Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror," are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".
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.
An International Roundtable on Constructing Peace, Deconstructing Terror (2004) hosted by Strategic Foresight Group recommended that a distinction should be made between terrorism and acts of terror. While acts are terror are criminal acts as per the UN Conventions, Security Council Resolutions and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including acts, perpetrators of acts of terror and motives of the perpetrators. There is a disagreement on definition of terrorism because some of the motives are considered legitimate by certain schools of political thought. However, there is an intellectual consensus globally that acts of terror should not be accepted under any circumstances. This is reflected in all important conventions including the United Nations counter terrorism strategy, outcome of the Madrid Conference on terrorism and outcome of the Strategic Foresight Group and ALDE roundtables at the European Parliament.
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.
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).
A global research report An Inclusive World prepared by an international team of researchers from all continents has analysed causes of present day terrorism. It has reached the conclusions that terrorism all over the world functions like an economic market. There is demand for terrorists placed by greed or grievances. Supply is driven by relative deprivation resulting in triple deficits - developmental deficit, democratic deficit and dignity deficit. Acts of terror take place at the point of intersection between supply and demand. Those placing the demand use religion and other denominators as vehicles to establish links with those on the supply side. This pattern can be observed in all situations ranging from Colombia to Colombo and the Philippines to the Palestine
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
Mass media
Media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise be ignored by the media. Some consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media[40]. Others consider terrorism itself to be a symptom of a highly controlled mass media, which does not otherwise give voice to alternative viewpoints, a view expressed by Paul Watson who has stated that controlled media is responsible for terrorism, because "you cannot get your information across any other way". Paul Watson's organization Sea Shepherd has itself been branded "eco-terrorist", although it claims to have not caused any casualties.
The mass media will often censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further terrorism. However, this may encourage organisations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media.
The Weather Underground was a militant US organization which, while causing no casualties, performed terrorist acts to bring media attention to various world political issues. Many of the issues were given brief mentions by news services only in relation to the terrorist acts.
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.[41]
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.[42][43]
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.
2007-03-09 09:24:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by angel 3
·
0⤊
0⤋