Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger.
State terrorism more specifically refers to violence and threats of violence, embargoes and other forms of terrorism against civilians by the government of a state
____________________________________________________
Pejorative Use
The term is often used pejoratively to assert that the violence against civilians is immoral, wanton, and unjustified, that the terrorist attacks are "indiscriminate", "targeting civilians", or executed "with disregard for human life". According to some definitions of terrorism used by states and governments, terrorists are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".
Due to the term's pejorative connotations, groups that are called "terrorist" by the popular media typically do not accept that identity for themselves. Instead, terms may be used 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 various official definitions of "terrorism" or "terrorist" is controversial, with some suggesting that there is little substantive difference and the choice of usage propagandistic.
Western media often labels groups or individuals "terrorist" when fighting for liberation, and the same people "statesmen" when they succeed in liberating their country. Two examples are Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela. States that are close allies, for reasons of culture or politics, can disagree over whether members of a certain organization are terrorists. For example, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the IRA "terrorists," even though the IRA used violent methods against one of the United States' closest allies (Britain). They were described as terrorist attacks by Quinn v. Robinson[1][2]
[edit]
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.[3]
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 [4]
"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.[5] 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. [6]
[edit]
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. [7] 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" [8] 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.
Targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate 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 specifc 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.[9] This definition excludes attacks on military targets, but pertains regardless of whether the attackers made an attempt to reduce civilian casualties.
[edit]
Causes
[edit]
The Five Stage Process of Enemy Making
[10]
Naming/Labeling - Name is a crucial step in social definition. Persons, acts, or situations are in themselves neither good nor evil. They come to be seen and defined through everyday social life. It is not uncommon for offensive, defamatory labels to be lightly imposed on persons, acts, or situations on the basis of a loose fit. During crisis, defamatory labels are tossed around arbitrarily and may fix on anyone who gets in the way. Many of the times the labeler employs the label with the intent to destroy careers, enhance political and national causes. The naming/labeling accomplishes creating an enemy. [11]
Legitimization - In order for the labels to adhere to the targeted party, they must be validated. This is accomplished through a formal hearing, trial, inquisition, or tribunal presided over by presumed experts. Though it can be accomplished through different ways, those that actually work must meet several conditions: (1)The ceremonies must be held on sacred ground at sacred times, with all actors in special costumes. (2)All actors must assume an attitude of solemn respect toward the proceedings. (3)The accusers must show themselves to be motivated by patriotic concern. (4)The tribal values must be made very clear in the course of the testimony. (5)The accusers must show that nothing in the victim's life is accidental, and that they are purely evil. (6)This action type must be rhetorically counterpoised against its opposite of self-evident virtue and dignity, which the accusers must be examples of. [12]
Myth-Making - Mythmaking refers to the provision of accounts of defamed persons showing why it is 'inevitable, necessary, and predictable' that they act as they do. In essence, it is a 2nd way of validating the defamatory label. Many it times it is done my documenting how the victim's case fits the official "scientific" theory of evil in favor at the time. [13]
Sedimentation - Once the label had adhered through word and myth, it can be transferred from one person to the next, and continued through generations. The experience becomes available to those who have never had it, which what is meant by sedimentation. The original act of labeling gets detached, and becomes evolved into parts of everyday "stock of knowledge" of society. What was once a label that was thrown out arbitrarily to a loose fit, becomes with each retelling common sense, or what everyone knows to be true about the enemy. [14]
Ritual - Ritual refers to the dramatization of the myth's principal themes, which allows it to re-imprinted in one's mind continually. In its enactment the truth of the myth is reconfirmed, allowing it not to be forgotten.
[edit]
Social Networks
[edit]
Historical Context
[edit]
Cross Cutting Cleavages
Cross Cutting Cleavages refer to a person or group's connections to other persons and groups with different ideologies and backgrounds. It has been found [citation needed] that the use of violent tactics for a political agenda is far more likely to be committed by groups with few cross cutting cleavages. For example, the al-Qaeda network is comprised of men who met while fighting Soviets in Afghanistan during the cold war, and all share the same religious and political beliefs. Thus an organization of like-minded individuals with little connection to opposing thoughts become "extremist" and use violence against their enemies. Research has also shown (citation?) that people become involved in terrorist organizations through their social networks, their social ties to others. It is then more important who one knows than what one thinks in becoming a terrorist. Combining these two ideas, we can begin to predict when terrorist organizations will form and who will be a part of them. If persons with few outside connections but many friends within their closed community, violent action on a political ideology is possible.
[edit]
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.[1] [2] [3] 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.[15]
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.[16]