Terrorism: Definition, History and Solutions

dreadist act Definition, History and SolutionsTERRORISMAN EXPLORATION OF ITS DEFINITION, HISTORY, AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS act of apprehensionism upsets people. It does so delib date of referencetely. That is its point,and that is why it has engrossed so much of our attentionin the earlier years of the twenty-first speed of light.Townshend 1Ask any ten individuals on the streets of London, Paris, Moscow, or New York for the top three issues facing the world today and mavin common response is likely to be terrorist act. Inquire further about how the same people would define act of act of terrorist act, when terrorist act began, and how act of act of terrorism can be stopped and you result probably be faced with a innumerous of answers, or maybe just looks of puzzlement. The range of responses (or lack thitherof) from the public should not be surprising. Not even experts curb on responses to these seemingly primaeval questions on an issue of such importance to worldwide security, an issue that Thackrah suggests is maven(a) of the most intractable global jobs at the bewilder of the twenty- first century.2This essay begins by surveying the vast array of expositions for the term terrorism, providing some(a) insight into the reasons that terrorism is so difficult for experts to define, and adopting a working definition for the term. The historical root of terrorism will beca workout be explored and results of a check of selected literature on possible solutions for dealing with terrorism will be introduced. Finally, a conclusion discussing the results of the literature review will be presented.terrorism DefinedWhat is terrorism? The definition assigned to the term actually much depends on who you ask, although, as Hoff piece writes, few words adopt so insidiously worked their bureau in to our everyday vocabulary.3 Oots writes that terrorism has been specify in different ways by various scholars.4 Hoffman suggests that most individuals cons truct vague notions of what the term means, that cannot asseverate precise, explanatory definitions. The terrorism look for Center claims that terrorism by nature is difficult to define.5 Townshend writes that both politicians and scholars necessitate been hung up in attempting to define terrorism in a way that distinguishes it from other criminal force out and even military action.6 Complicating attempts to define terrorism, the content and usage of the term have channeld over the years.7 Complications aside, most people would sum up that terrorism is a subjective term with negative connotations, a pejorative term, utilize to take up the acts of enemies or opponents. The term has moral connotations and can be used to persuade others to adopt a particular viewpoint. For instance, if an individual sympathises with the victims of terrorism, then the perpetrator is considered to be a terrorist, but if an individual sympathises with the perpetrator, then the perpetrator is co nsidered to be a emancipation submarine or is referred to by equally positive characterisations.8 About this, the terrorist act enquiry Center writes One mans terrorist is another mans surrenderdom fighter.9 Whittaker distinguishes between terrorists, guerrillas, and freedom fighters in writing the terrorist targets civilisedisedians the guerrilla goes for military personnel and facilities and the freedom fighter conducts a campaign to liberate his people from dictatorial oppression, gross disarmament, or the grip of an occupying ply.10One author included over one hundred definitions for the term terrorism.11 Another quoted over ninety definitions and descriptions.12 The definitions range from those that be quite simplistic to those that are equally comprehensive. The following definitions are illustrative of the broad range of thought terrorist act is violence for purposes of creating fear.13terrorism is governmentally and heartyly motivated violence.14terrorism is poli tical violence in or against true democracies.15 terrorist act may be exposit as a outline of violence designed to inspire terror within a particular segment of a given society.16Terrorism is the most amoral of organised violence.17Terrorism is a form of state of warused when full-scale military action is not possible.18Terrorism is a method of action by which an agent tends to produce terror in order to impose his domination.19Terrorism is the systematic use of absolute intimidation, usually to service political ends. It is used to create a humor of fear.20Terrorism is the threat or use of violence, very much against the civilian population, to compass political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicise grievances.21Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at populations in an feat to hand political, religious, or other aims.22Terrorism is politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub subject area groups or clandestine a gents, usually intended to influence an audience.23Whittaker explores the complexity of defining terrorism by furnishing a comprehensive list of terrorism criteria24The violence or threat of violence inherent in terrorism is premeditated and politically motivated for the purpose of intimi go out or coercing a government or the public in general.The strategy of terrorism is to impregnate fear and insecurity.Sustained campaigns or sporadic incidents are applied by terrorists in conducting their unlawful activities.Calculated use of violence is applied against civilian, non-combatant targets.Acquiring, manipulating, and employing power is at the root of terrorism. mutationary terrorism attempts to completely change the political system within a state sub-revolutionary terrorism attempts to effect change without totally replacing the existing political system.Terrorism consists of carefully intend goals, means, targets, and access conducted in a clandestine manner.The goals of terror ism focus on political, social, ideological, or religious ends. This distinguishes terrorism from other criminal activity.Terrorism is conducted from time to time by individuals, but most frequently by sub-national groups.An important design of terrorism is to obtain maximum publicity.Increasingly, terrorist zones of action are extending beyond national borders, becoming international in effect.The vast number of definitions proposed for the term terrorism might make one wonder if there could ever be agreement around a common definition. For without a common mind about what terrorism is, how can it be challenged and ultimately removed as a threat to modern civilisation? Despite the many definitions for terrorism, there does seem to be an emerging consensus on the definition of the term, according to Jenkins.25 For instance, Enders and Sandler offer the following comprehensive definition of terrorismTerrorism is the premeditated use or threat of use of extranormal violence or br utality by subnational groups to obtain a political, religious, or ideological objective through intimidation of a huge audience, usually not directly involved with the policy making that terrorists seek to influence.26Enders and Sandlers definition will be used for the purpose of this essay not only because it is an example of a accredited consensus description, but also because it contains criteria suggested by other definitions surveyed in the literature review violence or threats of violence intimidation of large civilian audiences relish to influence subnational terrorist groupings and political, religious, or ideological objectives.Historical Roots of TerrorismColin grayish writes that terrorism is as old as strategic history.27 The roots of terrorism can be traced back in time to antediluvian patriarch Greece, and terrorist acts have occurred throughout history since that time. The term terrorism, however, originated in the French mutations Reign of Terror 28 and was p opularised at that time.29 Terrorism in this era carried a very positive connotation as it was undertaken in an effort to establish order during the anarchy that followed uprisings in France in 1789. It was considered to be an agent of governance instituted to intimidate counter-revolutionaries, dissidents and subversives and was associated with the ideals of democracy and virtue. In fact, according to Hoffman, the revolutionary attraction Maximillien Robespierre claimed that virtue, without which terror is evil terror, without which virtue is helpless and that terror is nothing but justice, prompt, arch and inflexible it is therefore an emanation of virtue.30Terrorism at the start of the twentieth century retained the revolutionary connotations it had acquired during the French Revolution as it took aim on the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires. In the 1930s, the gist of terrorism mutated to describe activities of totalitarian governments and their leaders against their citizenry in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Stalinist Russia. For instance, in Germany and Italy, gangs of brown shirts or black shirts harassed and intimidated opponents, although leaders of these nations denied that this occurred. After World War II, the meaning of terrorism changed once again, move to its revolutionary connotations where it remains today. Terrorist activities in the 1940s and 1950s primarily cogitate on revolts by indigenous nationalist groups opposing colonial incur in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, resulting in independence for many countries. Although terrorism retained its revolutionary connotation in the 1960s and 1970s, the focus shifted from anti-colonialist to separatist goals. right away, terrorism involves broader, less distinct goals.31 The right-wing and left-wing terrorism that became widespread in recent times included acts by diverse groups such as the Italian Red Brigades the Irish Republican Army the Palestine arc Organisation the Shining Path in Peru the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka the Weatherman in the United evokes various militia organisations, also in the United democracys radical Muslims through Hamas and Al Quaeda radical Sikhs in India and the Aum Shinrikyo in Japan.32 Some governments, such as those in Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, are also considered to be involved in terrorism as sponsors of terrorist activities.33 Some people, such as American dissident Noam Chomsky, contend that the government of the United subjects is engaged in terrorism, as exemplified by the title of Chomskys 2001 article entitled U.S.A Leading Terrorist State, which appeared in the Monthly Review34.Terrorism associated with the French Revolution had two important characteristics in common with terrorism today. Firstly, terrorism was, and is today, organised, deliberate, and systematic. Secondly, the goals of terrorism then and now were and are to create a new, better society.35 But, terrorism today has changed in some v ery fundamental ways (1) terrorist organisations have evolved into network forms and are less often organised in hierarchies (2) the identities of transnational terrorist organisations are harder to identify because they claim responsibility for specific acts less often (3) todays terrorist groups do not make demands as often as in the past and their goals appear to be much blear and vague (4) motives have generally shifted from those that are to a greater extent than politically-oriented to those that are more religiously-oriented (5) targets of terrorists are more dispersed around the globe and (6) terrorist violence, today, is more indiscriminate, involving remarkable collateral damage to the public.36With this historical foundation, particularly the description of the evolution of terrorism into its current form, the focus now shifts to possible solutions to dealing with the issue today. doable Solutions to TerrorismTo in effect meet the challenges of terrorism, one should c onsider the history of terrorism, but must also look to the future. Kress and colleagues contend that terrorism is increasing in geographical scope, numerical frequency, and intensity as well as in ingenuity and subtlety. They suggest that these trends could well translate into more change threats and more powerful tools and weapons, adding that bombs will get smaller and more powerful, poisons and psychotropic drugs more insidious, psychological techniques for converting or brainwashing the victims more effective, and psychological tortures more agonizing.37Ian lesser offers a comprehensive approach for meeting the challenges of terrorism. His approach consists of a core strategy and supporting strategies aimed at targeting security threats posed by terrorists within a context of global security threats from all sources. lessers core strategy consists of four components (1) cut down systemic causes of terrorism, (2) deterring terrorists and their sponsors, (3) reducing risks ass ociated with superterrorism, and (4) retaliating in instances where deterrence fails. In reducing system causes of terrorism, lesser is referring to the semipermanent goal of addressing issues that give rise to terrorism such as social and economic problems, unresolved ethnic and nationalist conflicts, frustrated political ambitions, and in-person experiences of individuals who may become future terrorists. In deterring terrorists and their sponsors, Lesser suggests taking huge and personal actions against terrorist leadership, although he concedes that this is becoming more and more difficult as terrorists and their sponsors become more diverse and diffuse. In reducing risks associated with superterrorism, Lesser calls for eliminating weapons of softwood destruction that terrorists could use in inflicting destruction and suffering. And, finally, in retaliating when deterrence fails, Lesser suggests developing the means to retaliate quickly and specifically to terrorist activitie s.38One of Lessers strategies supporting his core strategy is environmental shaping, which involves exposing sponsors of terrorism to global scrutiny and isolation shrinking the zones of chaos and terrorist sanctuary including counterterrorism as an integral component of strategic alliances limiting global exposure and targeting terrorist networks and funding. His hedge strategy involves hardening key policies and strategies to limit risks of terrorism, increasing ground and space-based direction of terrorist resources, and preparing to mitigate the effects of terrorism to limit negative effects.39Kress and associates reiterate the first component of Lessers core strategy in pass their proactive approach to dealing with terrorism specifically, addressing genuine political inequity and resolving supposed injustices.40 Chalk contends that a state response to terrorism must be limited, well-defined and controlled to avoid compromising the political and civil traditions that are cen tral to the liberal democratic way of life. He suggests that any liberal democratic response to terrorism has to rest on one overriding maxim a commitment to uphold and keep open constitutional principles of law and order.41ConclusionThe long history of terrorism, dating as far back as ancient Greece, suggests that this phenomenon may never be eliminated as a tactic by those people or groups without sufficient formal legal power to achieve their goals. However, this does not incriminate that terrorism cannot be engaged proactively and reactively. Logically, it seems that the first step should be to agree on a universally-accepted definition for terrorism because, without a consensus on the meaning of the term, effectively addressing its causes and its effects may be difficult at outflank and impossible at worst.With a consensus definition in hand, the comprehensive strategy for dealing with terrorism proposed by Lesser reduction in systemic causes, deterrence, superterrorism ris k reduction, and retaliation would appear to offer the most balanced, effective approach. Todays leaders should realise that offensive and defensive military action, so typical of traditional warfare, is quite ineffective as a restore method for dealing with modern forms of terrorism as demonstrated by failures go through by Israel in dealing with the Palestinian terrorist problem and the greater-than-expected difficulties experienced by the United States, the United Kingdom, and others in ridding the world of radical Islamic terrorists. These efforts may not only fail to ultimately deal effectively with preventing terrorist activities, but may also produce more terrorists who are pained by military actions. Alternatively, a holistic approach one which includes proactive prevention and reactive punishment measures such as the approach advocated by Lesser should be employed.In any solution to the global problem of terrorism, the cautionary advice offered by Peter Chalk should b e considered that is, political and civil liberties should not be sacrificed in responding to the terrorist threat. For the very way of life the governments of free societies are trying to protect in their attempts to combat terrorism could be compromised by actions that are not limited, well-defined and controlled. Interestingly, this thought was eloquently proffered more than two centuries ago by American inventor, journalist, printer, and statesman Benjamin Franklin in warning that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.The recommendation, then, is to deal with terrorism in a holistic, balanced manner stressing proactive and reactive measures whilst preserving political and civil liberties.ReferencesBassiouni, M. Terrorism, lawfulness Enforcement and the Mass Media Perspectives, Problems, Proposals, The journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 721 (1981). Cited in Thackrah (2004).Bergesen, Albert J., and Han, Yi. New Directions for Terrorism Research. foreign ledger of Comparative Sociology 461-2 (2005).Bite, V. International Terrorism. conflicting Affairs Division, program library of Congress, Appendix of U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Washington, DC Government Printing Office, 1975. Cited in Thackrah (2004).Chalk, Peter. The Response to Terrorism as a Threat to Liberal body politic. The Australian Journal of Politics and History 443 (1998).Chomsky, N. U.S. A Leading Terrorist State. Monthly Review 53 (2001) 10-19. Cited in Bergesen and Han (2005).Enders, W., and Sandler, T. Patterns of international Terrorism, 1970 1999 Alternative Time-Series Estimates. International Studies Quarterly 46 (2002) 145-65. Cited in Bergesen and Han (2005).Fromkin, David. The Strategy of Terrorism. In contemporaneous Terrorism Selected Readings, backside D. Elliot and Leslie K. Gibson, eds. Gaithersburg, Maryland International draw of Chiefs of Police, 1978.Gray, Colin S . ripe Strategy. Oxford Oxford University Press, 1999.Heyman, P. B. Terrorism and America A sensible Strategy for a Democratic Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts The MIT Press, 1998. Cited in Thackrah (2004).Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. New York Columbia University Press, 1998.Jenkins, B. M. Terrorism and Beyond A 21st Century Perspective. Studies in strife and Terrorism 24 (2001) 321-27. Cited in Bergesen and Han. New Directions for Terrorism Research. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 461-2 (2005).Kress, Bruce, Livingston, Marius H., and Wanek, Marie G. International Terrorism in the coeval World. Westport, Connecticut Greenwood Press, 1978.Lesser, Ian. Countering the New Terrorism Implications for Strategy. In Countering the New Terrorism, Hoffman et al., eds. Santa Monica, atomic number 20 Rand, 1999.Mallin, Jay. Terrorism as a Military Weapon. In coetaneous Terrorism Selected Readings, John D. Elliot and Leslie K. Gibson, eds. Gaithersburg, Maryland Inter national Association of Chiefs of Police, 1978. Cited in Oots (1986).Oots, Kent Layne. semipolitical Organization approach path to Transnational Terrorism. New York Greenwood Press, 1986.Ruby, C. L. The Definition of Terrorism. Analyses of friendly Issues and Public Policy 2(1) (2002) 9-14. Cited in Bergesen and Han (2005).Terrorism Research Center, What is the Definition of Terrorism? (n.d.) lendable from http//www.terrorism.com. Accessed 29 November 2005.Thackrah, John Richard. mental lexicon of Terrorism. New York Routledge, 2004.The Columbia Encyclopaedia. Terrorism (2004).Townshend, Charles. Terrorism A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2002.Waciorsky, J. La Terrorisme Politique. Paris A Pedone, 1939. Cited in Thackrah (2004).Whittaker, David J. Terrorists and Terrorism in the Contemporary World. New York Routledge, 2004.Wilkinson, P. Terrorism versus majority rule The Liberal State Response. London Frank Cass, 2000. Cited in Thackrah (2004).Wilkinson , P. Three Questions on Terrorism, Government and Opposition 83 (1973). Cited in Thackrah (2004).1Footnotes1 Charles Townshend, Terrorism A Very Short Introduction (Oxford Oxford University Press, 2002).2 John Richard Thackrah, Dictionary of Terrorism (New York Routledge, 2004).3 Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (New York Columbia University Press, 1998), 14.4 Kent Layne Oots, Political Organization Approach to Transnational Terrorism (New York Greenwood Press, 1986).5 Terrorism Research Center, What is the Definition of Terrorism? (n.d.), Available from http//www.terrorism.com, Accessed 29 November 2005.6 Townshend (2002).7 Hoffman (1998).8 Hoffman (1998).9 Terrorism Research Center (n.d.).10 David J. Whittaker, Terrorists and Terrorism in the Contemporary World (New York Routledge, 2004).11 Townshend (2002).12 Thackrah (2004).13 David Fromkin, The Strategy of Terrorism, in Contemporary Terrorism Selected Readings, John D. Elliot and Leslie K. Gibson, eds. (Gaithersburg, Maryland In ternational Association of Chiefs of Police, 1978), cited in Oots (1986).14 V. Bite, International Terrorism, Foreign Affairs Division, Library of Congress, Appendix of U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Washington, DC Government Printing Office, 1975), cited in Thackrah (2004).15 P. B. Heyman, Terrorism and America A Commonsense Strategy for a Democratic Society (Cambridge, Massachusetts The MIT Press, 1998), cited in Thackrah (2004).16 M. Bassiouni, Terrorism, Law Enforcement and the Mass Media Perspectives, Problems, Proposals, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 721 (1981), cited in Thackrah (2004).17 P. Wilkinson, Three Questions on Terrorism, Government and Opposition 83 (1973), cited in Thackrah (2004).18 Jay Mallin, Terrorism as a Military Weapon, in Contemporary Terrorism Selected Readings, John D. Elliot and Leslie K. Gibson, eds. (Gaithersburg, Maryland International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1978), cited in Oots (1986).19 J. Waciorsky, La Te rrorisme Politique, (Paris A Pedone, 1939), cited in Thackrah (2004).20 P. Wilkinson, Terrorism versus Democracy The Liberal State Response (London Frank Cass, 2000), cited in Thackrah (2004).21 The Columbia Encyclopaedia, Terrorism (2004).22 N. Chomsky, U.S.A Leading Terrorist State, Monthly Review 53 (2001) 10-19, cited in Bergesen and Han (2005).23 C. L. Ruby, The Definition of Terrorism, Analyses of tender Issues and Public Policy 2(1) (2002) 9-14, cited in Bergesen and Han (2005).24 Whittaker (2004).25 B. M. Jenkins, Terrorism and Beyond A 21st Century Perspective, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24 (2001) 321-27, cited in Bergesen and Han, New Directions for Terrorism Research, International Journal of Comparative Sociology 461-2 (2005).26 W. Enders and T. Sandler, Patterns of Transnational Terrorism, 1970 1999 Alternative Time-Series Estimates, International Studies Quarterly 46 (2002) 145-65, cited in Bergesen and Han (2005).27 Colin S. Gray, Modern Strategy (Oxford Oxfo rd University Press, 1999).28 The Columbia Encyclopaedia (2004).29 Hoffman (1998).30 Hoffman (1998).31 Hoffman (1998).32 The Columbia Encyclopaedia (2004).33 Hoffman (1998).34 N. Chomsky, U.S.A Leading Terrorist State, Monthly Review 53 (2001), cited in Bergesen and Han (2005).35 Hoffman (1998).36 Albert J. Bergesen and Yi Han, New Directions for Terrorism Research, International Journal of Comparative Sociology 461-2 (2005).37 Bruce Kress, Marius H. Livingston, and Marie G. Wanek, International Terrorism in the Contemporary World (Westport, Connecticut Greenwood Press, 1978).38 Ian Lesser, Countering the New Terrorism Implications for Strategy, in Hoffman et al., Countering the New Terrorism (Santa Monica, California Rand, 1999).39 Lesser (1999).40 Kress, Livingston, and Wanek (1978).41 Peter Chalk, The Response to Terrorism as a Threat to Liberal Democracy, The Australian Journal of Politics and History 443 (1998).