic sanctions.

Target – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as targets.

This criterion excludes conventional warfare in accordance with the laws of war, any attacks on military targets (such as the bombing of the USS Cole), guerrilla warfare and revolution when limited to military targets, and assassination of a head of state or other leader of comparable stature (such as Martin Luther King, Jr.).

This criterion may also be held to exclude actions where the attackers make at least some attempt to reduce civilian casualties. For example, the Zionist organization Irgun preceded many, though not all, of its attacks (notably the 1946 King David Hotel bombing) with warnings to the press, the target, or the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine. They were nevertheless considered to be terrorists by the British. The Basque ETA group is also known for pre-emptive warnings. By contrast, groups who use suicide bombing attacks against civilians (such as Hamas, al-Qaida and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades) rely on the element of surprise in order to maximize casualties, and therefore never issue warnings.

Objective – As the name implies, terrorism is understood as an attempt to provoke fear and intimidation. Hence, terrorist acts are designed and intended to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, and/or fear. The intent may be to provoke disproportionate reactions from states.

This criterion excludes the Holocaust and other cases of genocide, which are undertaken to exterminate rather than to intimidate, and which are usually hidden rather than publicized. Also, any violence against targets unlikely to attract public notice and having little effect on the populace at large.

Motive – These acts are intended to achieve political or religious goals, not for personal gain. For example, a gang of bank robbers who kill a bank manager, blow up his vault and escape with the contents would normally not be classed as terrorists, because their motive was profit. However, if a gang were to execute the same assault with the intent of causing a crisis in public confidence in the banking system, followed by a run on the banks and a subsequent destabilization of the economy, then the gang would be classed as terrorists. This criterion excludes organized crime (the Mafia, etc.)

Perpetrator – Some hold that a legitimate government cannot, by definition, commit terrorism of any kind. In this view, a state can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity, but these actions are distinct from terrorism. Those who disagree with this criterion often use the term "state terror" to describe the actions of official groups such as the Gestapo, the KGB and the Stasi of East Germany against dissidents or ethnic minorities among their own citizens.

This criterion excludes warfare between states, government repression of its own civilians, the Holocaust, the Hiroshima bombing, and possibly even the Lockerbie bombing. However, it does not rule out "state-sponsored terrorism", in which a government supports terrorist or rebel activity in another state. In practice, this might be said to be a form of low-intensity undeclared warfare between sovereign states.

Legitimacy – Many definitions include a proviso that the action must be "unlawful" or "illegitimate". This is by far the least objective of the criteria, in the absence of any objective interpreter of international law. For example, the laws of war generally exclude the deliberate targeting of civilians, yet in World War II it is unquestioned that acts such as the bombing of Hiroshima or Dresden were carried out with the knowledge that civilian casualties would greatly exceed military ones. Whether the actions were legally justified, either in self-defense or on the grounds that they actually minimised civilian suffering by bringing the war to an earlier end, is not a question that can be objectively determined.

No definition of terrorism has been accepted as authoritative by the United Nations. However, the "academic consensus definition", written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, defines terrorism as follows:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought." ^[1]

Schmid has also proposed a short legal definition of terrorism to the UN, namely that an act of terrorism should be defined as "the peacetime equivalent of a war crime". This brings the question of legitimacy to the front.

Definitions of terrorism are not static: like all politicised concepts they are subject to historical evolution. In response to the 2001 attacks, western politicians have placed terrorism in the context of a global struggle against democracy itself. That implies that the emphasis in definition should lay on the nature of a country's government, rather the specific targets or methods. It also implies that 'coercion' is no longer relevant to the definition - the terrorists don't want the government to do anything specific, they want it to disappear. The European Union includes the aim of "destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country" in its 2004 definition of terrorism. ^[2] The idea of a 'war against democracy' is related to the theory of the Clash of Civilisations, and they are sometimes quoted together.

Subjectivity

The saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is older than the War on Terrorism. However, since the September 11th attacks, the term "terrorist" has become much more heavily politicized. Because the term has strong negative connotations without having any widely-accepted definition, there is a definite tendency to use the term only when politically convenient. Indeed, the actual definition of terrorism is not as much debated as which parties and which acts of violence are to be labelled "terrorist". That can shift over the course of time, as this quote illustrates:

The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation... The Soviet forces are pitted against an extraordinary people who, in their determination to preserve the character of their ancient land, have organized an effective and still spreading country-wide resistance. The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence. ~Ronald Reagan, Proclamation of Afghanistan Day, 1983. ^[3]

For many critics of anti-terrorism policy, it is the anti-terrorism which requires theoretical attention, and especially its internal political uses. In this view, terrorism exists primarily as a social construct, more accurately a political construct. According to the Thomas theorem, widely held beliefs can determine social realities. Obviously, that is even more true if the beliefs are held by the government. The 'war on terror' has had a substantial social and political impact on the United States, for instance, although in no way comparable with the impact on the home front during the Second World War.

The longstanding critic of US foreign and military policy, Noam Chomsky, comments that "the term 'terrorism' is used, standardly, to refer to the terrorism that they carry out against us, whoever 'we' happen to be. Even the worst mass murderer - the Nazis for example - adopted this practice. [...] Since the rich and powerful set the terms for discussion, the term 'terrorism' is restricted, in practice, to the terror that affects the US and its clients and allies." ^[4] He argues that "terrorism" is used not objectively to describe any particular type of behavior, but as a characterization that demonizes a perceived enemy in order to promote moral repulsion and outrage.

A frequent response is to dispute the attribution of terrorism. Often that is accompanied by a counter-charge. The controversy about "eco-terrorism" is a good example. This term was coined in the United States to refer to ecotage actions by environmentalist, for instance the disabling of logging machinery. The response of those who sympathise with the environmentalists has been to describe the timber companies as being the real eco-terrorists, for destroying forests and damaging the ecosystem. In the long term, this type of dispute is thought to polarize the population into factions for and against the move. That in turn is thought to undermine political legitimacy, that is, the willingness of the population to accept government and court decisions, even if they personally disagree with them. A sense of shared values and a minimal respect, probably cannot survive if wide sections of the population believe each other to be terrorists. This may be an argument not to use the word. Very similar arguments apply between the so-called "pro-life" and "pro-choice" factions in the abortion argument.

In most western countries there are now political disputes of this kind, about Who is the real terrorist? As an example, Noam Chomsky believes that terrorism is typically sponsored by governments through the organisation, funding or training of death squads and similar paramilitary groups, often under the banner of counter-terrorism. In his view the causes of terrorism include attempts to gain or consolidate power either by instilling fear in the population to be controlled, or by stimulating another group into becoming a hardened foe, thereby increasing social polarisation. US policy in Nicaragua is often cited by Chomsky as an example, see Nicaragua v. United States.

Counter-accusations are not the same as the issue of provocation. The 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings were followed by political debate about whether the Aznar government had brought the bombings on Spain by deploying troops to Iraq, and that contributed to its defeat in the national election a few days later. Similarly, London mayor Ken Livingstone declared that "80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil" was one cause of the London train bombings of July 7, 2005. ^[5]

Groups accused of terrorism, and their supporters, invariably use neutral or positive terms to describe their actions, such as "freedom fighters" or paramilitaries. Even terms like "guerrilla" or "rebel" are considered much less pejorative than "terrorist". Islamist groups would refer to themselves as 'jihadi' or mujaheddin.

Causes

Theories on the causes of terrorism include:

sociological explanations, which focus on the position of the perpetrators in society
conflict theory which includes their relationship to those in power
ideological explanations, which focus on the differences in ideology, and the different goals of the ideologies
media theory explanations, which treat terrorist acts as a form of communication.

Some anti-terrorist commentators refuse to consider the causes, since that implies justification. For them, the terrorists are simply evil people. Some theories of the ethics of terrorism also exist, and they too are concerned with moral judgment on terrorism and specific actions. They do not attempt to explain its origins. They often treat terrorism as a form of warfare, and refer to the just war theory, and to war crimes law.

The existing social order within countries, and the global order of states, include structural compromises and agreements between various groups and interests. Often they arose in resolution of past conflicts. Over time, these arrangements may become less relevant to the current situation. New groups and interests may not be foreseen. Liberal democracy itself is intended to prevent small groups redesigning society according to their norms - but then they have to live in a society which they often reject. Some theories assume that groups resort to terrorism when other avenues for change, including economic campaigns, protest, public appeal, and standard warfare, hold no hope of success. This is related to the criterion of ultima ratio (last resort), in just war theory. In this perspective, terrorist acts are calculated to disrupt the existing order and provoke conflicts, in the expectation that the outcome will be a new order, more favourable to their interests. This is, crudely, the seat-at-the-table theory of terrorism. Applied to anti-terrorism policy, this approach implies policies to create and sustain an alternative, peaceful, avenue of problem resolution, particularly in the case of marginalised and oppressed populations. Ideological theories, on the other hand, often imply that nothing can be 'resolved', because the conflicting ideologies are logically incompatible.

The Clash of Civilisations is also a theory of the causes of terrorism, at least ‘inter-civilisation’ terrorism, but also suggests it is historically inevitable. It sees history as a millennia long conflict between very large-scale units, founded on incompatible values: violence is then simply part of the historical process. Ironically, the theory coincides with the world view of the radical Islamists, who see the mediaeval Crusades as the standard expression of western culture, and war as inevitable.

An increasingly relevant causal factor, at least for recruitment to terrorist groups, is the often draconian counter-terrorist policies which were intended to defeat them. For instance, it has been claimed that the conditions of detention in Guantanamo Bay are such that any reasonable person could be expected to resist them, especially since there appear to be no legal means of exit. If large sections of the population fear that they might end up in such conditions, on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin, then a vicious circle can arise, and terrorism becomes a defensive response to counter-terror policy.

Separatism

During much of the 20th century, the term terrorism was primarily applied to nationalist movements of various types. Most of them were separatist movements, seeking to create a new independent nation-state on the territory of a larger, existing state. There were also some cases of non-state irredentist violence, seeking to annex territory. Classic counter-terrorist operations were a feature of the decolonisation in Africa and the Middle East. Now-forgotten campaigns, such as the Mau Mau and the FLOSY, were well known in western media, but unlike Al-Qaeda, their violence was remote, confined to the disputed colony. However, Irish republican groups did consistently target England, and the Basque ETA often targeted Madrid and other non-Basque parts of Spain. The motives of these groups always derive from their nationalist ideology, and an underlying territorial conflict about which state should control what. In this respect, no separate theory of the causes is required, since violence is the standard instrument of geopolitical change. For example, given the competing claims on the former British mandate of Palestine, the chance that the Zionist movement could ever have reached agreement on the peaceful transfer of millions of Jews to the region seems non-existent. Thus, the violence resulting from territorial conflicts is frequently considered inevitable.

Stated motives of groups

Actions defined as ‘terror’ are sometimes followed by statements or communiques by the perpetrators. They often issue additional information, and may even have representative offices in countries which sympathise with them. Several themes recur, and they can be considered as categories, without implying that they are true or not. The stated motives include:

reference to the ideals of the group, implying that they justify, in themselves, the actions. Separatist groups, for instance, often emphasise the name and flag of their future independent state.
reference to historical grievances - usually the oppression of an ethnic or religious group.
retaliation for specific acts, including ongoing military campaigns. Islamist groups, for instance, repeatedly refer to the occupation of Iraq in this context.
a specific demand related to the above factors, for instance the demand to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Perpetrators

Acts of terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states. The most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by relatively small and highly secretive groups, highly motivated to serve a particular cause. However, some acts have been committed by individuals acting alone, while others are alleged to have the backing of established states.

Terrorist groups

Main article: Terrorist groups

"Lone wolves"

Main article: Independent terrorist actor

Law enforcement agencies such as the FBI have identified a pattern of "lone wolf" terrorism resulting in unannounced attacks on civilians. These individuals appear to operate independently, but only become terrorists due to early indoctrination, training, and support by organized groups. They function under the tacit approval of the group, and protect it by operating alone. This stands in contrast to more "conventional" terrorist operations carried out by groups following a more or less consistent chain of command: not only indoctrination, but also logistics, timing, and direction of operatives to perform attacks. Terrorists cited as "lone wolves" include Cave of the Patriarchs gunman Baruch Goldstein (1994), Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (1995), Centennial Olympic park bomber Eric Robert Rudolph (1996), "London Nailbomber" David Copeland (1999), and the racist gunman Buford O. Furrow, Jr. (1999). The Austrian racist letter-bomber Franz Fuchs (1993-1997) attempted to create the impression of a bombing campaign on behalf of a group, but no evidence of its existence was found.

States

Main article: State terrorism

The violence committed by state combatants in conventional wars is often considered more acceptable than that of the "terrorist", who by definition refuses to follow the established laws of war, and hence cannot share in the acceptance given to establishment violence. The common public distinction between state violence and terrorism is based on a perception that terrorism targets noncombatants as a consistent policy, and is, therefore, more irrational than state violence, which is assumed to be more considerate of human life, or at least does not consistently pursue unarmed civilian targets with the same zeal. Of course, this does not mean that acts of conventional warfare cannot be condemned. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, the level of outrage from the Americans was similar to what one might expect from a terrorist incident, even though the bombing is not usually classified as terrorism.

However, history does not always bear out the above generalization. States who engage in warfare often do so outside of the laws of war and carry out violence against civilian populations, yet rarely receive the label of "terrorist". Those for whom "terrorism" is a term characterising the violence of an enemy as being immoral, often claim that deliberate attacks on civilians have no right to be portrayed as more justifiable than similar attacks by non-governmental groups. As the attacks are attempts to achieve political goals through "terror" inflicted on civilians, they designate them "state terrorism".

State sponsors of terrorism

Some states have been accused of sponsoring terrorist actions in foreign countries, as an alternative to carrying them out directly and risking an open declaration of war. State sponsored terrorism is widely denounced by the international community, and all but a few isolated countries have subscribed to protocols denouncing terrorist sponsorship or activity, the exceptions being Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, and until recently, Iraq. The list of countries accused of state terrorism includes Argentina, Chile, Colombia, China, Cuba, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union and today's Russia, Spain, Syria, United Kingdom, United States and others.

When states do provide funding for such groups, they rarely acknowledge them as terrorist. For example, Iran has been linked to a number of organisations (chiefly Hezbollah), but maintains that where funds have been transferred, these have been legitimate.

When comprehensive proof has been mounted, the reaction is usually open criticism, from which sanctions (in the form of money or trade) follow. Sometimes state sponsors of terrorism are forced to back down by offering incentives. An example is that of Pakistan, which supported the Taliban until it was forced to sever its links after much pressure from the U.S. However, its neighbour India accuses it of continuing to incite, train and support Kashmiri terrorist organisations that target India.

Tactics

Terrorists often seek to demoralize and paralyze their enemy with fear, using their acts as a form of blackmail to apply pressure on governments to achieve goals the terrorists could not achieve by other means.

Terrorism relies heavily on surprise. Terrorist attacks can trigger sudden transitions into conflict or war. Frequently, after a terrorist attack, a number of unassociated groups may claim responsibility for the action; this may be considered "free publicity" for the organization's aims or plans. Because of its anonymous and sometimes self-sacrificial nature, it is not uncommon for the reasons behind the terrorist action to remain unknown or murky for a considerable period.

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 the occupation of Iraq. This population, which is usually ethnically distinct from the counter-terrorist forces, is either sympathetic to their cause, indifferent, or under duress. The 'counter-terror' forces (on their own definition, that is) are often prevented from retaliating by the prospect of high civilian casualties. Even small US-Army units in Iraq may have enough firepower to destroy an entire village, but if they did that in retaliation for every attack, they would kill most of the rural population. Civilian casualties always damage the public image of the state responsible, and may generate further sympathy for the terrorist cause. This is a recurring dilemma in such insurgencies. Not all terror campaigns take place in an insurgency context, but the one-off urban attacks now typical of radical Islamist terrorism in the West are carried out by people from a specific religious context. Counter-terror policy directed at one section of the population may not result in direct civilian casualties, but has long-term political effects, which may be equally counterproductive.

Terrorist groups sometimes arrange for secondary devices to detonate at a slightly later time in order to kill emergency-response personnel attempting to attend to the dead and wounded. Repeated or suspected use of secondary devices can also delay emergency response out of concern that such devices may exist. Examples include a (failed) cyanide-gas device that was meant to explode shortly after the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and a second car bomb that detonated 20 minutes after the December 1, 2001 Ben Yehuda bombing by Hamas in Jerusalem.

In the absence of state funding, terrorists often rely on organized crime to fund their activities. This can include kidnapping, drug trafficking, or robbery. But terrorists have also found many more sources of revenue. Osama bin Laden, for example, invested millions in terrorism that his family made in the construction industry building luxury mansions for Saudi Arabia's oil-millionaires. The diamond industry emerged early in the twenty-first century as an important new source of funding for terrorism, and Islamist terrorist groups in particular have been very effective at procuring funding through a system of charitable contributions.

Guerrilla warfare is sometimes confused with terrorism, in that a relatively small force attempts to achieve large goals by using organized acts of directed violence against a larger force. But in contrast to terrorism, these acts are almost always against military targets, and civilian targets are minimized in an attempt to increase public support. For this reason, guerrilla tactics are generally considered military strategy rather than terrorism, although both terrorism and guerrilla warfare could be considered forms of asymmetric warfare.

Responses to terrorism

Responses to terrorism, and anti-terrorism policy, are very broad in scope. The can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values. It usually includes an identification of certain groups as an enemy. The term counter-terrorism has a more narrow connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist acts or terrorist groups.

A typical sequence of events, following a major terrorist attack in a country with no recent equivalent, is this. First, there is widespread condemnation of the attack, not only by the government. The government then tries to gain political support for a response, and appeals to national unity. It introduces anti-terrorism legislation, and possibly special courts. The government takes security measures to hinder further attacks, and implements plans for emergency response to future attacks. It establishes special police and military units, to deal with the terrorist threat. It usually seeks more international cooperation against terrorism unless the threat is purely internal. If the threat is from an identifiable foreign state it may launch a military operation which is in most cases legally an act of war, and may result in a prolonged overseas war.

Terrorism and immigration in Europe

Recent developments have seen a divergence in social and political responses to terrorism, between the United States and western Europe. The September 11 attacks were carried out by foreigners who entered the country for that purpose, on behalf of a foreign organisation, operating from bases in a remote foreign country. Although the U.S. has had significant domestic terrorism, that is still the way most Americans see terrorism. Western European countries, on the other hand, are now confronted with a domestic terrorism based within a domestic religious minority, some recent immigrants, but many native-born citizens. Most of Europe has not experienced a domestic religious threat, since the Wars of Religion. As a result, the issues of Islam, immigration, and terrorism have become linked, in a way that is unique to Europe. The Dutch populist Pim Fortuyn was the first to show, that a substantial electorate sees this as the main problem facing society. The central theme of their response to terrorism is to see the Muslim immigrants as a fifth column, at war with the country in which they live. Terrorism, in their view, is a failure of multiculturalism and not simply a security issue. It is a substantial and unavoidable social issue in Europe: Muslims are a relatively small minority in the US, but in some large European cities, they are approaching a majority. That means that backlash - aggression against sections of the population seen as associated with the perpetrators - is an increasingly relevant issue. It is usually the fastest reaction to terrorist incidents, it is non-state and generally unorganised, and difficult to control. 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[6] by premier Tony Blair in August 2005, note that none of these are typical 'security measures':

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 who has participated in terrorism or has 'anything to do with it anywhere'
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'.

Target-hardening

Common targets of terrorists are areas of high population concentration, such as mass transit vehicles (metro, bus, and trains), aircraft, office buildings, and crowded restaurants. Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets so as to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark. Perhaps the single most effective of these is bag-searching (for explosives), which is obviously only effective if it is conducted before the search subjects enter an area of high population concentration. It might have prevented the Madrid train bombings, which utilised 10 backpack bombs, that were left on trains.

Another method is to place concrete barriers a sufficient distance outside of buildings, so as to prevent truck bombing. There is also the method of keeping aircraft cockpits locked throughout every flight, and with reinforced doors, in which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening the doors (as distinguished from other aircraft personnel). Some people think that would have prevented the September 11 attacks.

Preemptive neutralisation

Depending on the political culture, some countries see pre-emptive attacks as a legitimate strategy. The neutralisation strategy includes capturing, killing, or disabling suspected terrorists before they can mount an attack. Israel, the United States, and Russia have taken this approach, western European states are generally more cautious. In July 2005 Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by police at Stockwell station in London, apparently because he was misidentified as a suspected suicide bomber, and police feared he had a bomb ready for detonation. The shooting led to public concern and diplomatic protest, especially when it emerged that the British police have a shoot-to-kill policy when dealing with such situations. Despite this illustration of the risks, premier Tony Blair re-affirmed the police policy, saying it is an unavoidable necessity.

Another major method of preemptive neutralisation is interrogation of known or suspected terrorists, so as to learn of specific plots, specific targets, the identity of other terrorists, and whether the interrogation subject himself is guilty of terrorist involvement. Sometimes torture is used, or milder means of increasing suggestibility such as sleep deprivation or drugs. Apart from the obvious human rights objections, such methods carry a risk that the captive will give false information, either in an an attempt to stop the treatment or from confusion brought on by it.

Domestic intelligence and surveillance

Most anti-terrorism strategies involve a dramatic increase in standard police and domestic intelligence. The central activities are traditional: interception of communications, and the tracing of persons. New technology has however vastly expanded the range of such operations. Domestic intelligence is often directed at specific groups, defined on the basis of origin, or religion. This may be unavoidable, but it is a source of political controversy. Mass surveillance of the 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 originate. That was the main stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and one reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was also a stated justification for the second Russian invasion of Chechnya.

History

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

In the 1st century, Zealots conducted a fierce and unrelenting terror campaign against the Roman occupiers of the eastern Mediterranean. The Zealots enlisted sicarii to strike down rich Jewish collaborators and others who were friendly to the Romans.

In the 11th century, the radical Islamic sect known as the Hash-Ishiim (This word, derived from the word "Hashish," which the Hash-Ishiim reputedly used to drug their victims, translates directly to the word "assassin" in the English language) employed systematic murder for a cause they believed to be righteous. For two centuries, they resisted efforts to suppress their religious beliefs and developed ritualized murder into a fine art taught through generations. Political aims were achieved through the power of intimidation. Similarly, the Christian warriors of the Crusades pursued political aims by means of genocidal assaults on Muslim civilian populations.

During the French Revolution (1789 - 1799), the most severe period of the rule of the Committee of Public Safety (1793 - 1795) was labelled "The Terror" (1793 - 1794) and described Jacobin extensive use of death penalty by guillotine. Certainly, this induced fear and outrage not only in the domestic population of France, but also throughout the European aristocracy, and this period is the first known use of the term "terrorism". However, it does not correspond to the modern use of the term state terrorism.

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.

In 1893 the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization was founded 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 and the IMRO may be considered the prototype of all 'nationalist terrorism', and equally illustrate the expression that "one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". Both groups achieved their goal, an independent Ireland and an independent Macedonia.

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). This illustrates the plasticity of the term.

Global trends

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. 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 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.

Examples of major incidents

The following incidents have been described as domestic and international terrorism: the June 1985 double-bombing of Air India jets originating from Canada, the 1993 Mumbai bombings, the Oklahoma City bombing in the USA (April 19, 1995); the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland (August 15, 1998); the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, and Washington DC, USA; the Munich Massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972; the Bali bombing in October 2002, the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, attack on Indian Parliament (December 13, 2001), the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid, and the July 7, 2005 bombings in London.

The deadliest events described as terrorism and not known to have been sponsored by a state were the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon, in Arlington County, Virginia. So far as is known, the deadliest attack planned but not executed was Operation Bojinka, which aimed to murder Pope John Paul II and blow up 11 airliners. The plot was aborted after an apartment fire in Manila, Philippines on January 5, 1995 exposed the operation to police. The militants who were planning it were just over two weeks away from implementing their plot. Other plots, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, were designed to kill thousands but failed to do so.

Notes

External links

Etymology (history and first use of "terrorism")

Official definitions and law

The E.U.'s Definition of Terrorism: The Council Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism, German Law Journal. No. 5 (1 May 2004), Special Edition.
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings at Law-Ref.org - fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism at Law-Ref.org - fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents
UNODC Proposed Definitions of Terrorism

Controversy about definition

One historian's attempt at a comprehensive and neutral definition
Boaz Ganor Defining Terrorism: Is One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter?
Calling Terror by its Name
Terrorism - Made in the USA
The BBC's Allan Little - Who is a terrorist
INA's Objection to BBC policy
Netanyahu, Benjamin, "On Terrorism"

Accounts of terrorism

Essays and analysis

Reporting a New Delhi Bias? A Content Analysis of AP Wire Stories on the Conflicts in Sri Lanka and Kashmir
Christian Science Monitor : Exactly what is terrorism? High Bandwidth | Low Bandwidth
Beinin, Joel, Is Terrorism a Useful Term in Understanding the Middle East and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict?, Radical History Review, Issue 85 (Winter 2003): 12-23. [PDF]
Gerald A. Juhnke, When Terrorists Strike: What School Counselors Can Do
Leon Trotsky (1909), Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism
Galak, Michael and Vaknin, Sam Terrorism as a Psychodynamic Phenomenon - A Dialog
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters in the Balkans
Inbar, Rachel Terminology of Terrorism - A Cynical Article
Terrorism/Antiterrorism - A sociological essay

Video

Benjamin Netanyahu on the definition of terror. (BBC) (5 min.)
Mullah Krekar, Ansar al-Islam