essay on terrorism?

Question

something on terrorism

Answer 1

How about something ANTI-TERRORISM!!!

The only dream worth having is to dream that you will live while you are alive, and die only when you are dead. To love, to be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and vulgar disparity of the life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never to forget."

Answer 2

What do you think of when you hear the word terrorism? Most people will refer to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Of course, these were horrific attacks especially considering over 3,000 people lost their lives that day. There was no precedent like that before. Unfortunately, though, that is not the only terrorist attack in history. Terrorism has existed in the world for quite a long time.

2 What exactly is terrorism? Well, there are many different definitions out there. However, these definitions have certain things in common. Terrorism involves extraordinary violence. It is intended to create massive fear and involves a planned attack for a purpose, often against something or someone. Terrorism is meant to have an audience. The differences between various terrorist attacks involve the people, purpose, and how it is carried out.

3 Terrorism is a technique, it's a criminal activity, and is planned in advance. For example, did you know that the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya in 1998 was planned for 5 years? You can see, terrorism is an act meant to produce fear without caring about human life. The definition of terrorism used by the government of the United States refers to intimidation of the civilians, the influence of government policy by coercion or fear, or trying to change the government by assassination or kidnapping.

4 While terrorism is meant to be an act of violence to bring about change, it is usually not committed by those officially in the government. Usually, terrorist groups have fewer members than you would think. They want to be dramatic and attract attention by carrying out a bloody act. They hope to gain power and influence because of the act.

5 The terrorists want to create fear so that leadership will be questioned. The terrorists want an audience such as a rival ethnic group, a religious group, or an entire country. The terrorists want this audience to experience far-reaching fear.

Answer 3

Terrorism, until the recent attacks on the US, has remained a dormant issue in the media. Although it has been around for centuries, the organised use of violence to target non-combatants for political purposes, is one of the most effective ways to gain media attention. Mainly used by extremist groups in the hopes of gaining recognition for their cause (wether it is religious, political or otherwise.) Several attacks on the US have recently made headlines The attack on the USS Cole (October 12, 2000), US Embassy bombings in Kenya + Tanzania (August 7, 1998), Oklahoma City bombing (April 19, 1995) and finally the World Trade Centre bombing on February 27 1993. There were overt threats made to the US government regarding these attacks but most were dismissed as hoaxes. What we need to recognise about terrorism is its message. Attacks are always perfectly planned and precise, almost showing that they could do better.
The most recent attack on America has been on the WTC and pentagon. Thousands of innocent people died because the Al-Quaida allegedly flew 3 passenger aircraft into both towers and crashed one into the pentagon, the USA’s best-guarded facility. Hopefully these deaths were not in vein, now other countries have joined George Bush in the war against terrorism and are launching repeated strikes on Afghanistan (the Al-Quaida’s supposed base.) They hope that these attacks will prevent any further events from happening. These attacks have in my view displayed that the Taliban can control the US economy and hit any target they wish, no matter how well guarded it is.
Perhaps America should have been more cautious and handled the threats more carefully. Maybe they were being too proud and this is why the Taliban believe it is justifiable to kill innocents, or they chose to attack now because America was just feeling safe. Whatever the reason, we will never know.
In 2002, the world changed forever. Anthrax, a biological weapon was released into the postal system and a commercial aircraft was turned into a 1000 tonne missile. War will have a new face, it will not be against an enemy firing projectiles, but instead, an invisible, deadly network of shadows attacking miscellaneous targets in random locations. This is why if we don’t act quickly; the world could be cast into turmoil.
So how do other people feel about this topic? This is how I think an Egoist would feel. The word egoist means that you are only concerned with things that may affect you in the long run. Terrorism definitely affects everyone in some way; wether you are a soldier or a shopkeeper. It may be economic, emotional, physical or political you will notice a difference in the world. Depending on which side of the fence the egoist is on would change his views. If he were attacking he would benefit from the land over-run. But if he were being terrorised he would be at a disadvantage and against it. If he were an arms manufacturer, he would profit therefore would be good for him. If the attack were in a far off country he probably wouldn’t care. It is usually safer in peacetime than with terrorist attacks around you so I believe an egoist would only welcome terrorism if he gained more than he could loose.
There are many variables that can alter a person’s views on terrorism, one of which is wether you are dealing it or receiving it. A Kantian’s views rely very heavily on this factor. If he were attacking a country, firstly, he would need a good reason. Then he would need to decide wether it was his duty to help his comrades fight for their cause. If he were receiving the attacks he would need to choose wether to not retaliate or to do his duty and fight back.




A utilitarian makes decisions according to the greatest amount of happiness or the least amount of unhappiness produced. Terrorism never achieves anything except media coverage, hate and retaliation. A util would study both sides of the fight and see what is being fought over. He would sacrifice his life if it would cause more happiness so he would not be bias to one side. In the case of Al-Quaida vs. USA he would probably back the US because there was insufficient reason to take all those lives and if no attack had been launched at all, no one would be dead. Although the Taliban would be unhappy with the US, the US has more innocent people than the Taliban has unhappy terrorists.In conclusion I would like to say that terrorism is a one-way road to destruction. It ultimately achieves nothing. As for fighting it, it’s been around since the dawn of time, cavemen probably terrorised each other. It won’t stop now just because a few fools in Washington decided it should. Terrorism strikes us inside, not because of the things we have lost but because we know that we aren’t safe anywhere. So until the human race becomes peaceful, stops destroying itself and it’s environment, we need to live life to the fullest, like there is no tomorrow, because there may not be one.

Answer 4

Stopping Terrorism. Preventing Terrorism. What is Terrorism? Where has Terrorism Occured? Terrorism Aftermaths.. there's some.

Answer 5

OK. You could ramble on about Barder Meinhof, or 911. I would be tempted to look at the reasons and methods. Chairman Mao had some nifty ideas on fighting a gorilla war, so you might try reading up on that (This might help to explain some of the tactics used).

You might also look at Isreals handling of the drawn out terror war it has been fighting since 72. Also, look at IRA and counter terrorism.

Finally, you might look at American foriegn policy (Claimed by most fanatics to be the reason behind their war) and see if there are any lessons to learn, or if the Arab terrorists are just nutters.

You might also compare anti terror tactics Ireland vs Iraq etc.

Hope this helps.

Luck

Answer 6

Come on u can write many things on that as...what is terrorism..and give many live examples like WTC attack on 11setember and also recent bombay local trans and fall of twin towerss but write in detail...its enugh..and some points on how can we stop terrorism and who is doing al this write about alkaida ...ok..got it..so start writting

Answer 7

Be Calm and never hurt others

Rgd
Paras Kochhar

Answer 8

Terrorism refers to the public health consequences and the methods for prevention of the purposeful use of violence or threats of violence by groups or individuals in order to serve political or personal agendas. This article does not include what has been termed "state terrorism," the use of violence by a nation-state without clear necessity for self-defense and without the authorization of the United Nations.terrorism, the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances. The term dates from the Reign of Terror (1793-94) in the French Revolution but has taken on additional meaning in the 20th cent. Terrorism involves activities such as assassinations, bombings, random killings, and hijackings. Used for political, not military, purposes, and most typically by groups too weak to mount open assaults, it is a modern tool of the alienated, and its psychological impact on the public has increased because of extensive coverage by the media. Political terrorism also may be part of a government campaign to eliminate the opposition, as under Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and others, or may be part of a revolutionary effort to overthrow a regime. Terrorist attacks also are now a common tactic in guerrilla warfare. Governments find attacks by terrorist groups difficult to prevent; international agreements to tighten borders or return terrorists for trial may offer some deterrence.
Terrorism reaches back to ancient Greece and has occurred throughout history. Terrorism by radicals (of both the left and right) and by nationalists became widespread after World War II. Since the late 20th cent. acts of terrorism have been associated with the Italian Red Brigades, the Irish Republican Army, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Peru's Shining Path, Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Weathermen and some members of U.S. "militia" organizations, among many groups. Religiously inspired terrrorism has also occurred, such as that of extremist Christian opponents of abortion in the United States; of extremist Muslims associated with Hamas, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and other organizations; of extremist Sikhs in India; and of Japan's Aum Shinrikyo, who released nerve gas in Tokyo's subway system (1995).

In 1999 the UN Security Council unanimously called for better international cooperation in fighting terrorism and asked governments not to aid terrorists. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—the most devastating terrorist attacks in history—prompted calls by U.S. political leaders for a world "war on terrorism." Although the U.S. effort to destroy Al Qaeda and overthrow the Afghani government that hosted it was initially successful, terrorism is not a movement but a tactic used by a wide variety of groups, some of which are regarded (and supported) as "freedom fighters" in various countries or by various peoples. So-called state-sponsored terrorism, in which governments provide support or protection to terrorist groups that carry out proxy attacks against other countries, also complicates international efforts to end terror attacks, but financial sanctions have been placed by many countries on organizations that directly or indirectly support terrorists. The 2001 bioterror attacks in which anthrax spores were mailed to various U.S. media and government offices may not be linked to the events of September 11, but they raised specter of biological and chemical terrorism and revealed the difficulty of dealing with such attacks.



EXAMPLES OF TERRORISM

Use or threat of use of violence has long caused concern among those responsible for public health. Examples include indiscriminate violence, such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and targeted violence, such as attacks on facilities for the termination of pregnancy or on those who work in such facilities. The primary responsibility for response to the health consequences of such violence has resided largely in emergency medical services and the primary responsibility for prevention in agencies concerned with public order and safety, such as the police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Recent instances of use or threatened use of biological or chemical agents in terrorism have raised interest in the role of public health agencies and public health personnel in primary or secondary prevention. Documented episodes, although extremely rare, have been dramatic. In Japan, the chemical warfare agent Sarin was released by the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Matsumoto in 1994 and in the Tokyo subway in 1995. In 1984, an Oregon cult allegedly contaminated salad bars with a biological agent, salmonella. These episodes, and recent hoaxes concerning anthrax release, have led to well publicized, costly responses by public health and public safety officials. Chemical terrorism could include the purposeful contamination of water and food supplies or the aerosolization of toxicants within enclosed public spaces. Biological terrorist actions could include purposeful contamination with infectious materials, as well as the purposeful release of insects or other vectors infected with a transmissible disease.Coercive and violent behaviour undertaken to achieve or promote a particular political objective or cause, often involving the overthrow of established order. Terrorist activity is designed to induce fear through its indiscriminate, arbitrary, and unpredictable acts of violence, often against members of the population at large. It may be ‘official’, as under Stalin, or ‘unofficial’, as employed by various opposition or underground movements. Such movements are usually minority groups who feel there are no other means available to them of achieving their objectives. Terrorism may be confined to a specific territory or may have an international dimension, manifest in hijackings and hostage-taking, as witnessed in the suicide terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 when hijacked passenger aircraft were deliberately flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, New York City, and the Pentagon, Washington, DC. Bioterrorism is the use of organic agents such as micro-organisms and viruses which cause disease and death in humans.The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated to a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition. Some such definitions are so broad, like the Terrorism Act 2000, as to include disruption of a computer system where no violence is intended or results.

The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. For terrorist groups and their government sponsored supporters, it is crucial that they not be labeled a terrorist group; so as not to be labeled "terrorists" and by association as "terrorist nations". Groups that have described themselves as terrorists are therefore unknown. It is equally important for a group's opponents that the label "terrorist" be applied. The application "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim.

In addition, there is an increase in a common opinion that most terrorists are somehow connected to Muslims in general, or of some specific sect of Islam, or of some specific interpretation of the Koran. This opinion is reinforced by the many recent newsworthy acts of terrorism which have Muslim claimants of responsibility which are also paralleled by the silence of the vast majority of the Muslim population concerning those acts of terrorism. There may be fewer terrorists connected in some way to the other major religions, such as Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and so on, but terrorists from any group, or even as an individual, are no less dangerous in an era of nuclear weapons.

However it needs to be stated as well that some claim there has been equal silence on the part of the "western world", as opposed to the "muslim world", to alleged atrocities commited by western players like the US or the UK, which, some say, might be a result of the poor media coverage. However, this clearly ignores the fact that the majority of coverage by the media has focused mostly on negative news stories and reports while downplaying the positive. Generally speaking, only a small group of raidcal interest groups define the War on Terror as "atrocities" or compare it with acts of terrorism.

The legitimate governments of nations, and their police and military forces, need to investigate any potential planning of major criminal activity. This is true no matter the religion, creed, belief, background, self-label or political connection of the criminals. Terrorism might be best defined as the greatest possible degrees of criminal actions, other than war between internationally recognized nations, where the largest amounts of population are affected, and the greatest degree of economic activity is disrupted. A clear and distinct definition does continue to be a logical problem that requires debate without Fear Mongering, racial profiling, or unjust law enforcement procedures. Legitimate policing organizations do need the powers and procedures to investigate certain groups and individuals based on reasonable suspicions and evidence. Large degrees of criminal acts do need to be prevented by some reasonable means within any national boundary. This does require some notion of "terrorist" organizations and activities. Lawyers, judges, police, politicians, law makers, NGO's, and the general public all need some basic definition of "terrorism" to proceed with fair prosecutions and court trials under the rule of law. 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," (Schmid, 1988).Main Entry: murder
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: killing
Synonyms: annihilation, assassination, big chill, blood, bloodshed, bump-off, butchery, capital murder, carnage, crime, death, destruction, dispatching, dust-off, felony, foul play*, hit*, homicide, kiss-off, knifing, liquidation, lynching, manslaughter, massacre, off*, offing*, one-way ticket*, shooting, slaying, taking out*, terrorism, the business*, the works*, wasting
Notes: the general term for the killing of a person by another is homicide; murder is either the intentional killing or malicious killing of another; manslaughter is the unintentional, accidental killing of another through carelessness
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)

Answer 9

"Terrorist"
Terrorism
General
Definitions
History
Conventions
Counter-terrorism
War on Terrorism
Lists
Organizations
Incidents
Types
Agro-terrorism
Anarchist
Bioterrorism
Cyber-terrorism
Eco-terrorism
Narcoterrorism
Nationalist
Nuclear terrorism
Political
Racist
Religious
State
State-sponsored
Tactics
Hijacking
Assassination
Car bombing
Suicide attack
Kidnapping
Configurations
Fronts
Lone-wolf
This box: view • talk • edit
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror," are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants". Some definitions exclude acts committed by "legitimate" governments, however this exclusion is not universally accepted. In many cases the notion of "legitimate" and the definition of "combatant" is disputed, especially by partisans to the conflict in question.

As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing the severity of a grievance, or drawing attention to a neglected cause.

The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry a strong negative connotation. These terms are often used as political labels to condemn violence or threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, or unjustified. Those labeled "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other generic terms or terms specific to their situation, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin, or fedayeen, or any similar-meaning word in other languages.

Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[2] The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war.

Contents [hide]
1 Official Definitions
2 Key criteria
3 Pejorative use
4 Democracy and domestic terrorism
5 Perpetrators
5.1 Terrorist groups
5.2 State sponsors
6 Tactics
7 Causes
8 Responses to terrorism
9 History
10 Examples of major incidents
11 See also
12 Further reading
12.1 UN conventions
12.2 News monitoring websites specalizing on articles on terrorism
12.3 Papers and articles on global terrorism
12.4 Papers and articles on terrorism and the United States (War on Terror and Homeland Security)
12.5 Papers and articles on terrorism and Israel
12.6 Other
13 Footnotes



Official Definitions

Smoke billowing from the World Trade Center after the September 11, 2001 attacks described by the United Nations Security Council as "horrifying terrorist attacks"Main article: Definition of terrorism
See also: State terrorism
One 1988 study by the United States Army[3] found that more than one hundred definitions of the word "terrorism" exist and have been used.

Terrorism is a crime in all countries where such acts occur, and is defined by statute—see 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]


Key criteria
Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy and are often developed to serve it. Most government definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators.

Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic [of terrorism] generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as terrorism.

Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[6]

Perpetrated for a Political Goal – Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, not unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by activists when they believe no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the interrelationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[7] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.

Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their political end.[8]

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness[9] to distinguish between actions authorized by a "legitimate" government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a "legitimate" government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existance of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][11][12][13] For these reasons this criterion is not universally accepted. Most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.


Pejorative use
In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism that

“ On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.[14]
”

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 when a group that uses irregular military methods is an ally of a State against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the State and starts to use the same methods against its former ally. During World War II the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor, the Malayan Races Liberation Army, were branded terrorists by the British.[15][16] More recently, President Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters during their war against the Soviet Union,[17] yet twenty years later when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled terrorism by President Bush.[18] Groups accused of terrorism usually prefer terms that reflect legitimate military or idealogical action.[19][20][21] Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say:

“ "There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly leading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless."[22] ”

Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called terrorist by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called statesmen by similar organizations. Two examples are Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

Sometimes states that are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether members of a certain organization are terrorists. For example for many years some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists, while it was using methods against one of United States closest allies, that, that ally (Britain), branded as terrorist attacks. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.[30][31]

For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality are extremely careful in their use of the term.[32][33]


Democracy and domestic terrorism
The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is complex. Research shows that such terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom and that the nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations.[34][35][36] 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.[37]

Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democracies to include ETA under Francisco Franco, the Shining Path under Alberto Fujimori, and the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders. Democracies such as the United States, Israel, and the Philippines have experienced domestic terrorism.

While a nation espousing democratic ideology may claim a sense of legitimacy or higher moral ground than regimes that promote terrorism, any act of terrorism within the former creates a dilemma for the democratic state. On one hand, a state that prides itself in its tolerance of peaceful demonstration may choose to approach the problem of terrorism in ways outlined by its constitution; this may render that state ineffective in dealing with the problem, which could reflect upon its citizens a sense of impotency in a time of crisis. On the other hand, should that same terrorized state go outside its constitution to deal with the problem, the very notion of democracy itself pales in meaning. This, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize democracy.[38]


Perpetrators

Members of the Basque ETA, 2006.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 deadly 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.[39] 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-sponsored terrorism
See also: State terrorism and 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. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism or not vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such.


Tactics
Main article: Tactics of terrorism
Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity. They usually explosives or poison, but there is also concern about terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist organizations usually methodically plan attacks in advance, and may train participants, plant "undercover" agents, and raise money from supporters or through organized crime. Communication may occur through modern telecommunications, or through old-fashioned methods such as couriers.


Causes
The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict.

The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include:

Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state
Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups
Imposition of a particular form of government, such as democracy, theocracy, or anarchy
Economic deprivation of a population
Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army
Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare either cannot be (due to differentials in available forces) or is not being used to resolve the underlying conflict.

In some cases, the rationale for a terrorist attack may be uncertain (as in the many attacks for which no group or individual claims responsibility) or unrelated to any large-scale social conflict (such as the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo).


Responses to terrorism
Main article: Responses to terrorism
Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values. The term counter-terrorism has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors.

Specific types of responses include:

Targeted laws, criminal procedures, deportations, and enhanced police powers
Target hardening, such as locking doors or adding traffic barriers
Preemptive or reactive military action
Increased intelligence and surveillance activities
Preemptive humanitarian activities
More permissive interrogation and detention policies
Official acceptance of torture as a valid tool

History
Main article: History of terrorism
The modern English term "terrorism" dates back to 1795 when it was used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror".


Examples of major incidents

"International Terrorist Incidents, 2001" by the US Department of StateFurther information: List of terrorist incidents
The 1972 Munich massacre during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, West Germany
The December 1975 hostage taking at the OPEC headquarters in Vienna, Austria
Bombing of Cubana Flight 455 in 1976 which killed 73 people.
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 killing of Nicaraguan civilians during the 1980s by US-sponsored contras who had been trained by the United States in the use of terror.[40]
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing
The 1993 Mumbai bombings
The 1995 sarin gas attacks in Tokyo, Japan
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 August 31 – September 22: Russian Apartment Bombings kills about 300 people, leading Russia into Second Chechen War
The September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, and Washington D.C.[41][42]
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
The Mumbai train bombings on 11 July 2006.
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 the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot.


See also
Hirabah
Agent provocateur
Conspiracy theory
Eco-terrorism
False flags Operations
Hate crime
Hate group
Indoctrination
List of terrorist organisations
Lone wolf terrorism
Propaganda
Religious terrorism
State Terrorism
State-sponsored terrorism
Strategy of tension
Ten Threats identified by the United Nations
Terrorism insurance
Terrorist Screening Center
Unconventional warfare

Further reading
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
TerrorismMichael J. Kelly, Pulling at the Threads of Westphalia: Involuntary Sovereignty Waiver - Revolutionary International Legal Theory or Return to Rule By the Great Powers? 10:2 UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs (2005).
Hans Köchler (ed.), Terrorism and National Liberation. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Question of Terrorism. Frankfurt a.M./Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 1988, ISBN 3-8204-1217-4
Walter Laqueur, No End to War - Terrorism in the 21st Century, New York, 2003, ISBN 0-8264-1435-4
U.S. Terrorism in the Americas an Encyclopedia "on violence promoted, supported and carried out by both the U.S. government and its servants in Latin America
Lyal S. Sunga, US Anti-Terrorism Policy and Asia’s Options, in Johannen, Smith and Gomez, (eds.) September 11 & Political Freedoms: Asian Perspectives (Select) (2002) 242-264.

UN conventions
United Nations: Conventions on Terrorism
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Conventions against terrorism "There are 12 major multilateral conventions and protocols related to states' responsibilities for combating terrorism. But many states are not yet party to these legal instruments, or are not yet implementing them."

News monitoring websites specalizing on articles on terrorism
A reliable and daily updated Open Sources Center that includes a "Terrorism" section. by ISRIA.
Diplomacy Monitor - Terrorism
Jihad Monitor

Papers and articles on global terrorism
Audrey Kurth Cronin, "Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism," International Security, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Winter 2002/03), pp. 30-58.
Stathis N. Kalyvas, The Paradox of Terrorism in Civil Wars (2004) in Journal of Ethics 8:1, 97-138.
Hans Köchler, The United Nations, the International Rule of Law and Terrorism. Supreme Court of the Philippines, Centenary Lecture (2002)
MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base
Terrorism Research Center - Terrorism research site started in 1996.
Terror Finance Blog - Multi-expert website dealing with terror finance issues.
Terrorism Research - International Terrorism and Security Research
Scale invariance in global terrorism
Security News Line: Global Terrorism and Counter-terrorism www.debriefed.org
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 - articles about terrorism in the median Europe
Terrorism/Anti-terrorism - An analysis on the causes and uses of terrorism
[9] PBS "Frontline" 2005.
Teaching Terrorism and Counterterrorism with lesson plans, bibliographies, resources; from US Military Academy

Papers and articles on terrorism and the United States (War on Terror and Homeland Security)
Ivan Arreguín-Toft, "Tunnel at the End of the Light: A Critique of U.S. Counter-terrorist Grand Strategy,"Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2002), pp. 549-563.
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
Most Wanted Terrorists- Rewards for Justice
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.
"The Security Constitution," UCLA Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 29, 2005
[10] The Enemy Within, PBS Frontline October 2006.

Papers and articles on terrorism and Israel
Ariel Merari, "Terrorism as a Strategy in Insurgency," Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Winter 1993), pp. 213-251.
Israeli Counter Terror at isayeret.com
Israel Global Terror desk
Ariel Sharon's 1971 Campaign against Terrorism - From Ariel Sharon's Life Story, a biography

Other
Nuclear Facilities and Sabotage: Using Morphological Analysis as a Scenario and Strategy Development Laboratory (PDF)
Paradise Poisoned: Learning About Conflict, Development and Terrorism from Sri Lanka's Civil Wars by John Richardson

Footnotes
^ "The divergent assessments of the same evidence on such an important issue shocks a leading terrorism researcher. 'The notion of terrorism is fairly straightforward — it is ideologically or politically motivated violence directed against civilian targets.'" said Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University." Humphreys, Adrian. "One official's 'refugee' is another's 'terrorist'", National Post, January 17, 2006.
^ Terrorism. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved on 2006-08-11.
^ Dr. Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism(PDF)
^ Ali Khan, A LEGAL THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM Published in 19 Connecticut Law Review 945-972(1987)
^ 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."
^ Juergensmeyer, Mark. 2000. Terror in the Mind of God. University of California Press. Ch. 7 pp. 125-135
^ Juergensmeyer, Mark. 2000. Terror in the Mind of God. University of California Press. Ch 8-10.
^ Juergensmeyer, Mark. 2000. Terror in the Mind of God. University of California Press. Ch. 7 pp. 127-128
^ FBI, "Terrorism in the United States 1999" [1]
^ Ask Oxford Dictionary [2]
^ Cambridge International Dictionary of English [3]
^ Dictionary.com [4]
^ Online Etymology Dictionary [5]
^ 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
^ Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army Britannica Concise
^ Dr Chris Clark Malayan Emergency, 16 June 1948, 16 June 2003
^ Ronald Reagan, speech to National Conservative Political Action Conference 8 March, 1985. On the Spartacus Educational web site
^ 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
^ Sudha Ramachandran Death behind the wheel in Iraq Asian Times, November 12, 2004, "Insurgent groups that use suicide attacks therefore do not like their attacks to be described as suicide terrorism. They prefer to use terms like "martyrdom ..."
^ Alex Perry How Much to Tip the Terrorist? Time Magazine, September 26, 2005. "The Tamil Tigers would dispute that tag, of course. Like other guerrillas and suicide bombers, they prefer the term “freedom fighters.”
^ TERRORISM: CONCEPTS, CAUSES, AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION George Mason University Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Printed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, January 2003
^ Humphreys, Adrian. "One official's 'refugee' is another's 'terrorist'", National Post, January 17, 2006.
^ 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, including those launched by Irgun which Begin was a leading member
^ BBC News: PROFILES: Menachem Begin BBC website "Under Begin's command, the underground terrorist group Irgun carried out numerous acts of violence."
^ Eqbal Ahmad "Straight talk on terrorism" Monthly Review, January, 2002. "including Menachem Begin, appearing in "Wanted" posters saying, "Terrorists, reward this much." The highest reward I have seen offered was 100,000 British pounds for the head of Menachem Begin"
^ NEWS: World: Middle East: Sharon's legacy does not include peace BBC website "Ariel Sharon will be compared to Menachem Begin, another warrior turned statesman, who gave up the Sinai and made peace with Egypt."
^ Lord Desai Hansard, House of Lords 3 September 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."
^ BBC NEWS:World: Americas: UN reforms receive mixed response BBC website "Of all groups active in recent times, the ANC perhaps represents best the traditional dichotomous view of armed struggle. Once regarded by western governments as a terrorist group, it now forms the legitimate, elected government of South Africa, with Nelson Mandela one of the world's genuinely iconic figures."
^ BBC NEWS: World: Africa: Profile: Nelson Mandela BBC website "Nelson Mandela remains one of the world's most revered statesman"
^ Quinn v. Robinson (pdf), 783 F2d. 776 (9th Cir. 1986)(PDF), web site of the Syracuse University College of Law
^ Page 17, NORTHERN IRELAND: TP , T , S 11 (PDF) Queen's University Belfast School of Law
^ Guardian Unlimited style guide
^ BBC editorial guidelines on the use of language when reporting terrorism
^ [6]
^ [7]
^ [8]
^ Pape, Robert A. "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," American Political Science Review, 2003. 97 (3): pp. 1-19.
^ 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.
^ Sageman, Mark. 2004. "Social Networks and the Jihad". Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ch. 5 pp. 166-167
^ Nicaragua v. United States
^ 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.
^ 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