Terrorism

Seal of the Jacobin Club

The term "terrorism" itself was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible", said Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund Burke denounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell-hounds called Terrorists ... loose on the people" of France.[15] John Calvin's rule over Geneva in the 16th century has also been described as a reign of terror.[16][17][18]

"The Fenian Guy Fawkes" by John Tenniel (1867).

Most scholars today trace the origins of the modern tactic of terrorism to the Jewish Sicarii Zealots who attacked Romans and Jews in 1st-century Palestine. According to the contemporary Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, after the Zealotry rebellion against Roman rule in Judea, when some prominent Jewish collaborators with Roman rule were killed,[19][20] Judas of Galilee formed a small and more extreme offshoot of the Zealots, the Sicarii Zealots, in 6 AD. They were a smaller and more radical offshoot of the Zealots which was active in Judaea Province at the beginning of the 1st century AD, and they can be considered early terrorists, although this is disputed. Their acts of violence were directed against Jewish "collaborators", including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and other political elites.[21]

Arguably, the first organization to use modern terrorist techniques was the Irish Republican Brotherhood,[22] founded in 1858 as a revolutionary Irish nationalist group[23] that carried out attacks in England.[24] The group initiated the Fenian dynamite campaign in 1881, one of the first modern terror campaigns.[25] Instead of earlier forms of terrorism based on political assassination, this campaign used timed explosives with the express aim of sowing fear in the very heart of metropolitan Britain, in order to achieve political gains.[26]

Another early terrorist-type group was Narodnaya Volya, founded in Russia in 1878 as a revolutionary anarchist group inspired by Sergei Nechayev and "propaganda by the deed" theorist Carlo Pisacane.[27][28] The group developed ideas—such as targeted killing of the 'leaders of oppression', which were to become the hallmark of subsequent violence by small non-state groups, and they were convinced that the developing technologies of the age—such as the invention of dynamite, which they were the first anarchist group to make widespread use of[29]—enabled them to strike directly and with discrimination.[30]

The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" gained renewed currency in the 1970s as a result of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,[31] the Northern Ireland conflict,[32] the Basque conflict,[33] and the operations of groups such as the Red Army Faction.[34] Leila Khaled was described as a terrorist in a 1970 issue of Life magazine.[35] A number of books on terrorism were published in the 1970s.[36] The topic came further to the fore after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings[7] and again after the 2001 September 11 attacks[7][37][38] and the 2002 Bali bombings.[7]

In 2006 it was estimated that there were over 109 different definitions of terrorism.[39] Bruce Hoffman has noted that it is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism; experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus.[40] Experts disagree on "whether terrorism is wrong by definition or just wrong as a matter of fact; they disagree about whether terrorism should be defined in terms of its aims, or its methods, or both, or neither; they disagree about whether states can perpetrate terrorism; they even disagree about the importance or otherwise of terror for a definition of terrorism".[41]

However, definitions of terrorism typically emphasize one or more of the following features:[42]

1. Its effect of extreme fear
2. Whether it targeted the state from within
3. Its strategic goals
4. Its random or indiscriminate nature
5. Who it targeted
6. Whether it was planned and prepared in secret

Definitions include:

• "the deliberate killing of innocent people, at random, to spread fear through a whole population and force the hand of its political leaders" (Michael Walzer, 2002).[4]
• "the organized use of violence to attack non-combatants (‘innocents’ in a special sense) or their property for political purposes" (C. A. J. Coady, 2004).[42]
• "the deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating some other people into a course of action they otherwise would not take" (Igor Primoratz, 2004).[43]
• "the use of force or violence or the threat of force or violence to change the behavior of society as a whole through the causation of fear and the targeting of specific parts of society in order to affect the entire society" (Arthur H. Garrison, 2004).[44]

While discussing the definitional and ethical difficulties of terrorism, Jenny Teichman argues that "it ought not to be impossible to find an agreed definition, and then ask whether one wants to condemn or applaud all or some of the things that fall under that description".[11]

The scholar Ken Duncan argues the term terrorism has generally been used to describe violence by non-state actors rather than government violence since the 19th-century Anarchist Movement.[45][46][47]

Bruce Hoffman notes that terrorism is "ineluctably about power".[48]

Political violence

See also: Political violence

Luis Posada and CORU are widely considered responsible for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people.[58]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[59] Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[60] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. For example, carrying out a strategic bombing on an enemy city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism.[61] An associated term is violent non-state actor.[62]

According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimately in a political judgment.[63]

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 instance, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was using methods against one of the United States' closest allies (the United Kingdom) that the UK branded as terrorism. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.[64][65]

Pejorative use

Having the connotation of "something morally wrong", the term "terrorism" is often used to abuse or denounce opposite parties, either governments or non-state groups.[4][5][6][7][8] An example of this is the terruqueo political attack used by right-wing groups in Peru to target leftist groups or those opposed to the neoliberal status quo, likening opponents to guerrilla organizations[66] from the internal conflict in Peru.[67][68][69]

Those labeled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, but it wasn't always so. While a multitude of terms like separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, have come into use, (including some culturally specific terms borrowed from other languages like Jihadi, mujahideen, and fedayeen), the unwillingness to self-identify as terrorists began when parties in a conflict started to describe each other as terrorists perjoratively.[70] As an example, when Vera Zasulich attacked a Russian official known for abusing prisoners she told the court "I am not a criminal, I am a terrorist!". The stunned court acquitted Zazulich when they realized that she was trying to become a martyr. She was carried out of the courtroom on the shoulders of the crowd.[71]

Some groups and individuals have openly admitted to using "terrorist tactics" even while maintaining distance from the pejorative term in their self-descriptions. The Zionist militant group Lohamei Herut Yisrael admitted that they used terrorist tactics but used the euphemism "Freedom Fighters" to describe themselves (Lohamei Herut Yisrael means "Freedom Fighters for Israel".)[72]

On whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing non-combatants, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good that could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism".[73] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".[73][74]

In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:

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.[75][76]

The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".[70] This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally.

President Reagan meeting with Afghan Mujahideen leaders in the Oval Office in 1983

During the Second World War, the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army were allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor organisation (the Malayan National Liberation Army) started campaigns against them, and were branded "terrorists" as a result.[77][78] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the mujaheddin "freedom fighters" during the Soviet–Afghan War,[79] however twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men (militant groups like the Taliban and allies) were fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks were labelled terrorism by George W. Bush.[80][81][82]

Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.[83][84][85] 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 unlawful attacks for political or other ideological goals, and said:

There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. 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.[86]

Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called "terrorists" by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called "statesmen" by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.[87][88][89][90][91][92] WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has been called a "terrorist" by Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.[93][94]

Media outlets who wish to convey impartiality may limit their usage of "terrorist" and "terrorism" because they are loosely defined, potentially controversial in nature, and subjective terms.[95][96] The 2020 Nashville bombing revived a debate over the use of the word "terrorism", with critics saying it is quickly applied to attacks by Muslims but reluctantly if at all used by white Christian men, such as the Nashville bomber.[97]

Terrorists may attempt to use the media to spread their message or manipulate civilian populations. Shamil Basayev used this tactic during the Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis. Terrorists may also target national symbols with the goal of undermining an established government, increasing the prestige of the given terrorist group or promoting their ideology.[98]

• 
  Terrorist incidents, 1970–2015. A total of 157,520 incidents are plotted. Orange: 1970–1999, Red: 2000–2015
• 
  Top 10 Countries (2000–2014)
• 
  Worldwide non-state terrorist incidents 1970–2017
• 
  Share who are worried about vs. share of deaths from terrorism

Depending on the country, the political system, and the time in history, the types of terrorism are varying.

Number of failed, foiled or successful terrorist attacks by year and type within the European Union. Source: Europol.[99][100][101]

Aftermath of the King David Hotel bombing by the Zionist militant group Irgun, July 1946

A view of damage to the U.S. Embassy in the aftermath of the 1983 Beirut bombing caused by Islamic Jihad Organization and Hezbollah

In early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was titled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction of H. H. A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.

The Task Force defines terrorism as "a tactic or technique by means of which a violent act or the threat thereof is used for the prime purpose of creating overwhelming fear for coercive purposes". It classified disorders and terrorism into seven categories:[102]

• Civil disorder – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community.
• Political terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes.
• Non-Political terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits "conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective".
• Anonymous terrorism – In the two decades prior to 2016–19, "fewer than half" of all terrorist attacks were either "claimed by their perpetrators or convincingly attributed by governments to specific terrorist groups". A number of theories have been advanced as to why this has happened.[103]
• Quasi-terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction.[104] For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.
• Limited political terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to "acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state".
• Official or state terrorism – "referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions". It may be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.

Other sources have defined the typology of terrorism in different ways, for example, broadly classifying it into domestic terrorism and international terrorism, or using categories such as vigilante terrorism or insurgent terrorism.[105] One way the typology of terrorism may be defined:[106][107]

• Political terrorism
  • Sub-state terrorism
    • Social revolutionary terrorism
    • Nationalist-separatist terrorism
    • Religious extremist terrorism
      • Religious fundamentalist Terrorism
      • New religions terrorism
    • Right-wing terrorism
    • Left-wing terrorism
      • Communist terrorism
  • State-sponsored terrorism
  • Regime or state terrorism
• Criminal terrorism
• Pathological terrorism

Terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and it is least common in the most democratic nations.[117][118][119][120]

Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democratic nations include ETA in Spain under Francisco Franco (although the group's terrorist activities increased sharply after Franco's death),[121] the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in pre-war Poland,[122] the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto Fujimori,[123] the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders and the ANC in South Africa.[124] Democracies, such as Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, Indonesia, India, Spain, Germany, Italy and the Philippines, have experienced domestic terrorism.

While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an act of terrorism within such a state may cause a dilemma: whether to maintain its civil liberties and thus risk being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem; or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk delegitimizing its claim of supporting civil liberties.[125] For this reason, homegrown terrorism has started to be seen as a greater threat, as stated by former CIA Director Michael Hayden.[126] This dilemma, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state and cause a systematic shift towards anarchy via the accumulation of negative sentiments towards the state system.[127]

Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. Approximately 35,000 Pakistanis died from terrorist attacks between 2001 and 2011.[128]

According to the Global Terrorism Index by the University of Maryland, College Park, religious extremism has overtaken national separatism and become the main driver of terrorist attacks around the world. Since 9/11 there has been a five-fold increase in deaths from terrorist attacks. The majority of incidents over the past several years can be tied to groups with a religious agenda. Before 2000, it was nationalist separatist terrorist organizations such as the IRA and Chechen rebels who were behind the most attacks. The number of incidents from nationalist separatist groups has remained relatively stable in the years since while religious extremism has grown. The prevalence of Islamist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria is the main driver behind these trends.[129]

Five of the terrorist groups that have been most active since 2001 are Hamas, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIL. These groups have been most active in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria. Eighty percent of all deaths from terrorism occurred in one of these five countries.[129] In 2015 four Islamic extremist groups were responsible for 74% of all deaths from Islamic terrorism: ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda, according to the Global Terrorism Index 2016.[130] Since approximately 2000, these incidents have occurred on a global scale, affecting not only Muslim-majority states in Africa and Asia, but also states with non-Muslim majority such as United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, Australia, Canada, Sri Lanka, Israel, China, India and Philippines. Such attacks have targeted both Muslims and non-Muslims, however the majority affect Muslims themselves.[131]

Terrorism in Pakistan has become a great problem. From the summer of 2007 until late 2009, more than 1,500 people were killed in suicide and other attacks on civilians[132] for reasons attributed to a number of causes—sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims; easy availability of guns and explosives; the existence of a "Kalashnikov culture"; an influx of ideologically driven Muslims based in or near Pakistan, who originated from various nations around the world and the subsequent war against the pro-Soviet Afghans in the 1980s which blew back into Pakistan; the presence of Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba. On July 2, 2013, in Lahore, 50 Muslim scholars of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) issued a collective fatwa against suicide bombings, the killing of innocent people, bomb attacks, and targeted killings declaring them as Haraam or forbidden.[133]

In 2015, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report on terrorism in the United States. The report (titled The Age of the Wolf) analyzed 62 incidents and found that, between 2009 and 2015, "more people have been killed in America by non-Islamic domestic terrorists than jihadists."[134] The "virulent racist and antisemitic" ideology of the ultra-right wing Christian Identity movement is usually accompanied by anti-government sentiments.[135] Adherents of Christian Identity are not connected with specific Christian denominations,[136] and they believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the "Lost Tribes of Israel" and many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent.[135] This group has committed hate crimes, bombings and other acts of terrorism. Its influence ranges from the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups to the anti-government militia and sovereign citizen movements.[135] Christian Identity's origins can be traced back to Anglo-Israelism, which held the view that the British people were descendants of ancient Israelites. However, in the United States, the ideology started to become rife with anti-Semitism, and eventually Christian Identity theology diverged from the philo-semitic Anglo-Israelism, and developed what is known as the "two seed" theory.[135] According to the two-seed theory, the Jewish people are descended from Cain and the serpent (not from Shem).[135] The white European seedline is descended from the "lost tribes" of Israel. They hold themselves to "God's laws", not to "man's laws", and they do not feel bound to a government that they consider run by Jews and the New World Order.[135] The Ku Klux Klan is widely denounced by Christian denominations.[137]

Dawabsheh family home after Duma arson attack

Israel has had problems with Jewish religious terrorism even before independence in 1948. During British mandate over Palestine, the Irgun were among the Zionist groups labelled as terrorist organisations by the British authorities and United Nations,[138] for violent terror attacks against Britons and Arabs.[139][140] Another extremist group, the Lehi, openly declared its members as "terrorists".[141][142] Historian William Cleveland stated many Jews justified any action, even terrorism, taken in the cause of the creation of a Jewish state.[143] In 1995, Yigal Amir assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. For Amir, killing Rabin was an exemplary act that symbolized the fight against an illegitimate government that was prepared to cede Jewish Holy Land to the Palestinians. [144]

Al-Qaida in Magreb members pose with weapons.

The perpetrators of acts of terrorism can be individuals, groups, or states. According to some definitions, clandestine or semi-clandestine state actors may 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 and many of the most deadly operations in recent times, such as the September 11 attacks, the London underground bombing, 2008 Mumbai attacks and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a close clique, composed of close friends, family members and other strong social networks. These groups benefited from the free flow of information and efficient telecommunications to succeed where others had failed.[145]

Over the years, much research has been conducted to distill a terrorist profile to explain these individuals' actions through their psychology and socio-economic circumstances.[146] Others, like Roderick Hindery, have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by terrorists. Some security organizations designate these groups as violent non-state actors. A 2007 study by economist Alan B. Krueger found that terrorists were less likely to come from an impoverished background (28 percent versus 33 percent) and more likely to have at least a high-school education (47 percent versus 38 percent). Another analysis found only 16 percent of terrorists came from impoverished families, versus 30 percent of male Palestinians, and over 60 percent had gone beyond high school, versus 15 percent of the populace. A study into the poverty-stricken conditions and whether terrorists are more likely to come from here, show that people who grew up in these situations tend to show aggression and frustration towards others. This theory is largely debated for the simple fact that just because one is frustrated, does not make them a potential terrorist.[39][147]

To avoid detection, a terrorist will look, dress, and behave normally until executing the assigned mission. Some claim that attempts to profile terrorists based on personality, physical, or sociological traits are not useful.[148] The physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.[149] The majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by military age men, aged 16 to 40.[149]

Non-state groups

There is speculation that the 2001 anthrax attacks were the work of a lone wolf.

Main articles: List of designated terrorist groups, Lone wolf (terrorism), and Violent non-state actor

Groups not part of the state apparatus of in opposition to the state are most commonly referred to as a "terrorist" in the media.

According to the Global Terrorism Database, the most active terrorist group in the period 1970 to 2010 was Shining Path (with 4,517 attacks), followed by Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), Irish Republican Army (IRA), Basque Fatherland and Freedom (ETA), Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Taliban, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, New People's Army, National Liberation Army of Colombia (ELN), and Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).[150]

State terrorism

Main article: State terrorism

Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur it is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

— Derrick Jensen[152]

Infant crying in Shanghai's South Station after the Japanese bombing, August 28, 1937

As with "terrorism" the concept of "state terrorism" is controversial.[153] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the committee was conscious of 12 international conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to state terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If states abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law.[154] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law".[155] He made clear that, "regardless of the differences between governments on the question of the definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is that any deliberate attack on innocent civilians [or non-combatants], regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."[156]

USS Arizona (BB-39) burning during the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941

State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts committed by governmental agents or forces. This involves the use of state resources employed by a state's foreign policies, such as using its military to directly perform acts of terrorism. Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl cites the examples that include the German bombing of London, the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Allied firebombing of Dresden, and the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. He argues that "the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." He cites the first strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management" and he argues that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War II. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this behavior by the state.[157][158][159]

St Paul's Cathedral after the German bombing of London, c. 1940

Charles Stewart Parnell described William Ewart Gladstone's Irish Coercion Act as terrorism in his "no-Rent manifesto" in 1881, during the Irish Land War.[160] The concept is used to describe political repressions by governments against their own civilian populations with the purpose of inciting fear. For example, taking and executing civilian hostages or extrajudicial elimination campaigns are commonly considered "terror" or terrorism, for example during the Red Terror or the Great Terror.[161] Such actions are often described as democide or genocide, which have been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism.[162] Empirical studies on this have found that democracies have little democide.[163][164] Western democracies, including the United States, have supported state terrorism[165] and mass killings,[166][167] with some examples being the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 and Operation Condor.[168][169][170]

The connection between terrorism and tourism has been widely studied since the Luxor massacre in Egypt.[171][172] In the 1970s, the targets of terrorists were politicians and chiefs of police while now, international tourists and visitors are selected as the main targets of attacks. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were the symbolic center, which marked a new epoch in the use of civil transport against the main power of the planet.[173] From this event onwards, the spaces of leisure that characterized the pride of West were conceived as dangerous and frightful.[174][175]

State sponsors have constituted a major form of funding; for example, Palestine Liberation Organization, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and other groups sometimes considered to be terrorist organizations, were funded by the Soviet Union.[176][177] The Stern Gang received funding from Italian Fascist officers in Beirut to undermine the British authorities in Palestine.[178]

"Revolutionary tax" is another major form of funding, and essentially a euphemism for "protection money".[176] Revolutionary taxes "play a secondary role as one other means of intimidating the target population".[176]

Other major sources of funding include kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling (including wildlife smuggling),[179] fraud, and robbery.[176] The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has reportedly received funding "via private donations from the Gulf states".[180] Irish Republican militants, primarily the Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Irish National Liberation Army, and Loyalist paramilitaries, primarily the Ulster Volunteer Force and Ulster Defence Association, received far more financing from criminal and legitimate activities within the British Isles than overseas donations, including Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and NORAID (see Paramilitary finances in the Troubles for more information).[181][182][183][184]

The Financial Action Task Force is an inter-governmental body whose mandate, since October 2001, has included combating terrorist financing.[185]

The Wall Street bombing at noon on September 16, 1920, killed thirty-eight people and injured several hundred. The perpetrators were never caught.[186]

Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity, most frequently using explosives.[187] Terrorist groups usually methodically plan attacks in advance, and may train participants, plant undercover agents, and raise money from supporters or through organized crime. Communications occur through modern telecommunications, or through old-fashioned methods such as couriers. There is concern about terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction. Some academics have argued that while it is often assumed terrorism is intended to spread fear, this is not necessarily true, with fear instead being a by-product of the terrorist's actions, while their intentions may be to avenge fallen comrades or destroy their perceived enemies.[188]

Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare will not be effective because opposing forces vary greatly in power.[189] Yuval Harari argues that the peacefulness of modern states makes them paradoxically more vulnerable to terrorism than pre-modern states. Harari argues that because modern states have committed themselves to reducing political violence to almost zero, terrorists can, by creating political violence, threaten the very foundations of the legitimacy of the modern state. This is in contrast to pre-modern states, where violence was a routine and recognised aspect of politics at all levels, making political violence unremarkable. Terrorism thus shocks the population of a modern state far more than a pre-modern one and consequently the state is forced to overreact in an excessive, costly and spectacular manner, which is often what the terrorists desire.[190]

The type of people terrorists will target is dependent upon the ideology of the terrorists. A terrorist's ideology will create a class of "legitimate targets" who are deemed as its enemies and who are permitted to be targeted. This ideology will also allow the terrorists to place the blame on the victim, who is viewed as being responsible for the violence in the first place.[191][192]

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 or become part of a different state
• Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups
• Imposition of a particular form of government
• Economic deprivation of a population
• Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army
• Religious fanaticism

Sign notifying shoppers of increased surveillance due to a perceived increased risk of terrorism

Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values.

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

The term "counterterrorism" has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors.

Response in the United States

See also: War on Terror

X-ray backscatter technology (AIT) machine used by the TSA to screen passengers. According to the TSA, this is what the remote TSA agent would see on their screen.

According to a report by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin in The Washington Post, "Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States."[196]

America's thinking on how to defeat radical Islamists is split along two very different schools of thought. Republicans, typically follow what is known as the Bush Doctrine, advocate the military model of taking the fight to the enemy and seeking to democratize the Middle East. Democrats, by contrast, generally propose the law enforcement model of better cooperation with nations and more security at home.[197] In the introduction of the U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Sarah Sewall states the need for "U.S. forces to make securing the civilian, rather than destroying the enemy, their top priority. The civilian population is the center of gravity—the deciding factor in the struggle.... Civilian deaths create an extended family of enemies—new insurgent recruits or informants—and erode support of the host nation." Sewall sums up the book's key points on how to win this battle: "Sometimes, the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.... Sometimes, the more force is used, the less effective it is.... The more successful the counterinsurgency is, the less force can be used and the more risk must be accepted.... Sometimes, doing nothing is the best reaction."[198] This strategy, often termed "courageous restraint", has certainly led to some success on the Middle East battlefield. However, it does not address the fact that terrorists are mostly homegrown.[197]

Causes of death in the US vs media coverage. The percentage of media attention for terrorism (about 33-35%) is much greater than the percentage of deaths caused by terrorism (less than 0.01%).

La Terroriste, a 1910 poster depicting a female member of the Combat Organization of the Polish Socialist Party throwing a bomb at a Russian official's car

Mass 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.[199]

The Internet has created a new way for groups to spread their messages.[200] This has created a cycle of measures and counter measures by groups in support of and in opposition to terrorist movements. The United Nations has created its own online counterterrorism resource.[201]

The mass media will, on occasion, censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further terrorism. This may encourage organizations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media. Conversely James F. Pastor explains the significant relationship between terrorism and the media, and the underlying benefit each receives from the other.[202]

There is always a point at which the terrorist ceases to manipulate the media gestalt. A point at which the violence may well escalate, but beyond which the terrorist has become symptomatic of the media gestalt itself. Terrorism as we ordinarily understand it is innately media-related.

— Novelist William Gibson, 2004[203]

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously spoke of the close connection between terrorism and the media, calling publicity 'the oxygen of terrorism'.[204]

How terrorist groups end (n = 268): The most common ending for a terrorist group is to convert to nonviolence via negotiations (43%), with most of the rest terminated by routine policing (40%). Groups that were ended by military force constituted only 7%.[205]

Jones and Libicki (2008) created a list of all the terrorist groups they could find that were active between 1968 and 2006. They found 648. Of those, 136 splintered and 244 were still active in 2006.[206] Of the ones that ended, 43% converted to nonviolent political actions, like the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland; 40% were defeated by law enforcement; 7% (20 groups) were defeated by military force; and 10% succeeded.

42 groups became large enough to be labeled an insurgency; 38 of those had ended by 2006. Of those, 47% converted to nonviolent political actors. Only 5% were ended by law enforcement, and 21% were defeated by military force. 26% won.[207] Jones and Libicki concluded that military force may be necessary to deal with large insurgencies but are only occasionally decisive, because the military is too often seen as a bigger threat to civilians than the terrorists. To avoid that, the rules of engagement must be conscious of collateral damage and work to minimize it.

Another researcher, Audrey Cronin, lists six primary ways that terrorist groups end:[208]

1. Capture or killing of a group's leader (Decapitation)
2. Entry of the group into a legitimate political process (Negotiation)
3. Achievement of group aims (Success)
4. Group implosion or loss of public support (Failure)
5. Defeat and elimination through brute force (Repression)
6. Transition from terrorism into other forms of violence (Reorientation)

The following terrorism databases are or were made publicly available for research purposes, and track specific acts of terrorism:

• Global Terrorism Database, an open-source database by the University of Maryland, College Park on terrorist events around the world from 1970 through 2017 with more than 150,000 cases.
• MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base
• Worldwide Incidents Tracking System
• Tocsearch (dynamic database)

The following public report and index provides a summary of key global trends and patterns in terrorism around the world

• Global Terrorism Index, produced annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace

The following publicly available resources index electronic and bibliographic resources on the subject of terrorism

• Human Security Gateway

The following terrorism databases are maintained in secrecy by the United States Government for intelligence and counterterrorism purposes:

• Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment
• Terrorist Screening Database

Jones and Libicki (2008) includes a table of 268 terrorist groups active between 1968 and 2006 with their status as of 2006: still active, splintered, converted to nonviolence, removed by law enforcement or military, or won. (These data are not in a convenient machine-readable format but are available.)

• Hoffman, Bruce (1988). Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Hoffman, Bruce (1998). "Inside Terrorism". Columbia University Press. p. 32. ISBN 0-231-11468-0. Retrieved January 11, 2010.
  • Hoffman, Bruce (1998a). "Chapter One". Inside Terrorism. Retrieved January 11, 2010 – via The New York Times.
• Hoffman, Bruce (2006). Inside Terrorism (2nd ed.). Columbia University Press.
• Spaaij, Ramon (2012). Understanding Lone Wolf Terrorism: Global Patterns, Motivations and Prevention.
• Perspectives on Terrorism's Bibliography: Root Causes of Terrorism. 2017. Archived October 22, 2017, at the Wayback Machine

• Bakker, Edwin. Forecasting the Unpredictable: A Review of Forecasts on Terrorism 2000–2012 (International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague, 2014)
• Bowie, Neil G. (April 2021). "40 Terrorism Databases and Data Sets: A New Inventory" (PDF). Perspectives on Terrorism. Leiden University. XV (2). ISSN 2334-3745.
• Burleigh, Michael. Blood and rage: a cultural history of terrorism. Harper, 2009.
• Chaliand, Gérard and Arnaud Blin, eds. The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda. University of California Press, 2007.
• Coates, Susan W., Rosenthal, Jane, and Schechter, Daniel S. September 11: Trauma and Human Bonds (New York: Taylor and Francis, Inc., 2003).
• Crenshaw, Martha, ed. Terrorism in context. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
• Jones, Seth G.; Libicki, Martin C. (2008), How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida (PDF), RAND Corporation, ISBN 978-0-8330-4465-5
• Hennigfeld, Ursula/ Packard, Stephan, ed., Abschied von 9/11? Distanznahme zur Katastrophe. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2013.
• Hennigfeld, Ursula, ed., Poetiken des Terrors. Narrative des 11. September 2001 im interkulturellen Vergleich. Heidelberg: Winter, 2014.
• Hewitt, Christopher. Understanding terrorism in America (Routledge, 2003).
• Hewitt, Christopher. "Terrorism and public opinion: A five country comparison." Terrorism and Political Violence 2.2 (1990): 145–170.
• Jones, Sidney. Terrorism: myths and facts. Jakarta: International Crisis Group, 2013.
• Land, Isaac, ed., Enemies of humanity: the nineteenth-century war on terrorism. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
• Lee, Newton. Counterterrorism and Cybersecurity: Total Information Awareness (2nd Edition). New York: Springer, 2015. ISBN 978-3-319-17243-9
• Lutz, James and Brenda Lutz. Terrorism : origins and evolution (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005)
• Miller, Martin A. The foundations of modern terrorism : state, society and the dynamics of political violence. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• Nairn, Tom; James, Paul (2005). Global Matrix: Nationalism, Globalism and State-Terrorism. London and New York: Pluto Press.
• Neria, Yuval, Gross, Raz, Marshall, Randall D., and Susser, Ezra. September 11, 2001: Treatment, Research and Public Mental Health in the Wake of a Terrorist Attack (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
• Schmid, Alex P. (November 2020). Handbook of Terrorism Prevention and Preparedness. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. doi:10.19165/2020.6.01 (inactive August 1, 2023). ISBN 9789090339771. ISSN 2468-0486.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2023 (link) An open-access publication, issued since November 2020 on the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT) website, with a chapter published each week.
• Stern, Jessica. The Ultimate Terrorists. (Harvard University Press 2000 reprint; 1995). 214 p. ISBN 0-674-00394-2
• Tausch, Arno, Estimates on the Global Threat of Islamic State Terrorism in the Face of the 2015 Paris and Copenhagen Attacks (December 11, 2015). Middle East Review of International Affairs, Rubin Center, Research in International Affairs, Idc Herzliya, Israel, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring 2015).
• Terrorism, Law & Democracy: 10 years after 9/11, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice. ISBN 978-2-9809728-7-4.

Wikiquote has quotations related to Terrorism.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Terrorism.

Look up terrorism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• United Nations: Conventions on Terrorism
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: "Conventions against terrorism". Archived from the original on August 5, 2007.
• UNODC – United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime – Terrorism Prevention
• Terrorism and international humanitarian law, International Committee of the Red Cross
• UK Counter Terrorism Policing