Free Essays

‘Old’ and ‘New’ terrorism: the changing face of terror


The concept of terrorism is one of the most controversial terms in international relations and the political arena (Koufa, 2001:8). The problem of defining the term ‘terrorism’ is well recognized and has been examined widely (Malik, 2001:881-893; Dedeoglu, 2003:81-110; Schmid, 2004:197-221; Ganor, 2002:287-304).Since it is associated with violence in the context of political goals, it is not only difficult to define terrorism but also to distinguish it from other similar forms of crime and guerrilla warfare. Also, the well-known phrase ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’, is often used to emphasize the problem of inferring a moral ruling when classifying a particular act as ‘terrorism’. If one relates with the victim of the attack, then it is conceived as terrorism, but if one can relate with the attacker it is not (Jenkins, 1980:10).A definition that is extensively recognized is still lacking. Some scholars such as Walter Laqueur even reason that “a comprehensive definition of terrorism…does not exist nor will it be found in the foreseeable future” (1977:5).Others have writhed on in their quest for an all-encompassing explanation (Simon, 1994:29; Schmid & Jongman, 1988:28; Weinberg et al, 2004:786).

Whatever explanation of terrorism one might embrace, numerous government analysts, politicians and scholars assert that ‘terrorism’ has changed since the mid-1990s into an integrally new form with new features. They have enunciated the conception of ‘new terrorism’, which includes different actors, aims, tactics, actions and motivations, in contrast to the ‘old’ or ‘traditional’ conception of terrorism employed in the mid-20th century (Laqueur, 1999; Lesser et al, 1999; Aubrey, 2004). Since the 9/11, this ‘new’ type of terrorism has greatly gained in eminence and without uncertainty has become a dominant issue throughout the world. Prior to 9/11, some of the most famed terrorism specialists such as Laqueur, Carter, Deutch and Zelikow argued for the being of a ‘new terrorism’ and insinuated the concepts ‘postmodern’ (Laqueur, 1996:24-36)and ‘catastrophic’ (Carter et al, 1999:80-94) terrorism. Since then, Laqueur suggests “there has been a radical transformation, if not a revolution, in the character of terrorism” (1999:4).Bruce Hoffman opines that the ‘new terrorist’ “represents a very different and potentially far more lethal threat than the more familiar ‘traditional’ terrorist groups” (1998:200).

The aim of this paper is not to contest the instituted physiognomies of terrorism today, but to argue that numerous trends fundamental to ‘new terrorism’ can be ascertained in terrorism years ago, establishing that there is not a plausible distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ terrorism. The paper will firstly begin with some of the features of the distinct types of more ‘old terrorism’. Subsequently, it will reflect some of the characteristics that have been accredited to ‘new terrorism’. The next section interrogates the supposed, nearly, dichotomous association between ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorism, through an analysis of terrorist motives, tactics, and organizational structures and global characteristic of terrorism, upholding that there is far less ‘new’ that meets the eye. The final section summarises the key findings and derives tentative conclusions.


Terrorism as a mode of political ferocity is by no means a brand new phenomenon. One of the earliest known groups quoted in the writings are the ‘Sicarii’, a Zealot religious group, anti the Roman decree in Palestine between AD 66-73 (Waldmann 1998:99-103).During the Middle Ages, a religious sect of Nizari and Ismailis called ‘Assassins’ writhed opposite the empire of Saladin, and in the 16th century small ‘terrorist’ groups in Albania and other regions battled the militaries of the Ottoman Empire. The word ‘terror’ was first used in 1795 as a strategy to defend the friable government of the French Republic from counter-revolutionaries (Sinclair, 2003; Anderson & Sloan, 2003; Carr, 2002). From around the mid-19th century to World War I anarchists and revolutionaries used bombings and assassinations as recurrent weapons in their brawl against autocracy. After World War II, terrorism became an imperative part of the anti-colonial struggles. As Wilkinson states, this has an important connotation as it has been “the only clear cases in contemporary history where sub-state groups using terror as their main weapon were able to attain their long-term political objectives, i.e., the departure of the colonial power and instituting of a form of government preferred by the insurgents” (1992:230).Although, it is arguable that to what level terrorism underwrote to de-colonisation, it without qualm did result in the retreat of the colonial powers combined with a range of other reasons.

Many scholars have contended that the phase between the late 1960s and 1980s is discernable by ‘old terrorism’, which can be coarsely divided into different forms of terrorism such as right and left wing as well as ethno-national separatist terrorism. However, in reality several of these ‘traditional’ terrorist organizations were a mixture of these different types with precise features, it is argued that they all had some common characteristics (Enders & Sandler, 2000:310).For one, they are classified to have primarily secular motivations and a rational political cause for their acts of terrorism (Ramakrishna & Tan, 2002:6).For example, left-wing terrorist groups intended to use violence to politicise the working class masses and get them to upsurge against the capitalist system. While ethno-nationalist terrorist sought either independence for their ethnic faction, in the form of a partition of their terrain from another country, the formation of their own sovereign nation state, or the union with another state. Even where requests were difficult to meet, such as the creation of an ethno-national homeland or the reunification of a divided country, in many situations there seemed to be a scope for dialogue or negotiation (Guelke, 1998:52-70).Therefore, their precise wants were often rationally negotiable. For example, when they desired money in exchange for the freeing of hostages in a hijacking or the freedom of certain jailed comrades.

Related to this, it is supposed that violence by ‘traditional terrorists’, in broad, was “targeted and proportionate in strength and scope to the practical political objectives being trailed” (Simon & Benjamin, 2000:65).Thus, by maintaining the level of casualties low, terrorists “preserved their eligibility for a place at the bargaining table and, ultimately, a role in successor governments” (Simon & Benjamin, 2000:66).‘Old terrorism’ was seen to be discriminate, with terrorist groups choosing their targets very prudently (Horchem, 1986:213). Targeted attacks were usually directed at well-defined highly symbolic objects of the authority they contested. This could include government officials, members of the aristocracy, leading politicians, banking or military sector or other symbolic targets like government buildings. They tried to use their acts as a means of propaganda to enhance their popular support (Laqueur, 2003:99).Terrorists wanted utmost publicity for their actions, playing for an audience and diffuse their ideological lesson. Brian Jenkins distinctively notes that “terrorism is theatre” and that terrorist attacks were often manoeuvred for the media (1975:16).An incident was nearly always trailed by a communique taking glory for the act, laying out desires, or elucidating why it was carried out against that precise target. The precision violence was generally committed with conventional strategies such as machine guns, hand-held guns, as well as bombs. They exhibited little appeal to non-conventional weapons such as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and new tactics (Hirschmann, 2002:39).In general, the ‘old’ terrorists tried not to root innocent fatalities as this would distance the populace and go against their goal of provoking a popular uprising. In some cases they even conveyed grief for the accidental demise of someone in the attack.

A further widely recognised attribute of ‘old terrorism’ is the relationship with state sponsorship or support (Kidder, 1986).This clandestine connection of states with terrorists groups varied broadly with often only little certifiable data proving an association. It was seen as an inexpensive way of striking and damaging another country without instigating a full-scale war. Within the Cold War structure, terrorists often became substitutions for both middle powers and superpowers (Combs, 2000:66-86). Finally, it is highlighted that ‘old terrorism’ has a clear hierarchical organisation with justly well-defined control and command structures. However, it is impossible to evidently delineate the different layers. James Fraser contends that ‘old terrorism’ is organised like a pyramid, with the headship, who regulate the overall policy and plans, at the top. This is ensued by a larger layer of active terrorists who carry out the strikes and are often experts in certain conducts such as assassination, surveillance or bomb-making. On the subsequent level there are the active supporters who stream intelligence, supplies, weapons, communications, safe houses and transportation. The bottom layer have the passive supporters who approve with the objectives of the terrorist organisation and diffuse their ideas and convey their emotional support (2001:17). Thus, state sponsorship and hierarchical structure have been associated with ‘old terrorism’.


Though it is problematic to say when and where ‘new terrorism’ precisely started, many point to the mid-1990s, and the bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York city in the 1993 as well as the sarin gas attack by the Aum Shinrikyo cult at the Tokyo underground in 1995 (Simon and Benjamin, 2000:59). It is said that ‘new terrorism’ has a diverse set of new characteristics in contrast to the ‘old terrorism’ discussed above.

Many patrons of the concept of ‘new terrorism’ observe the eminence of religion, essentially radical Islam, as one of its key features (Juergensmeyer, 2000:332).Whereas ‘old terrorism’ was largely secular in its inspiration and orientation, terrorism related to religious fanaticism is on the rise. As per Nadine Gurr and Benjamin Cole, only 2 out of 64 international terrorist organisations in 1980 could be categorized as religious. This number has climbed sharply to 25 out of 58 by 1995 (2000:28-29).Bruce Hoffman supposes that this religious impetus is the outlining characteristic of ‘new terrorism’ which creates “radically different value systems, mechanisms of legitimisation and justification, concepts of morality, and world view” (1998:87).Related to the religious drive and obscurely defined political demands, many in the ‘new terrorism’ supporters indicate that another of the key features of ‘new terrorism’ is the rising willingness to use excessive indiscriminate ferocity to advance their cause (Laqueur, 1999:81; Laqueur, 2003:9). Hoffman, for example, underlines that these groups have caused 60% of all causalities while only being responsible for 1/4th of the terrorist acts (1995:271-284).It has been contended that “for the religious terrorist, violence is a divine duty…executed in direct response to some theological demand…and justified by scripture” (Hoffman, 1998:20).As Audrey Cronin notes, religious terrorists perceive their brawl as good against evil, therefore brutalizing their victims and considering non-members of their group to be apostates or infidels (2002/2003:41).As a result unselective violence may not be only ethically tolerable, but quantity to a necessary and righteous progression of their religious reason in contrast to selected targeting by ‘old terrorists’.

Religious terrorists are oftentimes their own expanse, not perturbed about estranging their followers with their acts of devastation, and holding themselves liable only to God (Hoffman, 1995:273).For comparable reasons ‘new terrorists’ do not always avow and sometimes even repudiate responsibility for their acts (Whine, 2002:4).They are not willing to engage in any sort of negotiation. “Today’s terrorists don’t want a seat at the table, they want to destroy the table and everyone sitting at it” (Morgan, 2004:30-31).Moreover, Walter Enders and Todd Sandler highlight that ‘new terrorists’ are a lot more disposed to give their own life while orchestrating a terrorist act, as martyrdom is seen as a mode of attaining heaven (2000:311). Whereas most acts by ‘old terrorists’ covered of a getaway plan, ‘new terrorists’ seem keener to indulge in precarious and more convoluted acts.

The danger of mass destruction at the hands of terrorists is a vital part of the concept of ‘new terrorism’. Many theorists suppose that due to their drive to use intemperate violence, the ‘new terrorists’ are expected to try to obtain and use biological, radiological, chemical and nuclear WMDs (Stern, 2003:158-160, Hoffman, 1998:197).With the fall of the Soviet Union procuring material which could be used for producing WMDs or even purchasing a complete WMD has become easier and doesn’t require the cooperation of a state sponsor anymore (Falkenrath et al, 1998:167-169; Gurr & Cole, 2000:12).Another of the features of ‘new’ terrorism is specifically this intrinsic paucity of state backers. Some consider that the willingness to use extreme violence displays that ‘new terrorists’ don’t have a state sponsor or organisation to guard, so they see no cause to bound their violence as they do not fear a riposte (Tucker, 2001:3).Therefore, the financing of ‘new terrorism’ is not built on money obtained from state sponsors, but on other illegal means such as video piracy, credit card fraud, and drug trafficking, as well as legal business investments, donations from charities, wealthy individuals and diaspora (Raphaeli, 2003:59-62).In addition to this, ‘new terrorists’ are viewed as primarily amateurs that function on a part time basis and have not dropped out of society completely. The new amateur terrorists only come together to execute their act and then disperse. They principally do not receive logistical support or training from state sponsors but depend on the information on the internet and the network of supporters (Tsfati & Weimann, 2002:317).Though ‘new terrorists’ might be part-time amateurs they display a greater degree of operational and technological capability. They use a huge range of communication equipment including satellite and mobile phones as well as web-sites and email to communicate with other terrorist groups, plot their subsequent terrorist acts, recruitment, do fund-raising, disinformation, data mining, and publicize and spread their message around the world (O’Brien, 2003:192-93).Furthermore, ‘new terrorism’ also utilizes the surge in intercontinental flight connections and the incompetent immigration and customs control in many countries to move around the world (Wilkinson, 1992:232).

Finally, one of the most accentuated characteristics of ‘new terrorism’ is the less hierarchical and loose networked organisational structure. Some authors suppose that the amateur terrorist is an indicator of a new network structure that is abetted by the advent of new advanced telecommunications technology. Every group within this network becomes rather autonomous but is still connected by progressive communication and their common aim. They thus become a lot more flexible and can react and adapt more simply to altered situations. Nonetheless, members do communicate with their headship, groups can, to a certain level, function self-sufficiently (Gunaratna, 2002:52-75).Simon and Benjamin denote to this as a blend of “a ‘hub and spoke’ structure (where nodes communicate with the centre) with a ‘wheel’ structure (where nodes in the network communicate with each other without reference to the centre)” (2000:70).Arquilla, Ronfeldt and Zanini observe that terrorist headship is derived from a “set of principle that can set boundaries and provide guidelines for decisions and actions so that members do not have to resort to a hierarchy – they know what they have to do”. The authors define the organizational structure that may “sometimes appear acephalous (headless), and at the other times polycephalous (Hydra-headed)” (Arquilla et al, 1999:51).This form of incorporated structure is a lot more challenging to detect and pervade than a more ‘traditional’ hierarchical structure. It is far more robust because each cell can continue to function even if they lose the headship of the organisation.


Many writers such as Copeland (2001), Duyvesteyn (2004) and Tucker (2001) qualm the cogency of the term ‘new terrorism’ and some make comparisons between antecedents in history and recent terrorist acts. For instance John Gray observes the parallels between today’s terrorism executed by Al Qaeda and Russian anarchist terrorists in the late 19th century (2002:50).Niall Ferguson also notes some of the similarity of the two, including the political religion of their ideologies, the transnational nature of both sets of terrorists who oftentimes planned attacks and lived abroad, as well as the likeness of political economic situation in the world at the end of the 19th and 20th century (2001:115-141).Probing the individual features of ‘new terrorism’ in more depth does brings about questions about the legitimacy of the concept.

a) Motives: Religious or Political?

As mentioned above, advocates of the ‘new terrorism’ concept contend that the impetuses of terrorists are altering and indicate the progress of religious fundamentalism. Bruce Hoffman states that “the religious imperative for terrorism is the most imperative characteristic of terrorist activity today” (1998:87).Historically, religious terrorism is by no means a new occurrence. David Rapaport states that from the 1st century zealots to the 13th century assassins and even up to the 19th century and the emergence of political aims such as national, anarchism and Marxism, “religion provided the only acceptable justification for terror” (1984:659).Therefore, this is not so much a new feature but more a cyclic return to former and maybe forgotten impetuses for terrorism, “with echoes of the behaviour of ‘sacred’ terrorists such as the Zealots-Sicarii clearly apparent in the terrorist activities of organizations such as Al Qaeda and its associated groups” (Cronin, 2002/2003:38). In addition to this fact, one should note that many ‘old’ terrorist organisations also had close ties with and were partly driven by religion (Hoffman, 1998/1999:13-14). The most flagrant examples being the IRA with its primarily catholic association, the Ulster Volunteer Force or Protestant Ulster Freedom Fighters, in Algeria the principally Muslim FLN, in Cyprus the EOKA which was inspired partly by the Orthodox Greek Church and the terrorist group Irgun, that was Jewish.

In relation to this, it is imperative to identify that although the acts of Islamist terrorist groups are religiously driven they still bear a certain political agenda. When probing the goals and demands of Al Qaeda’s (Neumann, 2009:42-44) or other ‘new terrorists’ linked with them, it becomes obvious that many of them represent clear political targets. For example, the spread of political Islam, the creation of a worldwide pan-Islamic Caliphate, the overthrow of the existing governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the withdrawal of foreign influence from the holy lands and the riddance of Israel (Jacquard, 2001:329-333).In reality it is very hard, if not impossible, to distinguish between political and religious motives. “Were the Jewish terrorists in British Palestine fighting for religion or against colonialismDo the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) want their own homeland because they are Hindus in a Muslim nation or because they are Tamils in a Sinhalese country?” (Quillen, 2002:288).Furthermore, Chris Quillen perceives that ascribing religious motives to individual terrorist strikes is subjective and open to analysis. He mentions the instance of the Oklahoma City bombing which one might construe as an act inspired by Timothy McVeigh’s dedication to the Christian Identity movement or as a retort of a political terrorist to oppose the bloody federal raids at Ruby Ridge and Waco and gun control measures (2002:287). Thus contrasting between ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorism based on political or religious motives seems to be distorted.

b) Tactics:

Now, the paper discusses the number of casualties, media attention and the importance of public opinion, proliferation of technology and the internet, use of WMDs and nuclear terrorism, and state sponsorship to further bring out the presumed disjunction created between ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorism.

Proponents of the concept of ‘new terrorism’ have claimed that terrorists have turned more lethal and disposed to use unlimited force to source large numbers of fatalities indiscriminately. In their opinion, ‘traditional’ terrorist were more controlled in their use of ferocity and the amount of dead they intended to produce (Laqueur, 2001:71-82).However, one could reason, that indiscriminate mass casualty strikes have long been a feature of terrorism. Examples of ‘old terrorists’ causing many casualties include the concurrent truck bombings of French and US barracks in Lebanon in 1983, which slayed a total of 367 people, the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, which killed 270, and the bombing of an Air India flight in 1985 by Sikh terrorists which took the life of 329 (Pettiford & Harding, 2003:106-146).It is true that none of these can equate to the fatalities produced by the 9/11 attacks, however, the term ‘new terrorism’ was issued long before 2001. When probing the data on international terrorism occurrences, one finds that while the total of terrorist incidences has generally dropped from the mid-1980s, the number of casualties per incident has risen since the 1980s (MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, 2005). Considering that ‘new terrorism’ is supposed to have started in the 1990s, this rise of casualties might not be directly related to the phenomenon of ‘new terrorism’ (Duyvesteyn, 2004:448). One might be able to contend that the rise of fatalities is partly due to better technology (Enders and Sandler, 2000:311). Explosives, remote control devices and timing have been significantly bettered and must have an effect on the numbers of fatalities.

Furthermore, it is imperative to note that governments have constantly adjusted to terrorist practices such as hostage taking, kidnapping, assassinations, hijacking and sabotage by securing embassies, providing security at airports, training specialist commando troops, guarding targets likely to be kidnapped and sharing intelligence with other states. In reaction to this, terrorists have attuned their approaches since the 1980s by placing more stress on hit and run tactics like coordinated bombing. While it is becoming increasingly tough for terrorists to get near to their traditional targets they have to find other means of commandeering the media’s interest. Using more remarkable coordinated violent strategies is one way of attaining greater media attention (Wilkinson, 2000:174-186).Some writers such as Thomas Copeland assert that “they do not need to make public statements taking credit for an attack because their constituency is already aware of the actors and their cause” (2001:101).Nevertheless, they may aim at an internal audience, several of the tape and video recordings of Osama bin Laden indicate his interest in remaining in the public eye (Spencer, 2006:17). Thus, it seems that ‘new terrorists’ are still intent in getting notice and credit of their cause.

Academics like Ray Takeyh (2001) contend that public opinion does still play a crucial role in ‘new terrorism’. An example can be gotten in the Al-Jama Al-Islamiyya strike on the Temple of Hatshepsut in Luxor, which took the life of 58 tourists and 4 Egyptians in 1997. The attack was extensively denounced not only by western governments but also by many radical Islamists who saw the attack as marring their foundation. The support for Al-Jama Al-Islamiyya dropped significantly in Egypt as a result of the attack (Takeyh, 2001:97-102).This is mainly true when one considers the terrorists political schema mentioned above, such as the establishing of an Islamic state, which will confine terrorists as they have to be cautious not to alienate their sympathisers and supporters by use of excessive violence. Although, they view their violence as legitimised by God they are still reliant on some public support for finance and recruitment (Tucker, 2001:6).The proclamation by Brian Jenkins that “terrorism is theatre” (1975:16), regarded by many propositioning the concept of ‘new terrorism’ as invalid, still operates to some level. It is hard to think of a more dramatic and symbolically theatrical strike than the attacks of 9/11. Terrorists still want many people viewing, and one has to apprehend that the more synchronized, larger and dramatic the attack, the larger the audience is going to be. Therefore, the rising level of causalities can be seen as an on-going process (Munkler, 2002:187), which doesn’t essentially denote a unique feature characterizing the concept of ‘new terrorism’.

Many have also reasoned, that the accessibility of information to terrorists on the internet as well as the proliferation of technology useful are dangerous new trends which have backed the emergence of ‘new terrorism’ (Hoffman, 1997).However, the obtainability of information is debatably nothing new. Advice on bomb-making and terrorist strategies has been accessible in handbook and newsletters since at least the turn of the century (Gearson, 2002:15). One of the most well-known is the Anarchist Cookbook printed during the 1960s.

Furthermore, the conceivable employment of WMDs as a feature of ‘new terrorism’ is contentious. The instance of the sarin gas attack by Aum Shinirikyo on the underground in Tokyo in 1995 is oftentimes used to make the association between WMDs and ‘new terrorism’. However, there is proof that there have been attempts and plans by terrorists to use WMD for numerous decades. For example, in Europe the discovery of considerable quantities of organophosphorous compounds and botulinal toxin, used to create nerve gas, in safe houses in Germany and France belonging to the Red Army Faction (RAF) in the 1980s (Barnaby, 2002:58-59).In addition, the LTTE and the PKK, both cases of ‘old terrorists’, are supposed to have used chemical weapons. In 1992, the PKK poisoned water tanks with a lethal dose of cyanide of the Turkish air force close to Istanbul, and in 1990, the LTTE struck with chlorine gas a Sri Lankan military camp (Cameron, 2004:81).Hoffman, while referring to the RAND – St. Andrew’s University Chronology of International Terrorist Incidents, observes that since 1968, 60terrorist occurrences involved attempts or plans to use WMDs (1998:198).

Apart from chemical and biological WMDs, the danger of nuclear terrorism has also been related to the conception of ‘new terrorism’ as was said earlier on in the paper. So far there have been no strikes with nuclear WMDs by terrorists and the utmost overwhelming terrorist attacks have engaged conventional explosives, bombs and most eminently box cutters. Authors like David Claridge contend that authorities have portentously magnified the threat of terrorists using WMDs to an alarming level wasting huge extents of resources (1999:144-148).Therefore, one should be aware of the danger of centring on “what-ifs” (Jenkins, 1999:x).Yet, it should also be noted that there have been many attacks on nuclear power stations during the 1970s and 1980s, though not like blasting a purpose built nuclear bomb. One of the first happened in 1973 when a left-wing Argentinean group commando entered the construction site of the Atucha atomic power station north of Buenos Aires. In 1976, bombs were flung at an atomic power plant in Britanny, France but the nuclear reactor was not harmed. During the subsequent years, ETA lead many attacks against the Lemoniz nuclear power station near Bilbao in Spain (Laqueur, 1999:72).Nevertheless, it was not established whether these groups intended at instigating a nuclear contamination or explosion, these events show that even ‘old terrorists’ were disposed to cross the nuclear line (Spencer, 2006:20). The same can be said about suicide terrorism which is often comprised in the account of the fanatical nature of ‘new terrorism’ and repeatedly linked with Islamic fundamentalism. However, Schweitzer (2001)notes that the LTTE since 1983 have involved in more terrorist suicide attacks than all other terrorist organisations together (168 out of 270 from 1980 to 2000). Even preceding this, during the Middle Ages, the use of daggers at close range by the Assassins, exhibited “a willingness to die in pursuit of their mission” (Gearson, 2002:14). It therefore seems that the threat of WMDs and suicide terrorism have existed during the period of ‘old terrorism’ and are not distinctly defining features of ‘new terrorism’.

One of the other opinions stated above is that ‘new terrorists’ have converted to autonomous non-state actors. Some claim that due to the prospects of globalisation terrorists today have easily branched out their incomes via other illegal means (Copeland, 2001:99).Others believe that the example of Al Qaeda procuring training camps, bases and sanctuary in Afghanistan displays that state connections are still pertinent (Freedman, 2002:38).Following the tumble of the Taliban in Afghanistan, proof of state sponsorship of terrorism is more hard to find. However, apart from the renowned ‘axis of evil’ branded by President Bush, some analysts remain persuaded that there are surreptitious links or associations between terrorism and some states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (Strohl, 2003:89).So far, corroborating or refuting these associations remains difficult. Furthermore, the question of what institutes state sponsorship remains unanswered. Supporting terrorists factions in the form of weapons, training, money or bases for function and existence seems to easily characterize as sponsoring terrorism.

c) Organisational Structure and Global Characteristic of Terrorism:

One of the main differences posited by the supporters of ‘new terrorism’ between ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorists is their type of organisation. Whereas ‘old terrorism’ was structured along hierarchical lines with a command structure that is clear and strong, ‘new terrorism’ is seen as more feebly organised, a loose network and without a strong command construct. However, the network structure perceived in ‘new terrorism’ is actually not a new occurrence in terrorism and the newness of the loose network structure linked with ‘new terrorism’ is contentious. For instance, more than a century ago the movement by anarchist, liable for a number of high profile strikes against heads of state and often denoted to as Black International or Anarchist, operational mainly in France and Russia, ensued a parallel strategy of violence carried out by largely unconnected cells of like-minded radicals, loosely networked (Hoffman, 2001:426).Diverse forms of network assemblies can be also seen in ‘old’ terrorist organisations. For example, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) can be perceived as an umbrella cluster where the principal faction, Fatah, did not have a monopoly of power. The distinct factions within the PLO where justly independent and had diverse policies and strategies (Cobban, 1981:140).At the same time one could count Hezbollah as an umbrella establishment of radical Shiite groups, where the relationship amongst members is erratic and doesn’t follow strict lines of control (Ranstorp, 1994:304).Again, others indicate that network structures also subsisted in left-wing revolutionary groups (Tucker, 2001:4) such as the RAF where 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation of terrorists’ didn’t actually form a hierarchical structure but rather a network with parallel common objectives.

In the similar fashion as there are network organizations in ‘old terrorism’, there exist clear features in ‘new terrorist’ groups such as Al Qaeda of hierarchical command constructs. They do hold a clear leadership, functioning units piloting the attacks, also the “expertise units directly beneath the top headship level” who are liable for concerns such as finances, recruitment, procurement and public relations (Mayntz, 2004:11-12).This further blurs the boundary so created between ‘old’ and ‘new’ terrorism based on the form of organization. At the same time terrorist organisations have diverse types of members counting core members or professional terrorists, part-time terrorists or amateurs, who also lead a normal life outside of the organisation, as well as less closely linked followers (Spencer, 2006:24). These diverse types of members exist in both ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorism to a mutable grade.

The new global or international feature of terrorism is also contentious. Even though, there are clearly diverse types of international cooperation and action, Albert J. Bergesen and Omar Lizardo emphasize that “while the current period is known as one of ‘global terrorism’, there are clear grounds for viewing the anarchist period as one that also had international features” since during that time as well “terrorism arose in diverse parts of the world and convoluted crossing national borders for several attacks” (2004:45).They point to numerous examples such as the murder of the prime minister of Spain in 1892 by the Italian Angiolillo, the deadly stabbing of Empress Elizabeth of Austria in 1898 by the Italian Luigi Luccheni and the killing of the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914 by the Bosnian Serb Princip. Throughout history, terrorist have gotten backing from foreign rulers (Rapoport, 1984:673) or wealthy individuals from other countries.

It is well recognized that international collaboration subsisted between many of the ‘traditional’ terrorist organisations such as the Red Brigades, Action Directe, RAF, PLO, IRA and PFLP. Whilst this primarily took the form of extending a safe-haven abroad or joint training, there are also instances of international teamwork in direct terrorist attacks. A Palestinian organization, in 1977, hijacked an airplane, which landed in Somalia and demanded to the government of Germany for the freedom of RAF comrades from German prison. In the consequent raiding of the airline by the GSG9 Special Forces many of the Palestinian captors were slayed. Some terrorists of German origin from the Movement 2 June, the Revolutionary Cells and the RAF took part in main Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) manoeuvres and operations masterminded by Carlos the Jackal (Ilich Ramirez Sanchez) on board of the PFLP. These attacks comprised the capture of the OPEC headquarter in Vienna in 1975, the strived bombing of an El-Al flight in Paris and the strived hijacking of an El Al flight in Nairobi in January 1975, as well as the capture of an Air France flight to Uganda in June 1976 (Karmon, 1999:71-94).Although one might contend that this type of cooperation is not precisely the same kind of collaboration seen in terrorism today. It does weaken the dispute of a ‘new’ global or international terrorism, as most literature propositioning the term does not distinguish amongst forms of international cooperation.


To summarize, this paper tried to argue that there is not a plausible distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ terrorism. In so doing, the paper sought to highlight, some of the features of the diverse forms of ‘old terrorism’. Next, the paper focused on the characteristics that have been attributed to ‘new terrorism’. Lastly, the paper examined the relationship between ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorism, through an analysis of terrorist tactics, motives, and organizational structures and characteristic of terrorism, corroborating that a credible dissimilarity between ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorism does not really exist, and that the phenomenon we are facing today reminds us of an old wine in a new bottle.

As this paper elucidated, there are several significant continuousness between the ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorism, which primarily question the difference that is inferred by the use of the two terms. Continuance exists in transnational links, territorial focus, and network structures, which feature both the old forms of terrorism and the new. The overlap between significant aims that the terrorist organisations set themselves also institutes continuity. Religious, ideological, and political themes strongly overlap, making clear goal-oriented distinctions problematic, if not impossible. Continuity further subsists in the rise in number and scale of victims, which has been taking place over a number of years and is not just a new occurrence. The use of WMDs might be a hazard in the future, and we must be well conscious of this, but it does not form an intrinsic feature of the ‘new terrorism’. The ‘new terrorists’ do not vary essentially from their lineages in the type of weaponry they use. Surprise, publicity and provocation are what the terrorists are trying to seek continuum exists here as well. State support or sponsorship is still part of present day terrorism, though it might be lesser due to financial motives, take a slightly varied form and be less obvious. Finally, even though networks have grown in eminence, network and hierarchical organisational constructs are found in both ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorism.

Without uncertainty, terrorism has progressed and altered over time, as groups learn from their own involvements and those of others and largely due to procedures linked with globalization such as progresses in communications, aperture to weapons and explosives, and unhindered individual mobility. Evolution does not validate the term ‘new terrorism’, making artificial divisions, with perpetual rise and fall of many diverse aspects of terrorisms in an ever evolutionary and progressive world. In sum, a closer view of the organizational structures, methods and objectives of what is said to be ‘new’ and ‘old’ terrorism discloses many similarities rather than fixed differences. It cannot really be said that there are two major sorts of terrorism.

As a final thought, one must consider the association between several of the features of ‘new terrorism’ previously discussed and the present counterterrorism measures planned and applied since 9/11. Several of the policies can be straightaway credited to some of the supposed characteristics of ‘new terrorism’, intensifying the ability of terrorists to inflict genuine mass destruction or wreak widespread casualties. For example, the annexation of Iraq, that was considered to have WMDs. With ‘new terrorism’ being employed to shield several new counterterrorism measures, it is vital to carry out a longitudinal study to evade the risk of missing where the real hazard lies, with a proper historical and structured exploration, that integrates several variables that are crucial for the understanding of the occurrence, among others, the actors, the instruments they use, their organizational structure, the effects they manage to achieve, and the measures that are taken against them.


Anderson, Sean K. & Stephen Sloan. (2003), Terrorism: Assassins to Zealots, (Lanham: Scarecrow Press)

Arquilla, John, David Ronfeldt & Michele Zanini. (1999), “Networks, Netwar, and Information-Age Terrorism”, in Lesser, Ian O., Bruce Hoffman, John Arquilla, David F. Ronfeldt, Michele Zanini & Brian M. Jenkins. , Countering the New Terrorism, (Santa Monica: RAND),pp. 39-84.

Aubrey, Stefan M. ( 2004), The New Dimension of International Terrorism, (Zurich: Vdf Hochschulverlag).

Barnaby, Wendey. (2002), Biowaffen – Die unsichtbare Gefahr, (Munchen: Wilhelm GoldmannVerlag).

Bergesen, Albert J. and Omar Lizardo. (2004), “International Terrorism and the World-System”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No.1, pp.38-52.

Cameron, Gavin. (2004), “Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism Research: Past and Future”, in Andrew Silke (ed.), Research on Terrorism-Trends, Achievement and Failures, (London: Frank Cass), pp. 72-90.

Carr, Celeb. (2002), The Lessons of Terror – A History of Warfare against Civilians, (New York: Random House).

Carter, Ashton B., John Deutch & Philip Zelikow. (1999), “Catastrophic Terrorism”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 6, pp. 80-94.

Claridge, David. (1999), “Exploring the Myths of Superterrorism”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 11, No. 4, (1999), pp.133-148.

Cobban, Helen. (1981), The Palestinian Liberation Organisation, People, Power and Politics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Combs, Cindy C. (2000), Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, 2nd Edition, (London: Prentice-Hall)

Copeland, Thomas. (2001), “Is the ‘New Terrorism’ Really New?: An Analysis of the New Paradigm for Terrorism,” The Journal of Conflict Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Winter), pp. 91-105.

Crenshaw, Martha. (2009), “The Debate over ‘New’ vs. ‘Old’ Terrorism,” Values and Violence: Intangible Aspects of Terrorism, Studies in Global Justice Vol. 4, ed. Ibrahim A. Karawan, Wayne McCormack, and Stephen E. Reynolds. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp.117-135.

Cronin, Audrey K. (2003), “Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism”, International Security, Vol. 27, No.3 (Winter 2002/2003), pp. 30-58.

Dedeoglu, Beril. (2003), “Bermuda Triangle: Comparing Official Definitions of Terrorist Activity”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 81-110.

Duyvesteyn, Isabelle. (2004), “How New is the New Terrorism?” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 439–454.

Enders, Walter & Todd Sandler. (2000), “Is Transnational Terrorism Becoming More ThreateningA Time-Series Investigation”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 307–332.

Falkenrath, Richard A., Robert D. Newman, and Bradley A. Thayer. (1998), America’s Achilles’ heel: nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism and covert attack, (Cambridge: MIT)

Fraser, James cited in Harry Henderson. (2001), Global Terrorism – The Complete Reference Guide, (New York: Checkmark Books).

Freedman, Lawrence. (2002), “A New Type of War”, in Ken Booth & Tim Dunne, World in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillen) , pp. 37-47.

Furguson, Niall. (2001), “Clashing Civilizations or Mad Mullahs: The United States between Formal and Informal Empire”, in Strobe Talbott & Nayan Chanda (eds.), The Age of Terror: America and the World after September 11, (New York: Basic Books), pp. 115-141.

Ganor, Boaz. (2002), “Defining Terrorism: Is one Man’s Terrorist another Man’s Freedom Fighter?”, Police Practice and Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 287-304.

Gearson, John. (2002), “The Nature of Modern Terrorism”, in Lawrence Freedman (ed.), Superterrorism – Policy Responses, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), pp. 7-24.

Gray, John. (2002), “Why Terrorism is Unbeatable”, in New Statesman, (February 25), Vol.131, No. 4575, pp. 50-54.

Guelke, Adrian. (1998), The Age of Terrorism and the International Political System, (London: New York: Tauris Academic Studies, I. B. Tauris Publishers).

Gunaratna, Rohan. (2002), Inside Al Qaeda. Global Network of Terror, (London: Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd).

Gurr, Nadine & Benjamin Cole. (2000), The New Face of Terrorism: Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction, (London: I.B. Tauris Publishers)

Hirschmann, Kai. (2002), “Internationaler Terrorismus gestern und heute: Entwicklung, Ausrichtung, Ziele”, in Hans Frank & Kai Hirschmann, (eds.) Die weltweite Gefahr – Terrorismus als internationale Herausforderung, (Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz), pp. 27-66.

Hoffman, Bruce. (1977), “The Modern Terrorist Mindset: Tactics, Targets and Technologies”, Columbia International Affairs Online Working Paper, (October).

Hoffman, Bruce. (1995), “‘Holy Terror’: The Implications of Terrorism Motivated by a Religious Imperative”, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 271-284.

Hoffman, Bruce. (1998), Inside Terrorism, (London: St. Andrew’s University Press).
Hoffman, Bruce. (1998-1999), “Old Madness, New Methods : Revival of Religious Terrorism Begs for Broader U. S. Policy”, RAND Review, (Winter 1998-1999), Vol.22,No.2,pp.12-17.

Hoffman, Bruce. (2001) “Change and Continuity in Terrorism”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 24, pp. 417-428.

Horchem, Hans J. (1986), “West Germany’s Red Army Anarchists” in William Gutteridge (ed.) “The New Terrorism”, (London: Mansell Publishing), pp. 199-217.

Jacquard, Roland. (2001), Die Akte Osama Bin Laden, (Munchen: List Verlag), pp. 236-335.

Jenkins, Brian. (1975), “International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict”, in David Carlton & Carlo. Schaerf (eds.), International Terrorism and World Security, (London: Croom Helm).

Jenkins, Brian M. (1980), The Study of Terrorism: Definitional Problems, (Santa Monica: RAND).

Jenkins, B. M. (1999), ‘Foreword’ in Lesser, Ian O., Bruce Hoffman, John Arquilla, David F. Ronfeldt, Michele Zanini & Brian M. Jenkins. (1999), Countering the New Terrorism, (Santa Monica: RAND), pp. iii – xiv.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. (2000), Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, (Berkeley: University of California Press)

Karmon, Eli. (1999), “Deutsche Terroristen – haben sie sich mit den palastinensischen Terrororganisationen verbundet?”, Politische Studien, No. 368, (November / December), pp. 71-94.

Kennedy, Paul. (2001), “Maintaining American Power”, in Strobe Talbott & Nayan Chanda (eds.), The Age of Terror: America and the World after September 11, (New York: Basic Books), pp. 55-79.

Kidder, Rushworth M. (1986), “Unmasking State-Sponsored Terrorism”, Christian Science Monitor, (May 14).

Koufa, K. (2001). Terrorism and Human Rights. United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/31.

Kushner, Harvey W. (2003), Encyclopedia of Terrorism, (London: Sage Publications, 2003).

Laqueur, Walter. (1977), Terrorism, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson), Boston: Little, Brown.

Laqueur, Walter. (1996), “Postmodern Terrorism”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75, No. 5, pp. 24-36.

Laqueur, Walter. (1999), The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction, (London: Oxford University Press)

Laqueur, Walter. (2001), “Left, Right, and Beyond: The Changing Face of Terror” in James F. Hoge Jr. & Gideon Rose (eds.), How Did This HappenTerrorism and the New War, (New York: Public Affairs), pp. 71-82.

Laqueur, Walter. (2003), No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.)

Lesser, Ian O., Bruce Hoffman, John Arquilla, David F. Ronfeldt, Michele Zanini & Brian M. Jenkins. (1999), Countering the New Terrorism, (Santa Monica: RAND,)

Malik, Omar. (2001), Enough of the Definition of Terrorism!, (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs) Cooper, H. H. A. (2001), “Terrorism – The Problem of Definition Revisited”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 881-893.

Mayntz, Renate. (2004), “Organizational Forms of Terrorism – Hierarchy, Network, or a Type sui generis?”, MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/04, (Cologne: Max-Planck-Institute for the Study of Societies).

MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, 2005. “RAND Terrorism Chronology 1968-1997 and RAND-MIPT Terrorism Incident database (1998-present)”, National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. Accessed on 01/04/2011. Available at:

Morgan, Matthew J. (2004) “The Origin of the New Terrorism”, Parameters, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 30-31.

Munkler, Herfried. (2002), Die neuen Kriege, (Bundeszentrale fur Politische Bildung, Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag, 2002).

Neumann, Peter R. (2009), Old & New Terrorism, Cambridge, Polity Press.

O’Brien, Kevin A. (2003), “Information Age, Terrorism and Warfare”, Small Wars and Insurgencies, Vol.14, No. 1, pp. 183-206.

Pettiford, Lloyd & David Harding. (2003), Terrorism – The New World War, (London: Arcturus Publishing).

Quillen, Chris. (2002), “A Historical Analysis of Mass Casualty Bombers”, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 25, (September / October), pp. 279-92.

Ramakrishna, Kumar & Andrew Tan. (2002), “The New Terrorism: Diagnosis and Prescriptions” in Andrew Tan & Kumar Ramakrishna (eds.), The New Terrorism – Anatomy, Trends and Counter-Strategies, (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press).

Ranstorp, Magnus. (1994),“Hizbullah’s Command Leadership: Its Structures, Decision-Making and Relationship with Iranian Clergy and Institutions”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 303-339.

Raphaeli, Nimrod. (2003), “Financing of Terrorism: Sources, Methods, and Channels”, Terrorism and Political Violence Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 59-82.

Rapoport, David C. (1984), “Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 655-77.

Schmid, Alex P. (2004), “Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 197-221.

Schmid, Alex P. & Albert J. Jongman. (1988), Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories and Literature, (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company)

Schweitzer, Yoram. (2001), “Suicide Terrorism: Development and main characteristics,” in Countering Suicide Terrorism: An International Conference (Herzliya, Israel: The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism), pp. 75-76.

Simon, Jeffrey D. (1994), The Terrorist Trap, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press)

Simon, Steven & Daniel Benjamin. (2000), “America and the New Terrorism”, Survival, Vol.42, No. 1, pp. 59–75

Sinclair, Andrew. (2003), An Anatomy of Terror – A History of Terrorism, (London: Macmillan)

Spencer, Alexander. (2006), “Questioning the Concept of ‘New Terrorism”, Peace Conflict & Development, Issue 8, (January), pp. 1-33.

Stern, Jessica. (2003), “Getting and Using the Weapons” in Russell D. Howard & Reid L. Slayer (eds.) Terrorism and Counterterrorism – Understanding the New Security Environment, (Guildford: McGraw-Hill, 2003), pp. 158-174.

Strohl, Michael. (2003), “The Mystery of the New Global Terrorism: Old Myths, New Realities?” in Charles W. Kegley, Jr. (ed.), The New Global Terrorism – Characteristics, Causes, Controls, (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), pp. 84-91.

Takeyh, Ray. (2001), “Islamism: R.I.P.”, The National Interest, No. 63, (Spring 2001), pp. 97-102.

The Oxford Dictionary of English. ( 2005),Second Edition (revised), (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Tsfati, Yariv & Gabriel Weimann. (2002), “ Terror on the Internet”, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 317-332.

Tucker, David. (2001), “What’s New About the New Terrorism and How Dangerous Is It?”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 1-14

Waldmann, Peter. (1998), Terrorismus – Provokation der Macht, (Munich: Gerling Akademie Verlag).

Weinberg, Leonard, Ami Pedahzur & Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler. (2004), “The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 777-794.

Wilkinson, Paul. (1992), “International Terrorism: New Risks to World Order” in John Baylis & N. J. Rengger, Dilemmas of World Politics, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 228-260.

Wilkinson, Paul. (2000), Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, (London: Frank Cass).

Whine, Michael. (2002), “The New Terrorism”, (International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism, 20 January), assessed on 01/04/2011, available at:

Free Essays

Is terrorism a serious threat to international and national security


The notion of ‘terrorism’ began to attain a great deal of relevance to the international community during the 1970s. To be sure, political organisations, such as the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Irish Republican Army, began to use violent methods for the purposes of voice out their grievances and force certain political outcomes (Gupta, 2008: 33). In the context of globalisation, it could be argued that terrorism has become a force of high magnitude, since it threatens to disrupt the viability of nation-states as well as the whole foundations of the international political system. It must be underlined that the modern manifestations of the phenomenon of terrorism exceed the scope of the propagation of violent acts by extremist groups of Islamic extract. Instead, terrorism must be examined in broader terms, to encompass the aspects of nuclear proliferation, natural disasters and the spread of epidemics (Bobbitt, 2008: 190). In order to assess to what extent terrorism constitutes a serious threat to international and national security, this essay begins by appraising the argument put forward by James and Brenda Lutz, who argue that this phenomenon constitutes a ‘continuing threat to state security’ (Lutz., Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 61). This essay then tackles the formulation presented by Ian Lustick, who maintains that the magnitude of the threat posed by terrorism appears to be much smaller than realised (Lutz, Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 66). The evaluation of both arguments will be made by referring to the ways in which the War on Terror has altered the manner in which states and the international community as a whole is dealing with the phenomenon of terrorism.

Terrorism as a continuing threat to national and international security

James and Brenda Lutz put forward the view that terrorism actualises the threat it poses to the viability of nation-states by referring to the way in which extremist movements, such as Fascism and Nazism, managed to topple the existing order of things in democratic countries, such as Italy and Germany. In addition, the tactics of terrorism was successfully implemented by the liberation movements that ridded Algeria, Jewish Palestine and Cyprus of French and British colonial rule (Lutz, Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 61-2). Nevertheless, the increased access to digital technologies that facilitate instantaneous communications and the wider availability of weapons of mass destruction magnify the scope of the threat posed by terrorism (Silverstone, 2007: 17). The authors also outline that the modern notion of terrorism differs from past manifestations as it can contribute to the profound alteration of the political foundations of the states that are compelled to deal with the phenomenon (Lutz, Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 64). It must be underlined that enhanced magnitude of the terrorist threat impels states to commit a large amount of resources to the fight against terror and; in some cases, enter into a diplomatic framework of negotiation which might result in bestowing a modicum of legitimacy to terrorist organisations (Elshtain, 2004: 96). States are forced to respond to the threat of terrorism by recalibrating their judicial systems in a way that reflects the changed nature of the crimes committed by terrorist organisations (Napoleoni, 2004: 70). These states of affairs can in turn lead to an enhanced perception of the threat posed by extremism and inject a measure of authoritarian legalism into the democratic system of states (Lutz, Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 65). The threat posed by Al-Qaeda in the context of the War on Terror exemplifies the augmented threat of terrorism. To begin with, terrorist organisations affiliated to Al-Qaeda do not abide by the international legislation regarding the conduct of war. These organisations target civilians as part of their grand political strategy, geared towards creating an environment of terror in democratic societies (Fotion, 2007: 77). In addition, the War on Terror has resulted in the militarisation of the political discourse, by which the notion of the enemy is reformulated by including domestic ideologies that are hesitant to confront the phenomenon of terrorism. This situation has been outlined by the authors, who argue that the threat of terrorism compels states to react to extremist violence, as not doing so would eventually enhance the ability of terrorist organisations to inflict damage on the populations affected (Lutz, Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 65). These arguments seem to be quite persuasive in describing not only the threats posed by terrorist organisations, but also the dangers related to the fight against the phenomenon of extremism. In order to assess the validity of these claims, they will be parried against the opposite view regarding the nature and extent of the terrorist threat.

Is terrorism a continuing threat to national and international security

Ian Lustick poses the view that even if there is an acknowledged threat of terrorism, the magnitude of the threat presented by this phenomenon is much smaller than realised (Lutz, Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 66). The author maintains that the enhanced ‘perception of the threat’ has enabled the United States to articulate clear cut moral demarcations in the context of the War in Terror, in which the ‘enemy’ (Islamic extremism) is portrayed as a-moral and deemed to be extirpated. Furthermore, this stance entails that Washington claims the right use of pre-emptive tactics against terrorism, even if the threat is perceived as infinitesimally small (Crawford in Rosenthal and Barry (eds.), 2009: 41). Accordingly, preventive force has been deployed by the United States in Afghanistan (2001), of Iraq (2003), as Washington claimed that those states harboured terrorist organisations in their midst (Frum and Perle, 2004: 118). Citing the small occurrence of terrorist activity, the author emphasises the fact that the United States is committing a substantial amount of resources to defend itself from a threat which is relatively small in nature and magnitude (Lutz, Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 67). Lustick also highlights the fact that the response to the terrorist phenomenon, marked by a visceral attitude on the part of the authorities, might serve narrow political agendas (Lutz, Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 69). In this context, it is important to underline that the War on Terror entails the possibility that the United States might utilise the fight against terrorism for the sake of ensuring that the process of globalisation remains firmly tied to the American ideations of liberal democracy, the rule of law and free market economics being spread to the wider world (Chan, 2012: 72). Lustick also underlines how the media is responsible for portraying the threat of terrorism in an imbalanced way. To be sure, the mainstream media devotes more time to the coverage of news related to putative threats than to issues which affect citizens in a more visible manner. In addition, the author notes how ‘threat inflation’ is used as a political tool by the two parties of government in the United States, which have become accustomed to pinning the blame for the so-called pervasiveness of these threats to either the Republican or Democratic Party, as the case might be (Patterson, 2007: 38). The author argues that the augmented perception of the threat, which serves narrow political and economic interests, constitutes an additional threat to be imputed to the phenomenon of terrorism (Lutz, Lutz and Lustick in Jackson and Sinclair (eds.), 2012: 70-71). It is possible to argue that these views on the threat of terrorism relativise the claims put forward by James and Brenda Lutz. The existence of a terrorist threat has the potential to be magnified out of proportion and establish itself as an added political element to be borne in mind in the context of the war of West against Islamic extremism (Hewitt, 2008: 88). It is now incumbent upon us to draw some conclusions pertaining to the views espoused by the author and see which ones has a higher degree of validity.


In conclusion, it is possible to argue that whilst the threat of terrorism is an important phenomenon to be reckoned with in the grand political chessboard of the twenty-first century, its magnitude might not be as extensive as purported (Halper and Clarke, 2005: 73). The radical forces of terrorism that managed to induce change in the past did so for the sake of fighting for causes which were seen by many in the international spectrum as politically legitimate, as in the case of the PLO and the IRA. Whilst people condemned the methods used by these organisations, they questioned their political motivations less stringently. At the same time, since globalisation has created a convergence of ideas, there is a reduced scope for the type terrorist attacks seen in 9/11 (Held and McGrew, 2002: 119). Lustick rightly postulates that the spectrum of the threat posed by the phenomenon of terrorism has been artificially enhanced in order to serve narrow political and economic interests. Consequently, it may be posited that terrorism does not threaten the foundations of international and national security in the way depicted by James and Brenda Lutz.


Bobbitt, P. (2008) Terror and Consent-The Wars for the Twenty-First Century, Alfred Knopf, New York, NY

Chan, D. (2012) Beyond Just War: A Virtue Ethics Approach, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York, NY

Crawford, N. (2009) The Slippery Slope to Preventive War in Rosenthal, J. and Barry, C. (eds.) Ethics and International Affairs: A Reader, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

Elshtain, J. (2004) Just War Against Terror: The Burden Of American Power In A Violent World, Basic Books, New York, NY

Fotion, N. (2007) War and Ethics: a new Just War theory, Continuum, London

Frum, D. and Perle, R. (2004) An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, Random House, New York

Gupta, D. (2008) Understanding Terrorism and Political Violence, Routledge, London

Halper, S. and Clarke, J. (2005) America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2002) Globalisation/Anti-Globalisation, Polity Press, Cambridge

Hewitt, H. (2008) The War Against the West: Crucial Conversations with the Most

Informed Experts About Our Enemies, Our Defenses, Our Strategy and Our Leaders in the Long War Against Islamist Extremism, Townhall Press, New York, NY

Lutz, B., Lutz, J. and Lustick, I. (2012) Is terrorism a serious threat to international and national security’, in R Jackson & SJ Sinclair (eds.) Contemporary Debates on Terrorism, Routledge, London

Napoleoni, L. (2004) Terror Incorporated, Penguin Books, London

Patterson, E. (2007) Just War Thinking: Morality and Pragmatism in the Struggle against Contemporary Threats, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD

Silverstone, S. (2007) Preventive War and American Democracy, Routledge, London

Free Essays

Is terrorism a serious threat to national and international security?


The aim of the following essay will be to critically evaluate the existing evidence, which supports the argument for considering terrorism as a threat to both national and international security. The topic of terrorism and the acts of violence associated with is one that is deeply embedded in the fabric of the late-modern period (Young, 2007), but paradoxically this does not make it an easy concept to define (Bolanos, 2012; Martin, 2012, Hoffman, 2006; Silke, 1996). This largely reflects the different priorities which both national and international organisations have, thereby making the achievement of consensus quite difficult (Senu, 2013). However, for the purposes of the present study, terrorism will be defined as the systematic use of violence in order to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby bring about a particular political objective[1]. Although the acts of terrorism are far from a modern phenomenon (Rapoport, 1984), in can be argued that the prior to 11th September it attracted little public attention (Hoffman, 2006). Post 9/11, terrorism occupied the forefront the political agenda and media attention, a trend that is observed to date and one that will not wither away easily in the future, thus the significance of the current essay. Having outlined some of the conceptual debates associated with the definition of terrorism, the following section will present some of the evidence which could suggest that terrorism should be taken seriously and prioritized over any other social problem on both national and international level.

Terrorism as a threat to national and international security

The rise of the threat of terrorist attacks is one that has more recently been linked to the concept of ‘world risk society’ (Beck, 2002), according to which the shifts from industrial to post-need and consumer societies has also had an impact on the risks to which we are exposed (Beck, 1992; Mythen and Walkate, 2006). But even prior to the occurrence of these transformations in the social fabric, terrorism seems to have had a significant impact on the course of world history, particularly in campaigns which can be described as anti-colonial, such as the one in Algeria against French dominance, the Cypriotic and Palestinian against British governance (Hoffman, 2006; Lutz and Lutz, 2012). Prolonged terrorist campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan (Tan, 2006), as well as India and Pakistan (Lutz and Lutz, 2011) seem to undermine national security and could pose a serious threat to international security as well, as some of the above-mentioned countries are well-known for their possession of nuclear weapons (Lutz and Lutz, 2012). The presence of terrorist groups within the borders of a country could also result in passivity of the security services, due to fear of reprisals and campaigns of violence (Lutz and Lutz, 2011). Moreover, prolonged terrorist campaigns and perceived level of threat could also have an impact on the politics of a specific country in the long run (ibid.). The introduction of special anti-terrorist legislation in many of the Western world countries post-9/11 has called for the tightening of borders and reducing immigration, as well as increased target-hardening of potential targets of future terrorist attacks. As a result of that, the ‘new terrorism’ is said to have become more lethal and indiscriminate, with the potential to strike occur at any place and time, as a result of the need to sustain the campaign of terror (Lacquer, 2001; Beck, 2002; Enders and Sandler, 2005). As some of the evidence in this section suggest, terrorism in some cases has been successful in changing the course of history and clearly the impact it has had should be neither denied, nor underestimated. However, as the next section of this paper will argue, the threat posed by terrorism is one that should be subject closer examination and the myth of such a lethal and omnipresent enemy should be scrutinized and not accepted at face value.

Common misperceptions associated with terrorism

Contrary to the common perception that terrorism is an ever-present threat to both national and international security, an increasing number of scholarly publications have presented and alternative view, wherein terrorism is presented as a much smaller threat than it actually is (Lustick, 2012; Mueller, 2005; Mueller, 2006; Mueller and Stewart, 2012). Such criticisms do not lack empirical foundation. For example, over the previous two decades, only three attacks classified by the FBI as terrorism have taken place on American soil– the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre, the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing and the 9/11. Of the three, the 9/11 attack was the worst terrorist attack which the United States have ever faced, it was unprecedented and was used as a justification of the initiation of a ‘war on terror’ and the introduction of specialized counter-terrorism legislation, the foundations of which appear to be unstable, as terrorism did not pose a sufficient threat to justify the interventions (Wolfendale, 2007). The unexpected attack, its modus operandi and lethality all seemed to point in a direction of a brand new phenomenon, which had not been observed before – a ‘new’ form of terrorism. As it was noted in the previous section, part of the post-9/11 discourse is also the globalization of terrorism, which is claimed to be becoming transnational, another statement which is not based on any sound empirical evidence. Rather, since the 1990s, the nature of terrorist attacks has changed in exactly the opposite direction – attacks perpetrated by terrorists are becoming increasingly localised and the process of globalisation itself is not related in any way to transnational attack trends (Goldman, 2010).

Moreover, the response triggered by the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent 11M (Madrid) and 7/7 bombings (London) is one that overestimated the real capabilities of Al Quada and its scope of operation (Byman, 2006). In fact, for many decades prior to all three of the above mentioned, the West has tended to over-estimate the threats posed by terrorist attacks (Furedi, 2007; Zulaika, 2003). And when such self-fulfilling prophecies do occur, the response is populistic, taking into account mass hysteria and using it to construct a discourse which could legitimize an out of proportion response (Jackson, 2005). For this reason it can be argued that terrorism is a functional reality of American politics (Zulaika, 2003: 198), as was the case of 9/11 (Lustick, 2006). Moreover, it is well-integrated into American and Western culture, it feeds from its imagination and arguably, is self-perpetuated (Zizek, 2002). Being transformed into a cultural script, terrorism also receives disproportionate media coverage, even when it fails (Jurkowitz, 2010). The popularity of the theme feed off public hysteria and vice versa, it is larger than life and in the 21st century the threats posed by it (Ferguson and Potter, 2005). This is not to deny the lived realities of terrorist attacks and the devastating impact which they have on societies. Rather, the context in which acts of terror occur should be subject to rigorous and thorough examination. In the cases where the impact of terrorism is associated with overreaction, it would make sense to focus on reducing the latter, rather the leave the matter unaddressed. As Mueller (2005) notes, in the cases where the risk of threats such as alcoholism, smoking and driving are real, it makes sense to induce fear. On the other hand, where there is little risk associated with certain threats, for example, terrorism on flying on airplanes, it would be advisable to create policies which would aim at reducing anxiety and fear, rather than disproportionately increase them. Having outlined some of arguments which suggest that the threat of terrorism can be overdramatized in the Western world, the last section will argue that terrorism is real, yet the recent methods of countering it have been counterproductive.


As this essay has argued, terrorism is far from a new phenomenon; in fact, it has played a substantial part in social history and the resolution of geopolitical questions. Often considered to be the weapon of the weak and an indicator of asymmetric warfare, campaigns of terror have achieved some success in the past, despite arguments for the opposite (Abrahms, 2006). Therefore, it would be a mistake not to acknowledge what terrorist campaigns have achieved in the past and the ways in which they have undermined both national and international security. Yet, in the post 9/11 environment, the challenges posed by terrorism have been utilised in the creation of counter-terrorism discourses that are counterproductive (Appleby, 2010; MacDonald and Hunter, 2013) and rather than producing a resolution of conflicts, have prolonged them. Although a ‘war on terror’ has been waged over the past 12 years, it is one that can hardly ever be won and rhetoric associated with it raises unrealistic expectations. Similar to the problem of crime, the problem of terrorism is one that will persist, therefore efforts should be directed towards containing it within reasonable proportions, and reducing the widespread ‘culture of fear’ which surrounds it. As English (2010) suggests, the over-militarisation of responses to terrorist attacks is not a long-term solution, but the addressing of root causes and underlying tensions is. Such a strategy, as well as the reliance on credible intelligence, is the key pathway which could provide a long-term solution to the problems which terrorism poses to the contemporary era. In conclusion, a careful balance should be found between the acts of terrorism and the real danger in poses to societies. Contrary to popular belief, terrorism is not an international in nature, rather it is a localised and occurs by and large in developing countries (Goldman, 2010) and therefore efforts should be directed towards tackling terrorism where it poses significant risk to the obstruction of social safety and security.


Abrahms, M. (2006). Why terrorism does not work. International Security, 31(2), 42-78.

Appleby, N. (2010). Labelling the innocent: how government counter-terrorism advice creates labels that contribute to the problem. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 3(3), 421-436.

Beck, U. (2002). The Terrorist Threat World Risk Society Revisited. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(4), 39-55.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (Vol. 17). Sage.

Bolanos, A. (2012). ‘The ‘new terrorism’ or the ‘newness’ of context and change’ (pp.29-35), in Jackson, R., & Sinclair, S. J. (Eds.). (2012). Contemporary debates on terrorism. Routledge.

Byman, D. L. (2006). Friends like these: counterinsurgency and the war on terrorism. International Security, 31(2), 79-115.

Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (2005). After 9/11 is it all different now?. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(2), 259-277.

English, R. (2010). Terrorism: how to respond. Oxford University Press.

Ferguson, C. D., & Potter, W. C. (2005). The four faces of nuclear terrorism. Routledge.

Furedi, F. (2007). Invitation to terror: the expanding empire of the unknown. Continuum Intl Pub Group.

Goldman, O. (2010). The globalization of terror attacks. Terrorism and Political Violence, 23(1), 31-59.

Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. Columbia University Press.

Jackson, R. (2005). Writing the war on terrorism: language, politics and counter-terrorism. Manchester University Press.

Jurkowitz (2010)

Laqueur, W. (2001). Left, right, and beyond: The changing face of terror. How did this happenTerrorism and the new war, 71-83.

Lustick, I. (2006). Trapped in the War on Terror. Univ of Pennsylvania Press.

Lustick, I. (2012) ‘Why terrorism is a much smaller threat than you think’ (pp. 66-74), in Jackson, R., & Sinclair, S. J. (Eds.). (2012). Contemporary debates on terrorism. Routledge.

Lutz, J., & Lutz, B. (2011). Terrorism: The Basics. Taylor & Francis.

Lutz, J. and Lutz, B. (2012) ‘The continuing threat to state security’(pp. 61-66), in Jackson, R., & Sinclair, S. J. (Eds.). (2012). Contemporary debates on terrorism. Routledge.

MacDonald, M., & Hunter, D. (2013). Security, population and governmentality: UK counter-terrorism discourse (2007-2011). Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 6(2). Available at:

Martin, G. (2012). Understanding terrorism: Challenges, perspectives, and issues. Sage Publications.

Mueller, J. (2005). Simplicity and spook: terrorism and the dynamics of threat exaggeration. International Studies Perspectives, 6(2), 208-234.

Mueller, J. (2006). Is There Still a Terrorist Threat-The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy. Foreign Aff., 85, 2.

Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. G. (2012). The terrorism delusion: America’s overwrought response to September 11. International Security, 37(1), 81-110.

Mythen, G., & Walklate, S. (2006). Criminology and Terrorism Which ThesisRisk Society or Governmentality?. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 379-398.

Rapoport, D. C. (1984). Fear and trembling: Terrorism in three religious traditions. The American Political Science Review, 658-677.

Senu, O. (2013). Labelling Acts of Terror: A Concern for Modernity. London: LASALA Foundation. Available at:

Silke, A. (1996). Terrorism and the blind men’s elephant. Terrorism and Political Violence, 8(3), 12-28.

Tan, A. T. H. (2006). South East Asia: Threats in the Security Environment. Marshall Cavendish International.

Wolfendale, J. (2007). Terrorism, security, and the threat of counterterrorism. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 30(1), 75.

Young, J. (2007). The vertigo of late modernity. Sage.

Zulaika, J. (2003). The self-fulfilling prophecies of counterterrorism. Radical History Review, 85(1), 191-199.

Zizek, S. (2002). Welcome to the desert of the real!: five essays on September 11 and related dates. Verso.

[1] As defined by Jenkins, 2013:

Free Essays

Comparing Old & New Terrorism


1.1 Background

In the countdown to the end of the twentieth century, notable scholars came up with a new concept of ‘New Terrorism’ which represents a shift from the traditional terrorism. The ‘new terrorism’ ‘refers to a qualitative change in the nature of terrorism, which has allegedly taken place during the 1990s’ (Kurtulus 2007:476). This paradigm has also been variously referred to as ‘contemporary terrorism’ (Laqueur 2003) ‘post-modern terrorism’, ‘super-terrorism’, ‘catastrophic terrorism’ and ‘hyper-terrorism’ (Field 2009). This dissertation intends to undertake the examination of this paradigm shift. It intends to examine the various sources if there is indeed a ‘New Terrorism’ as canvassed by some scholars and policy makers. It would do this by doing a case study of Irish Republican Army, or the IRA and Al Qaeda representing each group.

1.2 Aims and Objectives

In this section, the research aims, objectives, and research questions will be outlined. Firstly, the aim of this research is as follows:

To ensure that this aim is fully explored, the following research objectives have been devised:

How are the emerging forms of terrorism different from the traditional methods
How should the existing counterterrorism infrastructure be amended in order to meet the challenges of the modern age

1.3 Research Questions

The research question is as follows:

What are the new forms of terrorism and what factors created them
What are the key factors that have contributed to the success of these new terrorist practices
Is the current counterterrorist system capable of dealing with the emerging terrorist threat

To seek to explore this aim, research question and these objectives, a review of the literature will be undertaken to explore these areas have experienced change over time. The findings from this review will be used to explore and examine the research aim, objectives and question. To ensure that this is appropriately undertaken the following topics will be discussed in the review:

1.4 Scope of the Study

A study of the Irish Republican Army will be undertaken in comparison to the modern operations of the recognized terrorist agency Al Qaeda.

1.5 Structure of the Study

This study will be comprised of 6 sections including the introduction, literature review, and methodology, case study analysis, Discussion, Conclusion.

2 Literature Review

The section will review relevant literature as regards the proposed research.

2.1 Defining Terrorism and emerging forms of Terrorism

2.2 Factors that contributed to Terrorism’s Success

2.3 Current prevention and enforcement options


3. Methodology

This chapter illustrates the research methodology used as well as providing a brief introductory passage regarding the meaning of research methodology.

3.1 Introduction

The methodology focuses on an explanation of the qualitative and quantitative research approaches considered for this thesis to answer the following questions:

How are the emerging forms of terrorism different from the traditional methods
How should the existing counterterrorism infrastructure be amended in order to meet the challenges of the modern age

This includes the elements of the research approach adopted and the reasons behind this choice.

3.2 Methods of Data Collection

Secondary sources dating from the operation of the Irish Republican Army as well as year to date operations of Al Qaeda will provide the required range of data for assessment.

3.2.1 Case Study Analysis

Yin (2009) contends that the case study analysis strategy is a valid tool for providing empirical content. This method of research allows for an investigation into the real world impact of terrorism. Others contend that the case study is not always the best strategic analysis approach (Baxter and Jack 2008). However, Stake (1995) demonstrates that a case study can provide understanding and increase the capacity for understanding.

The approach for this dissertation will utilize a qualitative, interpretative research method; a case study examination of the Irish Republican Army and Al Qaeda. Yin (2009) demonstrates that the exploratory case study method can be used to examine situations in which there is no defined outcome. This research will rest on the goal to identify challenges and lessons for future. For the purposes of this research, the qualitative research approach is more suitable due to capacity to assess the wide ranging nature the terrorist conditions.

Case Study

This section will present a case study examination of the Irish Republican Army in comparison to the operations of Al Qaeda.

4.1 Irish Republican Army formation factors

Ryanair and (another airline of your choice)

4.2 Effectiveness of the IRA methods

4.3 Al Qaeda formation factors

4.4 Effectiveness of the IRA methods

4.5 Trends

4.8 Discussion

(Tie the case study to the literature review)

5. Conclusion
7. References

Baxter, P. and Jack, S. 2008. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13 (4), pp. 544–559.

Field, A. 2009. The ‘New Terrorism’: Revolution or Evolution?. Political Studies Review, 7 (2), pp. 195–207.

Kurtulus, E. 2011. The “new terrorism” and its critics. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 34 (6), pp. 476–500.

Laqueur, W. 2003. No end to war. New York: Continuum.

Stake, R. 1995. The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. 2009. Case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Free Essays

Would a common definition of terrorism have helped to combat terrorism in the Arab uprising in relation to Syria?


There is much difficulty when it comes to establishing what a terrorist actually is because of the lack of definition that exists on an international level. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter cannot easily be identified as a result of this, which prevents the War on Terror from being adequately dealt with. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether a definition would prove effective given that different interpretations of terrorism exist amongst the international community.


The definition of terrorism has been subject to much controversy over the years because of the different interpretations that exist. Accordingly, terrorism is viewed differently by governmental agencies and under various legal systems. It is has been argued that because of the conflictions that exist within this area, a common definition of terrorism needs to be adopted by the international community (Sorel, 2003). Terrorism occurs on an international level and unless consensus exists within this area, difficulties will continue to ensue when trying to combat terrorism. It would be highly beneficial if a universal definition was employed as there would be much more consistency and terrorist acts would be more easily identified (Webster, 2011). Terrorism has been defined by Hoffman as “the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change” (1998: 32). Terrorism is present whenever there is the threat of violence or violence itself which is intended to have physical and emotional effects upon victims. It has also been suggested that “terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale” (Hoffman, 1998: 32). Despite these interpretations, it is still extremely difficult to determine whether a person is committing an act of terrorism. This essay will consider in light of this whether a common definition of terrorism have helped to combat terrorism in the Arab uprising in relation to Syria.

Defining Terrorism

Consequently, terrorists are capable of being mistaken for freedom fighters who merely seek to achieve political freedom by taking part in a “resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment” (Webster, 2011: 1). Freedom fighters include the likes of the South African Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and the Irish Republican Army (IRA) who were both labelled freedom fighters on the basis that they fought against national governments for freedom (Webster, 2011). There is, nonetheless, a fine line between terrorists and freedom fighters because of the fact that they both act in a similar manner and so it is imperative that a distinction can be made between the two (Raport, 2013). Gioia (2006) further notes that this is difficult to achieve in practice and terrorists are capable of escaping liability on the grounds that they are freedom fighters. Whilst one jurisdiction may consider a person a terrorist another jurisdiction may consider the same person a freedom fighter. It has thus been argued that; “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Buchanan, 2004: 1). This makes it extremely difficult to remain consistent within this area of the law and highlights the need for a universal definition of terrorism. As put by Rosand; “the General Assembly’s inability to reach agreement on a definition of terrorism after nearly thirty-five years of discussions in one form or another has limited the impact of its counterterrorism efforts” (2006: 399).

Terrorism and Syria

Conflictions will continue to exist unless a universal definition is adopted and terrorism will remain difficult to combat. This has been exemplified by the Arab uprising in relation to Syria since the Syrian Arab Republic has been considered both a victim of terrorism as well as a perpetrator. The Syrian government has thus been accused by the US State Department and George W. Bush of sponsoring acts of terrorism for organisations like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Struggle Front (Diane, 1995: 19). However, because of the uncertainty surrounding the definition of terrorism it has proven very difficult for the Syrian government to be properly sanctioned. As argued by Rapport; “the case of Syria illustrates how the concept of state-sponsored terrorism, and evidence for it, lacks clarity and is used politically” (2013: 238). It was demonstrated by officials of the United States that whilst the actions of the Syrian government were much more professional and deadly than Libya’s, the evidence that links Syria to direct acts of violence is murky (New York Times, 1986: 1). Despite these uncertainties, the US government continues to publish lists of the number of terrorists incidents that have occurred in Syria (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, 2013: 4). However, because Syria has continued to support the US and other governments in their opposition to the al-Qaeda, there has been a reluctance to name Syria as a sponsor state (Diaz-Paniagua, 2008).

It has been said that this is the result of a necessity to obtain the assistance of Syria when negotiating the release of British, US and French citizens that are being held hostage in the Middle East (Dettmer, 2014: 1). Syria is thereby a vital component for the establishment of peace within this area, which is why it has proven difficult to combat terrorism in Syria. It is clear from these findings that there is sufficient evidence to name Syria as a terrorist sponsor, yet because of Syria’s political connections there has been a refusal to do so. Arguably, a common definition of terrorism would therefore have done nothing to prevent the terrorist actions from being conducted in the Arab uprising in relation to Syria since there is a political reluctance to name Syria as a terrorist sponsor. It has been noted in view of this that it would be “naive to think that there are laws in war” (Al-Saadi, 2013: 1), which is certainly true here. Although a common definition would be better overall in providing certainty, it is questionable whether it would in fact help to combat terrorism. Furthermore, because of the fact that different states view terrorism differently, a common definition would restrict the ability of states to identify terrorism on a case by case basis. This was identified by Sorel when it was pointed out that; “the problem facing a global definition is the difficulty in taking account of special circumstances according to the type of action committed, the nature of the victims or the type of method of the terrorist action” (2003: 365).

Consideration as to whether a definition is needed was made by the Security Council in September 2001 during the adoption of Resolution 1373 and it was concluded that; “one shouldn’t try to define terrorism in order to reach a quick agreement; to do so runs the risk of getting into deeper and deeper water” (2001: 1). This signifies that because terrorism acts are so wide-ranging, it would be difficult to incorporate a definition that would be able to comprehend every single act of terrorism. Flexibility is therefore vital within this area, yet because of the confusions that arise when trying to distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, it is necessary to have some conformity. This was identified by Saul who stated that there is a “need to condemn violations to Human rights, to protect the state and deliberative politics, to differentiate public and private violence, and to ensure international peace and security” (2008: 1). It is unlikely that these objectives can be achieved without a common definition since it is necessary that terrorist actions can be identified and distinguished against the actions of a freedom fighter (Diaz-Paniagua, 2008: 47). It remains arguable whether a definition would in fact be workable given the reluctance to name Syria as a sponsor of terrorism and some have suggested to define terrorism would prevent a sectoral approach towards terrorism to be employed.

As put forward by Gioia; “a definition would only be necessary if the punishment of the relevant offences were made conditional on the existence of a specific terrorist intent” (2006: 4). Many would in fact disagree with this statement on the basis that much of the complexity that exists when trying to combat terrorism is the result of the lack of consensus within this area. Hence, the current approach that is being employed by the international community does not appear satisfactory and attempts to clarify the meaning of terrorism are continuously being made. An example of this can be seen in relation to the definition that was provided by the League of Nations Convention of 1937 under Article 1.1. Under this definition an act of terrorism was described as a “criminal act directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.” The United Nations General Assembly also provided under Article 2.1 of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that a terrorist is defined as someone who causes; “death or serious bodily injury; serious damage to public or private property; or damage to property, places, facilities, or systems likely to result in major economic loss” (2002: 1). Effectively, it is evident that attempts to define terrorism have and will continue to be made, yet whether there will ever be complete consensus in this area is doubtful and it cannot be said that a definition would have helped to combat terrorism that is being committed by Syria.


Overall, whilst it is clear that a definition of terrorism is needed in order to provide clarity within this area, it cannot be said that a common definition would have helped to combat terrorism in the Arab uprising in relation to Syria. This is due to the political reluctance to name Syria as a sponsor of terrorism regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that flexibility needs to remain in this area so that terrorism can be determined on a sectoral basis. Hence, not every country will view terrorist actions the same and so a determination will need to be based on a case by case basis in order to prevent confliction. Regardless of this, there is still a pressing need to provide some conformity within this area, which is why the international community have made great attempts to provide a universal definition.


Al-Saadi, Y. (2013) ‘The Rise of the Arab ‘War on Terror’ Discourse’, [Online], Available: [26 March 2014].

Buchanan, P. J. ‘Terrorists – and Freedom Fighters?’ AntiWar, [Online], Available: [26 March 2014].

Dettmer, J. (2014) ‘Holding Aid Hostage Syria’, Middle East Institute, [Online], Available: [26 March 2014].

Diaz-Paniagua, C.F. (2008) Negotiating Terrorism: The Negotiation Dynamics of Four UN Counter-Terrorism Treaties 1997-2005, City University of New York.

Diane Publishing. (1995) Patterns of Global Terrorism, Diane Publishing.

Gioia, A. (2006) The UN Conventions on the Prevention and Suppression of International Terrorism in Nesi, G. International Co-operation in Counter-Terrorism: The United Nations and Regional Organisations in the Fight Against Terrorism.

Hoffman, B. (1998) Inside Terrorism, Columbia University Press.

National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. (2013) ‘Annex of Statistical Information’ Country Reports on Terrorism, [Online], Available: [27 March 2014].

Raport, D. C. (2013) Inside Terrorist Organisations, Routledge.

Rosand, E. (2006) ‘The UN-Led Multilateral Institutional Response to Jihadist Terrorism: Is a Global Counterterrorism Body Needed’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, C&S Law 2006 11 (399), Issue 3.

Saul, B. (2008) Defining Terrorism to Protect Human Rights, Sydney Law School Legal Studies, Research Paper No 08-125.

Security Council. (2001) Le Terrorisme est un totalitarisme, Le Monde.

Sorel, J. (2003) ‘Some Questions About the Definition of Terrorism and the Fight Against Its Financing’, European Journal of International Law, EJIL 2003 14 (365), Issue 2.

The New York Times. (1986) ‘Evidence of Syrian Link to Terror still Murky’, [Online], Available: [26 March 2014].

United Nations General Assembly. (2002) ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly Resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996’, Sixth Session, Annex II, art 2.1.

Webster, M. (2011) ‘Freedom Fighter’, An Encyclopaedia Britannica Company, [Online], Available: [26 March 2014].

Free Essays

While the need to bestow wide, even intrusive, powers on the police and other officers in connection with terrorism is understandable, the fact that the powers are so unrestricted and the definition of ‘terrorism’ is so wide is probably of even more concern than the power of criminal prosecution to which the Acts give rise


It is important that the police are provided with sufficient powers to identify and prevent terrorism where necessary; however it is also important that these powers are not being abused. There is a wide definition of terrorism which has led to abuse by the police and this has resulted in human rights violations.[1] In order to ensure that human rights are being preserved and terrorism is being tackled, a balance between the two needs to be struck.[2] This is not being attained at present and so reform to this area is necessary. This study intends to discuss what problems currently exist followed by any suggestions for change.


Although there is a need to provide the police with wide and even intrusive powers it seems as though the powers are actually too broad.[1] This generally leads to abuse and those of an ethnic minority are usually discriminated against as a result.[2] Because of how difficult it is to define terrorism, it is unlikely that this problem will be rectified any time soon. This study aims to examine such issues in light of the recent Supreme Court decision of R v Gul (Mohammed) [2013] UKSC 64 by accessing relevant text books, journal articles and online legal databases.

Police Powers

The police have been given extensive powers under the Terrorism Act (TA) 2000[3] and the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001 in recent years and now have the ability to undertake a stop and search in circumstances where they have a ‘reasonable suspicion that the individual is a terrorist’[4] (section 44 of the AT). They can also forcefully obtain fingerprints and other identifying features of a person to determine their identity (Part 10 ATCS) and detail foreigners suspected of terrorism (Part 4 ATCS). It has been argued that these wide powers are likely to be detrimental to the ethnic minority who will most likely be subjected to police searches.[5] This undermines a person’s right to liberty that is provided for under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. Conversely, it was held by the Court in R (Gillian) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis[6] that pursuant to section 44 of the TA “the interference with the appellant’s freedom of movement in order to effect a stop and search is not enough to have amounted to a deprivation of liberty.”[7] The exploitation of police powers under section 44 may therefore not amount to a deprivation of liberty and will be justified regardless of police intentions.[8] Since this Act was implemented, those of an ethnic minority have been stopped and searched more frequently than they used to, which is supported by the Ministry of Justice’s 2009 data analysis that stop and search rates from black populations are disproportionally high compared to white populations.[9] Some form of control is therefore necessary to prevent abuse by the police force because although it is necessary to provide the police with wide powers,[10] it is vital that they are only being used for their intended purpose; that is to prevent terrorism.[11] Police are also given further powers under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to detain suspected terrorists for longer periods of time and apply control orders under the Preventions of Terrorism Act 2005. The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 also provides police with the ability to question suspects after they have been charged.

Definition of Terrorism

Given the extensive range of police powers, it is vital that they are being used appropriately and do not lead to abuse. This has been further explained by McKenzie who stated that; “the responsibility that is attached is that the powers must be used appropriately and properly. That is the only way in which the police function can be conducted in a democratic society.”[12] However, the main reason why the police are able to abuse their powers in the first place is largely the result of the extensive definition of terrorism.[13] Thus, it is extremely difficult to identify what a terrorist will consist of, which is why the police have been provided with extensive powers in the first place.[14] The complex nature of this area has recently been identified in the R v Gul (Mohammed)[15] case where the issue as to what ‘terrorism’ is to be defined as was determined. It was questioned in the case whether the definition of ‘terrorism’ under section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 includes “military attacks by non-state armed groups against national or international armed forces in a non-international armed conflict.”[16] Section 1 of the TA 2000 defines terrorism as;

“the use or threat of action; (a) involving serious violence against a person, involving serious damage to property, endangering another person’s life, creating a serious risk to public health or safety, or designed to seriously interfere with seriously disrupt an electronic system; (b) designed to influence a government or intergovernmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and (c) made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.”

Unless all of these conditions are satisfied, a person should not be accused of committing a terrorist act, yet the reality of this is implausible given that many individuals are often stopped and searched under the Act without having committed any act of terrorism whatsoever.[17] The Court in Gul held that section 1 had a very wide natural meaning and that it could not be read restrictively as was being argued by Mr Gul. It was made clear in the case that the definition was drafted so widely in order to account for situations such as this. Hence, My Gul was convicted of five counts of disseminating terrorist publications, which included YouTube videos showing al-Qaeda attacks. This type of behaviour should be punishable, though if a strict interpretation of the definition was employed Mr Gul would not have been prosecuted. This would be a serious threat to national security[18] and so it is vital that some flexibility is available when interpreting the definition of terrorism,[19] yet this should not be interpreted too broadly as identified in KJ (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[20] and Secretary of State for the Home Department v DD (Afghanistan).[21] Consequently, a balance needs to be struck between protecting the interests of national security and protecting the human rights of individuals.[22] This is likely to be extremely hard to achieve since the powers of the police have been extended even further since the events of September 11th 2001[23] as Rigorous attempts have been made under international law to prevent a further re-enactment of terrorism.[24]

The War on Terror (WOT) is one of the main reasons why a broad definition is frequently adopted since the objectives of WOT were to eradicate terrorism. Many believe that such efforts have been successful[25] and as argued by O’Rourke; “the war on terror has had two major economic impacts; an increase in overall military assistance to countries experiencing conflict and the elimination of sanctions on arms exports to these countries.”[26] Nevertheless, many problems continue to arise because of the wide definition of terrorism and it has been said that the Gul decision “represents a step backwards in the definition of terrorism primarily because it endorses the extremely wide understanding of terrorism.”[27] There is also much difficulty in distinguishing between a ‘freedom fighter’ and a ‘terrorist’. This has led to much controversy and debate and the law in this area remains unclear and inconsistent.[28] Because of this, inadequate anti-terrorism adoption measures are being employed which is not the intentions of WOT and unless further clarification of the meaning of ‘terrorism’ is provided, complications will continue to exist. It is vital that a freedom fighter is not mistaken for a terrorist and vice versa since the actions of a freedom fighter will be deemed lawful whereas the actions of a terrorist will not be.[29] Accordingly, it is thus essential that a terrorist does not escape criminal liability for his or her actions in the same way that a freedom fighter should not be punished.[30]

Nevertheless, as has been argued; “today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s freedom fighters, next month’s political opponents and, next year, our oldest allies.”[31] This suggests that a distinction cannot be made between terrorists and freedom fighters because of the fact that attitudes continue to change. If a strict interpretation of a terrorist was provided by the law, difficulties may still arise in the future. Furthermore, it has been said that “the only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is whether the person describing them likes them.”[32] The extent to which this view is accurate is unclear but it is clear a dangerous one given that terrorists can be classed as freedom fighters in order to avoid criminal liability.[33] On the other hand, Hanif believes that; “the difference between freedom-fighters and terrorists is not perception but terminology.”[34] Therefore, a distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters is based on terminology as opposed to differing perceptions. The definition of terrorism remains controversial which is largely the result of the differing meanings that exist under various legal systems and governmental agencies. The international community needs to define terrorism in order to provide clarity and unity within this area. This is because it seems as though the international community have failed to adopt a universal definition that can be employed by every jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, because of the fact that terrorism is an emotionally and politically charged issue it is doubtful that harmonisation would be established. It has been stressed by Hoffman that terrorism consists of “the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change.”[35] The threat of violence or actual violence is clearly present in all acts of terrorism though because each is completely difficult from the next it is extremely difficult to provide a rigid definition and flexibility will continue to be needed. Nevertheless, “terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale.”[36] The fact that there is no universal declaration of terrorism can actually be beneficial in allowing a flexible approach to be undertaken[37] and as stressed by the Court in R v Ashton,[38] the intention of Parliament needs to be looked at when deciding how far the definition of ‘terrorism’ should stretch. Thus, it is necessary that the definition allows for special circumstances to be taken into account, which would not be possible via a strict interpretation of terrorism. Nevertheless, Sorel believes that problems would be likely to arise if a global definition was implemented since it would be very difficult to take account of “special circumstances according to the type of action committed, the nature of the victims or the type of method of the terrorist action.”[39] Much debate has already arisen as to whether a definition is necessary, however it was decided by the Security Council when they adopted Security Council Resolution 1373 in September 2001 that “one shouldn’t try to define terrorism in order to reach a quick agreement; to do so runs the risk of getting into deeper and deeper water.”[40]

Terrorism acts are arguably so wide-ranging than an attempt to define them would only result in further risk. Having a flexible definition is vital in ensuring that each and every act is decided on its facts in order to determine whether an act of terrorism has actually occurred.[41] In R v F[42] the broad definition of ‘terrorism’ was emphasised when it was held by the Court that governments which were not representative of the people were not governments for the purposes of section 1 and that any acts carried out against such governments were not acts of terrorism. This widens the scope of section 1 even further and is likely to have dangerous consequences as evidenced by Ouseley J in R (On the application of Islamic Human Rights Commission.[43] In order to protect human rights and prevent those of authority from abusing their powers and accusing innocent persons of terrorism, some changes need to be implemented because the system at present is unsatisfactory.[44] Conversely, it has been suggested that “a definition would only be necessary if the punishment of the relevant offences were made conditional on the existence of a specific terrorist intent.”[45] An example of this can be seen in respect of the definition that has been provided by the League of Nations Convention of 1937 under Article 1.1. Here, it was stated that an act of terrorism will consist of “criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.” It was also provided by the United Nations General Assembly under Article 2.1 of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that a terrorist is someone who causes; “death or serious bodily injury; serious damage to public or private property, or damage to property, places, facilities, or systems likely to result in major economic loss.”[46]

Distinction between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist

A freedom fighter is a person that attempts to achieve political freedom and is generally defined as a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment.”[47] Such persons include the South African Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and the Irish Republican Army (IRA). These were considered to be freedom fighters on the basis that they fought for freedom against national governments.[48] The MK launched its first attacks in 1961 and was rendered freedom fighters despite the fact that they were originally classified by the South African government and the United States as terrorists. The IRA launched its first attacks in 1919 and was too deemed freedom fighters, although many did in fact render them terrorists. As noted by Brown; “the Provisional IRA’s ceasefire means its members should regarded as freedom fighters to distinguish them from terrorist groups that refuse to enter a political process.”[49] These two sets of freedom fighters demonstrate what a ‘freedom fighter’ will consist of, yet they also demonstrate how a fine line is usually drawn between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. In light of this, it would seem appropriate to establish a clearer definition so that the two could be distinguished more easily. The Lehi (Lohamei Herut Israel) was also classed as a freedom fighter early on, yet they later faced terrorism.

Again, this signifies how it can be difficult to distinguish between the two and it is often argued that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter[50] as also noted in the Gul case. It is arguable whether this statement holds any truth, yet given that there are varying definitions it is possible to interpret a terrorist as a freedom fighter and vice versa. This is also due to the fact that the roles in which the two undertake are extremely similar, thus making it more difficult to make an appropriate distinction. An individual may resultantly be deemed a terrorist in one jurisdiction but a freedom fighter in another because of the different meanings that exist. As pointed out by Rosand; “the General Assembly’s inability to reach agreement on a definition of terrorism after nearly thirty-five years of discussions in one form or another has limited the impact of its counterterrorism efforts.”[51] Conflicts will therefore continue to exist, yet if terrorism is to be tackled effectively it is necessary that an appropriate definition is provided by the international community in order to avoid such complexities. Consequently, “terrorism can be seen in the shadow on the wall: a silhouette of a gun, discharged into the body of a man who crumples before us.”[52] This suggests that terrorism is simply a half-truth that cannot be identified with ease. This leads to a great deal of ambiguity as it cannot be said what the exact differences between a freedom fighter and a terrorist are. Many believe that terrorists are able to escape liability for their actions as a result of these issues since they may be considered freedom fighters by certain jurisdictions.

Terrorist actions are more difficult to be eliminated because of the fact that consideration must be given to the possibility that an individual may in fact be a freedom fighter as opposed to a terrorist. Yet, in preserving the human rights of individuals this is a necessary requisite. Nonetheless, as put by Scheuer; “the counterterrorism record of the Bush administration is resoundingly negative” [53] This is because two wars, which were nearly lost, were created at the expense of thousands of lives. A substantial amount of money was spent and the credibility of the U.S. military was reduced. Furthermore, the Bush administration’s failings form part of a continuum of negative accomplishments that stretch back to more than a decade.[54] This is likely to be the result of a lacking definition since those who are involved in terrorist acts are often being rendered freedom fighters when they should be classified as terrorists.[55] However, in making the necessary distinction new concepts will be unnecessary as certain acts of violence will not be treated as crimes and will thus be permitted under international law. In accordance with this it is thereby necessary to distinguish between “common criminals and those who have exercised violent, but proportional, resistance against persons ordering the commission of a war crime or a crime against humanity.”[56] However, it is important that the seriousness of one’s actions is being given sufficient recognition within the international community so that the WOT can be effectuated.[57]


It cannot be said that a satisfactory definition is being produced at present which successfully distinguishes between a ‘freedom fighter’ and a ‘terrorist’ and because of this terrorism legislation will continue to generate controversies. [58] As has been evidenced, this can have a significant impact upon the human rights of individuals as well as the maintenance of national security and peace.[59] If a freedom fighter is mistaken for a terrorist, this can have severe human rights consequences.[60] On the contrary if a terrorist is mistaken for a freedom fighter, the international community will be at risk and their national security interests will not have been adequately protected by the international community.[61] As such, it is important to attain a balance within this area so as to prevent any absurd consequences from occurring.[62] There have consequently been many suggestions for reform in this area to create a universal definition, yet this may not be feasible given the wide-ranging definitions that already exist. The Joint Committee on Human Rights stressed that; “by using the definition of terrorism contained in the Terrorism Act 2000, the offence of encouragement of terrorism in s. 1 of the 2006 Act is much wider than the offence which is required to be criminalised by Article 5 of the Convention.”[63] Again, this signifies how a more limited definition ought to be employed so as to prevent human rights abuses from occurring. Nevertheless, if a single definition was to be adopted, serious injustice would ensue. Whether this means that the present system is in fact sufficient is arguable, though it is manifest that some clarity is fundamental.

Still, the anti-terrorist strategies that have been incorporated will not be effectuated if inconsistency exists and as put by Duffy; “undermining the authority of the law can only lay the foundation for future violations, whether by terrorists or by states committing abuses in the name of counter-terrorism.”[64] Accordingly, much of the problems that arise with combating the WOT occur as a result of the lacking definition and the extensive powers that are provided to the police. This has led Amnesty International to point out that; “Governments around the world have spent billions in an effort to beef up national security and the “war on terror”.” In spite of this, much of the security mechanisms that were adopted were deemed to be corrupt and inept systems of policing and justice.[65] Whilst the WOT is supposed to make the world safer, it seems as though more damage is being done and innocent people are being subjected to human rights abuses.[66] If the definition of terrorism was more limited and the police’s powers were not so extensive, it is likely that the WOT would be more effective. At the same time, human rights would be better protected and less conflict would transpire.

Nevertheless, because many are in favour of the broad definition[67] it unlikely that a rigid approach will ever be adopted since it is important that national security can still be maintained. However, in replace of a rigid definition, a description as to what type of actions would amount to a terrorist act could be provided. This would prevent the police from abusing their powers and violating the rights of innocent individuals, whilst at the same time avoiding persons, such as Mr Gul, from escaping liability. This would provide an element of certainty to an area that is currently overcome with confliction and would provide greater confidence to the international community that their rights were being preserved.[68] Not all agree that a description would be sufficient and instead argue that there a definition of terrorism should be implemented in international law.[69] As enunciated by Saul; there is a “need to condemn violations to human rights, to protect the state and deliberative politics, to differentiate public and private violence, and to ensure international peace and Security.”[70] Given that abuse is prevalent throughout the police force in the UK, it seems as though a lack of definition would prevent these objectives from being achieved.[71] This view is supported by Diaz-Paniagua who contends that an effective terrorism legal regime can only be established if a comprehensive definition of that crime is formed. This is because a comprehensive definition would; “on the one hand, provide the strongest moral condemnation to terrorist activities while, on the other hand, would have enough precision to permit the prosecution of criminal activities without condemning acts that should be deemed to be legitimate.”[72]


Overall, it is evident that the definition of terrorism and the powers that are provided to the police under section 44 of the 2000 Act are too extensive. Because of the difficulty in defining a terrorist, the police are given the power to make their own decisions, which often leads to the violation of innocent people. The police are thus able to argue that they suspected a person of terrorism without any supporting evidence, which often results in ethnic minorities being the subject of much abuse. Reform to this area is clearly necessary if the human rights of individuals are to be protected, yet this must not be at the expense of national security. It remains to be seen what, if any, changes will be made given the problems that have arose so far, yet it is apparent that something needs to be done. The starting point would be to adopt a stricter interpretation of the meaning of terrorism, yet because of the difficulties associated with distinguishing between a terrorist and a freedom fighter it is likely that this will prove problematic. In addition, because the activities of a freedom fighter are similar to the activities of a terrorist, a distinction cannot easily be made and the two are frequently being wrongly classified. Furthermore, different jurisdictions have different interpretations as to what is meant by a terrorist, yet some conformity is integral if the WOT is to be tackled effectively. This will result in many problems and the fight against terrorism will not be adequately achieved. Greater clarification is therefore needed, yet this can only be successfully achieved by the introduction of a universal definition of terrorism. This would remove the ambiguities that currently exist and the WOT’s objectives would be preserved. On the other hand, it could be argued that greater flexibility is needed when it comes to defining terrorism so that special circumstances, which would not be foreseeable, could be accounted for. This would not be possible if a strict universal definition was employed. Furthermore, because different jurisdictions all have dissimilar views as to what will amount to a terrorist act, flexibility is needed. On the whole, whilst the present approach lacks a universal declaration, this may in fact be necessary in preventing a rigid system from being established.



Benjamin Witts, Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror, (New York; London Press, 2008).

Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, (Columbia University Press, 1998).

Carlos Fernando Diaz-Paniagua, Negotiating Terrorism: The Negotiation Dynamics of Four UN Counter-Terrorism Treaties 1997-2005, (City University of New York, 2008).

Clive Walker. Blackstone’s Guide to the Anti-Terrorism., (OUP Oxford, 2nd Edition, 2009).

David Cole, Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of Security, (New York, London Press, 2006).

David Feldman, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, (Oxford University Press, 2002).

Donald Musch, International Terrorism Agreements: Documents and Commentary (Oceana Publications, 2004).

Helen Duffy, The War on Terror and the Framework of International Law, (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

James Sterba, Terrorism and International Justice (Oxford University Press, 2003).

Jordan Paust, Beyond the Law: the Bush administration’s unlawful responses in the War on Terror, (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Laura Donohue, Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Powers in the United Kingdom 1922-2000 (Irish Academic Press, 2001).

Laura Donohue, The Cost of Counterterrorism, Power Politics and Liberty (Cambridge University Press, 2008).

Richard Stone, Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights, (OUP Oxford, 6th Edition, 2008).

Peter Berkowitz. Terrorism, the laws of war and the Constitution: Debating the Enemy Combatant Decisions (Stanford Hoover Institutional Press, 2005).

Stefan Sottiaux, Terrorism and the Limitation of Rights: the ECHR and the Constitution (OUP Oxford, Hart , 2008).

Victor Ramraj, Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy, (Cambridge University Press, 1st Edition, 2009).


Alexander Murray, ‘Court of Appeal: Acts of War or Acts of TerrorismJournal of Criminal Law, Volume 76, Issue 298.

Adam Wagner, ‘Supreme Court Considers Definition of Terrorism’ UK Human Rights Blog, 05 March 2014.

Amnesty International, No Short Cut to Genuine Security: Suffering Beyond the Spotlight, Amnesty International Press Release, (28 May, 2003), 06 March 2014.

Amnesty International. (2009) Impunity for CIA Torture is Incompatible with USA’s International Obligations, 08 March 2014.

Andrea Gioia, ‘The UN Conventions on the Prevention and Suppression of International Terrorism’ (2006) International Co-operation in Counter-Terrorism: The United Nations and Regional Organisations in the Fight Against Terrorism.

Ben Saul, ‘Defining Terrorism to Protect Human Rights’ (2008) Sydney Law School Legal Studies, Research Paper No 08-125.

Clive Walker., ‘Clamping down on Terrorism in the United Kingdom’ (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 5.

Daniel Brown, ‘IRA are Freedom Fighters and Not a Terrorist Group’ (2001) The Independent UK, 07 March 2014.

Eddy, When is a Freedom Fighter not a Terrorist 06 March 2014.

Eric Rosand, ‘The UN-Led Multilateral Institutional Response to Jihadist Terrorism: Is a Global Counterterrorism Body Needed?’ (2006) Journal of Conflict and Security Law, C&S Law 2006 11, Issue 3, 399.

Gary Robson, ‘In the Balance’ (2010) Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, Essential Resource for Professionals Serving the Criminal Courts Since 1837, Issue 14, 174 JPN 200.

House of Lords, House of Commons, Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism’ (2007) First Report of Session 2006-07, Report, together with formal minutes and appendices 06 March 2014.

Ian Awan, ‘The Erosion of Civil Liberties: Pre-Charge Detention and Counter-Terror Law’ (2011) 84 Police Journal 3.

Ian McKenzie, ‘Policing After Macpherson’ (2000) 73 Police Journal 323, Issue 4.

James Ames, ‘News: 90-day Detention Plans Shelved’ (2005) 3 Law Society Gazette 2, Issue 45.

James Chair, Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press, Political Science, 2004).

Jean-Marc Sorel, ‘Some Questions About the Definition of Terrorism and the Fight Against Its Financing’ (2003) European Journal of International Law, EJIL 2003, Volume 14, Issue 2.

James Bullock and Jason Collins, ‘Tax and the War on Terror’ (2004) Tax Journal, The non-taxing weekly for top practitioners, Issue 762, Issue 762.

Kevin Roach., The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism, (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

Matthew O’Rourke, ‘The Impact of the “War on Terrorism” on Internal Conflicts’ (2005) Ploughshares, Volume 26, Number 1.

Merriam Webster, Freedom Fighter, An Encyclopaedia Britannica Company, (2011) 06 March 2014.

Michael Scheuer, ‘What War on Terror?’ (2007) The Journal of International Security Affairs, Number 12, 04 March 2014.

Ministry of Justice, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2007/08, (2009).

New Law Journal, ‘More Haste Less Speed’ (1998) 148 New Law Journal 1293, Issue 6855.

Patrick Buchanan, ‘Terrorists – and Freedom Fighters?’ (2004) AntiWar, 07 March 2014.

Peter Wallington and Richard Gregory Lee, Blackstone’s Statutes on Public Law and Human Rights 2006-2007 (Oxford University Press, 2006).

Robert Herron., ‘Counter-Terrorism, Rights and the Rule of Law: How Far Have we Come Since Executive Detention?’ (2011), Human Rights in Ireland, 07 March 2014.

Sabia Hanif, ‘The Difference Between Freedom-Fighters and Terrorists is not the Perception but Terminology’ (2003) Islamic Human Rights Commission, 05 March 2014.

Security Council in Le Terrorisme est un totalitarisme, Le Monde, (06 November, 2001).

Susan Herman, ‘Terrorism, Government, and Law: National Authority and Local Authority in the War on Terror’ (2008) Westport, CT, Praeger Security International.

United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly Resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, Sixth Session, Annex II, art 2.1, (28 January – 1 February 2002).

Tom Campbell, Keith Ewing and Adam Tomkins, The Legal Protection of Human Rights: Sceptical Essays on Human Rights, (OUP Oxford, 2003).

Walter Kalin and Jorg Kunzli, ‘Article 1F(b): Freedom Fighters, Terrorists, and the Notion of Serious Non-Political Crimes’ (2000) International Journal of Refugee Law, IJRL 2000 12S (46).

William Burke –White, ‘Human Rights and National: Security: The Strategic Correlation’ (2004), Harvard Human Rights Journal, Volume 17, 06 March 2014.

Case Law

KJ (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 292

R v Ashton [2006] EWCA Crim 794

R (Gillian) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12, [2006] 2 AC 307

R v F [2007] QB 960

R v Gul (Mohammed) [2013] UKSC 64

R (On the application of Islamic Human Rights Commission [2006] EWHC 2465 (Admin)

Secretary of State for the Home Department v DD (Afghanistan) [2010] EWCA Civ 1407


Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Human Rights Act 1998

Preventions of Terrorism Act 2005

Terrorism Act 2000

Terrorism Act 2006

Free Essays

‘In the light of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Gillan v United Kingdom on stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, the analogous powers of stop, question, search and detention in Sched. 7 of that Act are arguably also in breach of several Convention Rights.’


The police powers of stop and search are considered to be one of the most controversial police powers. They have been criticised in a variety of contexts and legislation, e.g. for their inefficiency to combat crime, and for their arbitrary application. The stop and search powers under s 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 came under attack in Gillan v UK (“Gillan”), where the ECHR held that the police powers of stop and search were not in compliance with Article 8 ECHR (right to privacy), and may infringe Article 5 (deprivation of liberty). Sched. 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 deals with border searches and questioning of suspects, and gives officials the power to stop, question and detain suspects for the purpose of determining whether they may be involved in the acts of terrorism. As with s 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, there is no need for officials to have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ when searching or questioning someone.
This essay will argue that the statement above is essentially correct, i.e. after the decision in Gillan, there is every reason to suppose that powers contained in Sch. 7 of the Terrorism Act are also in breach of the ECHR. This is so despite the decision in Beghal v DPP, which expressly held that Sched. 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is not incompatible with Article 6 or 8 ECHR. Three main arguments can be put forward in support of this view: the broad powers contained in Sched. 7, which can potentially infringe the ECHR rights, the introduction of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14, which makes changes to the Sched. 7, i.e. the realisation by Parliament of the problem, and the criticism of the court’s reasoning and decision in Beghal v DPP.
It seems evident that the present arrangements of the Sched. 7 are inappropriate, and do not provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrary power of the state. Arguably, Sched. 7 contains very broad powers, which can match those of s 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Sched. 7 provides powers to stop, search and question, even though these powers may only be exercised on a limited class of people, i.e. those in a designated area, e.g. in an airport. S 2 of Sched. 7 states that ‘an examining officer may question a person…for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within s 40 (1) (b), i.e. those which could probably be connected with terrorism activities. S 8 of the Schedule concerns searches and empowers an officer to search a person or anything he has with him. Further sections also deal with detention of property found during a search.
Although Lord Carlile stated that “a schedule [7] is an essential part of Britain’s border security”, and “it is a necessary and proportionate provision, [which] plays an important part in protecting national security”, Ratna Lachman said that such searches are often based on stereotyping and more checks and balances should in place. David Anderson QC also emphasised Sched. 7’s negative impact “on some Muslim communities”, and made a series of recommendations. There is some research support for his proposition. For example, Choudhury and Fenwick found the same negative effect of Sched. 7 on Muslim communities in England. Choudhury and Fenwick carried out focus group discussions as part of their study. They found that, with regards to Sched. 7 (stopping and questioning individuals at airports), many people reported being stopped and questioned on completely irrelevant issues, with some of them being provocative. Because police officers are trying to discern whether an individual has connections with a terrorist activity, Choudhury and Fenwick reported individuals being questioned on their religious and political beliefs, and questions about personal activities are not uncommon. Understandably, this may provoke anger and misunderstanding among Muslim communities, especially when they perceive that they are being targeted as a result of their looks, i.e. being dressed in a religious dress, and consequently as a result of their religious beliefs. In Choudhury and Fenwick’s study, one interviewee even reported that the information that officers were gathering was used to build a profile of Muslim communities, so that they can be controlled more efficiently by authorities. Evidently, this means that not only Article 5 and 8 of the ECHR can potentially be violated, but also Article 14. The implications of Article 5 ECHR’s engagement are also evident with regards to Sched. 7. Article 5 of the ECHR states that ‘everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law’. These legal qualifications, arguably, do not apply to Sched, 7, as the powers inherent in the provision are too broad and not altogether clear to be regarded as those prescribed by law, given that any law must be in accordance with the rule of law principle.
Despite the Code of Practice, which expressly forbids searches to be conducted based on a person’s religious or political affiliation or ethnic background, it is clear that there is a risk of discriminatory treatment here, and more accountability and greater transparency are needed. Even the previous domestic decision of R (Gillan) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner could be said to be based on unclear principles, and the judges may tried to ‘read down’ relevant provisions in this case. For example, it has been held in that case that no evidence was produced to say for sure that the powers rendered the public vulnerable to biased and arbitrary interference by officials. However, if no reason or intent is specified in the legislation which sets down the powers, it is only too evident that such powers are too broad and are bound to be used in such an arbitrary manner at least once in a while.
Moreover, the judgement in Gillan expressly states that an officer must first suspect someone of being a potential terrorist, and, as Sanders, Young and Burton argue, this is not “demanding requirement”. Thus, it may be argued that there is no real reason why that requirement (‘reasonable suspicion’) should not also be applicable to Sched. 7, which concerns the questioning and stopping people near the border. The designated area and the number of people may be smaller under Sched. 7, but the principle, surely, remains the same. This is especially so when we consider the fact that not answering questions or submitting to search is an arrestable offence, with the punishment upon conviction of three months’ imprisonment. Terrorism stop and search powers were also discussed by Lord MacDonald in his report to Parliament. His Lordship stated that stop and search powers must be limited to certain place and time, and, it is best if they are linked “appropriately to specifically anticipated terrorist activity”. However, it could be argued that when Sched. 7 is used the officers are hardly restricted to a terrorist activity and its anticipation, and the Code of Practice which specifically urges officers not to stereotype, does little in practice to combat the problem.
Sched, 7 involves the stopping and questioning of someone which, given the broad powers of the section, may be carried out on officers’ whim. However, the questioning to discern political and religious motivations of people, and its possible challenge under Article 8 has been emphasized elsewhere. In particular, some say that it may not be right to draw terrorism connotations from people’s religious and political views. Most Commonwealth countries use the requirement of “underlying purpose” to discern a terrorist activity. However, as David Anderson argues, this is not included in any UN definition, and it may endanger the suspect’s free speech rights and encourage racial tensions. Kent Roach also states that “the political, religious or other motives of the perpetrators should not excuse terrorism; conversely they should also not constitute part of the crime of terrorism”.
The final point is that the use of stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000 damages the relationship between minority ethnic communities and the police. For example, the Police Complaints Authority found that “black people experience a different kind of dissatisfaction about stop and searches than do white people, and that the incidents that they are complain about are intrinsically different.” Thus, in terms of stop and search powers, those from ethnic minority backgrounds feel differently (more sensitive) about being stopped and questioned. In relation to discriminatory stopping and questioning, which may come within the remit of Article 14, the Roma Rights case provides an illustration. This case concerned immigration control at Prague airport. Many of those asylum seekers who were Roma (and also Czech citizens) were refused their application to stay in the UK. It has been alleged by the claimants that as a result of their origin they were questioned more intensively by the authorities and they had to provide more substantial evidence to prove their claims in comparison to those who were not Roma. In that case it was decided by the court that a policy of being more suspicious towards potential Roma immigrants, which immigration officers frequently practiced, violated rules against unlawful discrimination enshrined under the Race

Relations Act.

The same discriminatory treatment may be seen in the application of Sched. 7 if the power under Schedule is used in a discriminatory manner. This lack of confidence in the police may deepen the desire of people to find their rights violated when they are being stopped, questioned or searched. This, in turn, can lead to an increase in the number of the ECHR claims brought.
Therefore, the main criticism of powers under s 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at issue in Gillan i.e. that their use was discriminatory, can apply to Sched. 7, regardless of the fact that the latter legislation is not used as broadly as s 44 of the Terrorism Act 2005 was used. However, even this proposition could be challenged as evidence shows that Sched. 7 is used on a massive scale in the UK, any other stop and search power that was in force before its enactment. For example, it was found that there were 56, 257 examinations involving powers under Sched. 7 in the year 2012 in England, Wales and Scotland. Moreover, around 2, 265 of these examinations lasted for more than an hour.
Important consideration is also a number of arrests that were made pursuant to Sched. 7. A recent report by the Home Office showed that there are about 20 arrests annually (2004-2009 figures), and the number of convictions is approximately 7 a year. Given so few arrests and the potential of Sched. 7 to infringe the multitude of the Convention Rights daily, it is questionable whether it is proportionate and in the public interest to maintain Sched. 7 without further amendments. Although the guidance to the Terrorism Act 2000 states that Sched. 7 “should only be used to counter terrorism and may not be used for any other purpose”, it is still unclear how far this Schedule is used to gather intelligence and control the movement of activist and researchers working in foreign countries. In that way, Sched. 7 may actually be more restrictive than any other power, as it specifically targets tourists and travellers. These allegations are not unfounded, as it has been reported by Corporate Watch in February 2013 that their personnel of researchers was targeted (5 times overall) under Sched. 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and the questioning by officers did not allegedly involved the issues of terrorism, but concentrated on protest groups and campaigns.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights also pointed out that Sched. 7 can potentially infringe both Articles 5 and 8 of the ECHR. In particular, the powers in Sched. 7, especially those requiring individuals to be stopped, detained and be questioned on their political and religious activities, were deemed to be too wide and to lack sufficient safeguards. Thus, in August 2013, the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation proposed a separate investigation into the questioning of David Miranda at Heathrow. It seems that what followed were Clause 132 and Schedule 8 of the new Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The amendments will introduce restrictions to the existing power, and extend the already existing safeguards. However, it should be noted that, even if this Bill comes into force, important procedural safeguards will still be lacking, such as the requirement of reasonable suspicion. It is this requirement which may enable the powers to come within the definition of ‘prescribed by the law’ in the Convention Rights. Such organisations as Liberty are also of the same opinion, stating that the new powers would still “come nowhere near addressing the dangerous breadth and intrusiveness of these [already existing] powers.”
Gillan case stems from the previous domestic decisions in R (Gillan) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner. The case involved two people (one of whom was a journalist) who were stopped and searched during an arms fair. In domestic courts no incompatibility of the provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000 with the ECHR was found. Beghal v DPP involved a French national, who, while returning from France (where her husband was a convicted terrorist), was stopped and searched by authorities in the UK. Although in Gillan it was held that there was a breach of Article 8 following the use of stop and search powers, in Beghal v DPP, Sched. 7 was found to be not incompatible with Article 8. Arguably, it is difficult to distinguish Beghal v DPP and Gillan cases, and find consistency in the approach of judges. The court in Beghal v DPP stressed the underlying purpose of the Sched. 7, which is to protect the public from terrorism. However, it could be argued that the same purpose existed when s 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was still in force and produced the controversy in Gillan. Also, although the court in Beghal v DPP found the absence of requirement of ‘reasonable suspicion’ both explicable and justifiable, even this reasoning can be questioned, because apart from international character of the Sched. 7, there seems to be no major difference between the two provisions.
Article 8 (2) states that an interference with a suspect’s private life must be in accordance with the law. That law, supposedly, must be both accessible and compatible with the requirements of the rule of law. However, as in Gillan case and s 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, in Beghal v DPP and Sched. 7 considerations, more emphasis should have been drawn to the fact that authorisation of search and questioning must not be ‘necessary’ for the officers to proceed. Without this safeguard of ‘necessity’, the powers under Sched. 7 are also vulnerable to abuse.
The most telling sign, however, that Beghal v DPP decision may not be altogether correct is the present Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill before Parliament. If successful, the Bill will make changes to Sched. 7 and make powers of stop and search less biased.
In conclusion, it can be stated that there is every reason to suppose that in the light of Gillan v United Kingdom decision, the powers of stop and search contained in Sched. 7 are also in breach of several Convention Rights. There are few major differences between the powers contained in Sched. 7 and s 44 of the Act, and in terms of their broad application, and potentially draconian sentences when breached, they are the same. Therefore, there is no reason why Sched. 7 should remain unamended in the light of the amendment and further provisions enactment concerning s 44-46 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is especially so since both of these measures can be used in a discriminatory manner, infringing not only Articles 8 and 5 ECHR, but also Article 14. The decision reached in Beghal v DPP can also be criticised for failing to draw important similarities with Gillan case.
Moreover, it seems that the idea that Sched. 7 can potentially breach several Convention Rights following Gillan case is becoming uncontroversial, since the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which purports to make changes to Sched.7 and make the powers therein less arbitrary is already in the reporting stage of the second house in Parliament. It can only be hoped that such provisions will be enacted. This will be a step in the right direction towards ensuring the protecting of human rights, while, at the same time, ensuring the safety of the population.



Anderson D, ‘Shielding the Compass: How to Fight Terrorism Without Defeating the l
Law’ (2013) 3 European Human Rights Law Review 233

Ashworth A and Redmayne M, The Criminal Process (4th Edition, OUP, 2010)

Buxton R, ‘Terrorism and the European Convention’ (2010) Criminal Law Review 533

Cape E, ‘The Counter- Terrorism Provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Preventing Misuse or a Case of Smoke and Mirrors?’ (2013) 5 Criminal Law Review 385

Dennis I, The Law of Evidence (5th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

Emmerson B, Ashworth A and Macdonald A, Human Rights and Criminal Justice (3rd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2012)

Lustgarten L, ‘The Future of Stop and Search’ (2002) Criminal Law Review 603

MacDonald K, ‘Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers’ (2011) (Paper presented to Parliament, January, 2011) accessed 19 January 2014

Miller J, Bland N and Quinton P, The Impact of Stop and Searches on Crime and the Community (Home Office, 2000)

Roach, K, ‘The Case for Defining Terrorism With Restraint and Without Reference to Political and Religious Motive’ in Andrew Lynch et al (ed.), Law and Liberty in the War on Terror (Federation Press, 2008)

Sanders A, Young R and Burton M, Criminal Justice (OUP, 2010)

Choudhury T and Fenwick H, ‘The Impact of Counter-Terrorism Measures in Muslim Communities’ (2011) Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report 72
Liberty, Briefing on Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Liberty Publications, October 2012)
Liberty, Human Rights Review – Article 5, Deprivation of Liberty (Liberty Publications, 2012) accessed 21 January 2014
House of Lords, Deb., 14 January 2014, col. 99
accessed 16 January 2014
Police Complaints Authorty, Stop and Search Complaints 2000-2001, Summary Report (Police Authority Publications, 2004)
Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (2013-2014)accessed 16 January 2014
Corporate Watch, ‘Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000: A Police Snooping Tool to Protect Private Profit’(Corporate Watch Online Publications, February, 2013)accessed 19 January 2014
Mahmood S, ‘Home Office Pledges to Tackle UK Border Discrimination’ (BBC News, 14 January 2014) accessed 19 January 2014

Free Essays

Nuclear terrorism

The most recent threat of Nuclear attack attempted on the United States has come from North Korea, as such the following essay will delve into North Korea’s investment in nuclear terrorism and the plan of action the United States has against such action.  There are several links that associate North Korea to different factions of terrorism.  The following paper will give detailed examples of North Korea’s interaction and support of each group.  The support of terrorism has many forms such as weapons or money and North Korea’s handing over of monetary funds and weapons will also be documented in this essay.  The resources necessary for terrorism to exist has a partner in government and North Korea is just such a partner.

The following paper will not only address the fact of terrorism affiliation between North Korea and reputed terrorist groups and countries but also that North Korea has their own terrorist group.  This fact can be found in North Korea’s treatment toward South Korea and reported assassination attempts of their presidents on several occasions.  The terrorist affiliation North Korea harbors is one that involves not only promoting terrorism through trade with notable terrorist groups but also their own participation in Afghanistan terrorist camps and the trading of weapons technologies with such groups (Graham 20-21).

North Korea is a country with a specific dichotomy between public relations.  These relations deal mainly with money.  The reason North Korea is reported to be trading with terrorists is that their funding aids in the economic growth of their country.  The support that North Korea gives to terrorist is rewarded with monetary funds from such countries as Japan, Iran, and Iraq.  This paper will organize specific examples of each country and it’s trading policy with North Korea (what items it trades for what price etc.).  The essay will also focus on how North Korea opens up trade routes covertly using bribes and coercion.

The year 2000 saw the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the United States government went through a series of terrorism talks and the future state of terrorism as well as cooperation of North Korea’s government in several documented terrorism actions.  Such actions include the 1970 hijacking of a Japanese plane bound for North Korea and the subsequent sheltering of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction members or hijackers, or the safe haven North Korea provided to the terrorist who were involved in the hijack.  Also, DPRK has been suspected of selling weapons to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, as specified by the Philippine government.

The monetary transaction was made possible through Middle East connections (Terrorism Files, 2002).  North Korea has been on the US terrorism list sin 1988 and continues to remain on that list because of its uncooperative procedures for information on terrorist after the September 11 attacks, as Secretary of State John Bolton stated, “’North Korea has a dedicated, national-level effort to achieve a biological weapons capacity and has developed and produced, and may have weaponized, biological weapons agents.

Despite the fact that its citizens are starving,” said Mr. Bolton, “the leadership in Pyongyang has spent large sums of money to acquire the resources, including a biotechnology infrastructure, capable of producing infectious agents, toxins, and other crude biological weapons. It has a variety of means at its disposal for delivering these deadly weapons.’” (North Korea and Terrorism 2002).

Another terrorism threat that North Korea poses and has been linked with is nuclear terror.  In this respect according to Pakistan and US sources (as well as Libyan) this is the current threat of North Korea:  they have been supposedly training Arab terrorists for at minimum ten years at the Kim Jung-il Political and Military University.  North Korea is also linked with Osama bin Laden in arms dealing, as Triplett (2004) states in North Korea and Nuclear Terror, of the existing relationship between North Korea and bin Laden, “This was discovered in 2000 when bin Laden financed a shipment of North Korean conventional arms to a Philippine Islamic terrorist group”.

North Korean nuclear weapons were also being used as tests by Pakistan (in 1998).  Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory suspect that these tests were a conglomeration between Pakistan and North Korea in nuclear testing.  Such joint ventures are not new for North Korea and their connection with terrorism.  Nuclear weapons are just the forefront of terror that North Korea has presented to the world.

North Korea, since their cover-up in 1970 of the safe haven they provided to the airplane hijackers, have been affiliated with several terrorist groups as Triplett further states, “Recently a Japanese newspaper, citing military sources, reported Iranian military figures were seen at North Korea nuclear facilities. This leads allied intelligence to suspect the Iranians of trying to move their nuclear weapons program to North Korea, beyond the range of Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers”.

The Pakistan, and North Korean conglomeration of trading weapons is a definite terrorism group.  The weapon testing near the Afghan border in 1998 was reported to have been the testing of Korean made missiles.  Another link between Pakistan and North Korea can be found with Major General (retired) Saltan Habib, who was responsible for covert acquisitions of nuclear technologies while presiding as the defense attaché of Pakistan in Moscow, was posted as the ambassador to North Korea to ‘oversee the clandestine nuclear and missile cooperation between North Korea and Pakistan’ (Raman 2002).

As the ambassador, Habib organized the covert shipment of missiles from North Korea to Pakistan.  Not only did Habib coordinate this shipment but he also was reported to have exchanged technology from North Korea to Pakistan on weapons technologies especially those dealing with missiles and nuclear devices as Raman states, “…the training of Pakistani experts in the missile production and testing facilities of North Korea and the training of North Korean scientists in the nuclear establishments of Pakistan through Captain (retired) Shafquat Cheema, third secretary and acting head of mission in the Pakistani embassy in North Korea from 1992 to 1996”.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is one in which North Korea has strong ties.  Prior to Habib’s position with North Korea it was filled by Major General Shujjat from the Baluch Regiment.  General Shujjat was not only working for the embitterment of North Korea but clandestine actions he performed were favoring ISI for five consecutive years as Raman states, “On Captain Cheema’s return to headquarters in 1996, the ISI discovered that in addition to acting as the liaison officer of the ISI with the nuclear and missile establishments in North Korea, he was also earning money from the Iranian and the Iraqi intelligence by helping them in their clandestine nuclear and missile technology and material procurement not only from North Korea, but also from Russia and the CARs”.

The limits of North Korea’s involvement in terror seem boundless.  Not only have they delivered ballistic missiles to Pakistan but also they are using very covert methods by which to trade.  The beginning of 2002 was witness to mass movements of nuclear weapons across the Karakoram Highway.  These weapons were being transported from China to Pakistan with the envoy containing spare parts and other assortments.  The transportation of this shipment however has ties with North Korea because China may have accepted this movement from Pakistan only in regards to North Korea’s wishes (Raman).

North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are infamously known as the Axis of Evil, because of their terrorist ties and promotion of illegal arms dealing.  North Korea has managed to become well versed in terrorism through biological, chemical, and nuclear means.  In 1988 North Korea or DPRK as well as Kim Jong-il were suspected (and this probability is almost certain) of committing to assassinate South Korean president Chun in Rangoon (or Yangun as it is known today).

The assassination was to take place by strategically placing bombs atop the Martyr’s Masoleum (in dedication to Aung San the founder of independent Burma).  Although president Chun was delayed in traffic and did not succumb to the bombings, “The huge blast ripped through the crowd below, killing 21 people and wounding 46. Among the dead were the Korean foreign minister, Lee Bum Suk, the economic planning minister and deputy prime minister, Suh Suk Joo, and the Minister for Commerce and Industry, Kim Dong Whie. The rest of those killed were presidential advisers, journalists, and security officials, most of them South Korean” (Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia).

In finding evidence to support North Korea has having terrorist ties, it is presumably difficult.  The suspects who were responsible for the Rangoon bombings committed suicide by detonating hand grenades.  Such suspects are common in assisination attempts and thus true evidence is difficult to come by in linking North Korea directly with terrorism in some cases.  However, the 1970 safehaven as well as arms dealing that Philippine officials attest to are some of the supporting materials that accumalte against North Korea (Graham 80-85).

In lieu of specific evidence to support terrorism affilitations from North Korea president Kim Jong-il admitted to the United States in 2000 that DPRK had willfully exported missiles abroad.  These missiles are traded to Syria and Iran in exchange for monetary compensation.  While Syria was reportedly a main buyer of missiles, Iran was said to be a primary buyer of not only ballistic missiles but technology as well (Wagner 2000).  The specific terrorism that exists in North Korea trading missiles to such countries exists in those countries’ intent for such exported ‘goods’.  In order for North Korea to stop association and trading of missiles, as Wagner states of the conference between the United States and North Korea held in July-August of 2000,

Einhorn characterized the talks as “very useful” and said that he hopes to meet again with the North Koreans in the near future. However, on July 12, Jang “clarified” that North Korea would only continue the talks if the United States compensated Pyongyang “for the political and economic losses to be incurred in case we suspend our missile program.”

During the meeting, the United States had once again rejected North Korea’s long-standing demand for $1 billion per year in return for the cessation of missile exports. “North Korea should not be receiving cash compensation for stopping what it shouldn’t be doing in the first place,” Einhorn said.

This compensation is coercion and is a type of terrorism in and of itself.  North Korea should not be given compensation pay for ending its affilitation with terrorism simply because their economy would suffer slightly from the lose of funds selling missiles etc. had given the DPRK.

North Korea has remained in close contact with different terrorist groups.  The Japanese Red Army who were given safehaven in 1970 after the plane hijacking are coherts of Middle Eastern terrorists and in this connection lies the bridge by which North Korea exports weapons (Fulford 2001).  As said prior Pakistan has a standing trade relationship with North Korea as missile buyers.

The funding for such North Korean weapons development as Fulford states, “However, cutting off one of ruler Kim Jong Il’s main sources of finance–illegal activities in Japan–might prove easier. North Korea’s government has been manufacturing large quantities of heroin, amphetamines, weapons and counterfeit U.S. dollars to finance its weapons development programs. It sells them either through criminal gangs in Japan or via Russia and China to the U.S. and Europe, the Korea experts say.” Pakistan is also a main supporter of the Afghanistan Taliban regime and terror weapons that are used by Taliban are subsequently provided by North Korea (Fulford).

Other avenues by which North Korea finds funding for weapons is through Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party.  The Party solicits succor toward North Korea in exchange for bribes as Fulford further states, “…when Japan gave 500,000 tons of rice aid to North Korea last year, politicians received kickbacks from North Korea, Lee says. “I was with a North Korean official as he phoned a Japanese member of parliament and told him a shipment of free fish had been sent to a company he owns,” he says.”

This bribe system works by committing North Korean businessmen, who reside in Japan, to a loan.  This loan, or lend, is given by a bank and is paid back directly to North Korea and Japan.  Thus, the money cannot easily be traced.  Public money is being used to generate a working arms dealing relationship between North Korea and Japan.

Public money is not the only money being used in corrupt manners:  The Japanese government aided North Korea’s atomic weapon development through its Fuji bank.  Fuji bank is one of the largest banks in the world and its involvement in the deal between North Korea and Japan was a catalyst in North Korean weapons building and trading.  Essentially Fuji paid approximately $350 million to a myriad of North Korean businesses and organizations who were prospering in Japan.  This money was given in exchange for debt collection services (Graham 61-63).

The funding for weapons development in North Korea as it is funded by Japan and public money is the key component of rising terrorism at a global scale.  Due to North Korea’s association with several aforementioned terrorists groups, global terror does exist.  North Korea’s trade of missiles to different terrorist organizations promotes multilateral trade in a negative fashion because what North Korea is truly promoting is terrorism through trade.

There also exist unofficial reports of North Korea terrorist involvement.  It has been established that North Korea has dealt ballistic missiles to countries: It gained the raw materials for the construction of these missiles from such countries as China.  These missiles are capable of delivering mass destruction in the form of biological as well as chemical warfare.  In late 2001 P’yongyang continued a type of global scavenger hunt for technologies dealing with the making of nuclear weapons.

The procurement of the necessary plutonium for at least one nuclear weapon has set the world on edge.  As the Unclassified Congress Report (2001) states, “Spent fuel rods canned in accordance with the 1994 Agreed Framework contain enough plutonium for several more weapons.”  Along this train of potential arms dealings P’yongyang laid the path to trade with Russia by signing the Defense Industry Cooperation Agreement.

Among the trading partners that North Korea has established ties with include Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Angola, Burma, Cuba, Libya, and Syria.  Through trade with these countries North Korea is able to consistently manage its immense military operation (14% of its economic gross goes to the military despite calling in international aid to its starving people).  The trading that continues between the aforementioned countries and North Korea involves ‘arms, chemical and biological weapons materials, and even ballistic missile technology–in clear violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Libya, for example, recently bought 50 Rodong-1 missiles from North Korea with a range of 1,000 kilometers’ (Hwang, 2001).

Among the trading countries that North Korea has ties and the materials thar are reportedly being traded, North Korea has also been invovled with overtly selling weapons to various terrorist groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the United Wa State Army.  The United Wa State Army is a drug affiliated Burma terrorist group residing in the golden triangle.  The golden triangle is the area between Thailand, Laos, and Burma.

Not only is North Korea coordinating trading efforts with these terrorist groups but North Korea also has been training in Afghanistan terrorist camps (Hwang).  The Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John E. McLaughlin stated of North Korean involvement of terrorism, “North Korea’s challenge to regional and global security is magnified by two factors…first, the North’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and two, its readiness–and eagerness–to become missile salesman to the world” (Hwang).

Not only is North Korea associated and in league with terrorist groups by harboring hijackers and participating in terrorist camps but North Korea is a terrorist.  In 1987 North Korean agents bombed a South Korean airplane.  North Korea has continuously be involved with terrorist attacks on South Korea a reported 300 instances.  North Korea has participated in covert assassination attempts of South Korean presidents and has traversed passed South Korean borders 15 separate times (Hwang).

Not simply has North Korea been fully participatory in these incidences but as Hwang further states, “In one of the most blatant, 26 North Korean commandos in a submarine landed off the South Korean coast in September 1996; they, along with 17 South Koreans, were killed in the ensuing manhunt. Their mission is believed to have been to assassinate South Korean dignitaries”.  Therefore, North Korea guilty of fully participating in aiding terrorists through weapons and technologies and they are also delving into the leagues of terrorism by their chronic attack on South Korea (Graham 43-44).

Along the lines of defining North Korea as having terrorist groups within its borders who are North Korean Hwang states that North Korea has kidnapped an unprecedented 3,600 Korean citizens since the year 1953.  In this fact there exists relevant material to consider North Korea as having terrorist intentions and actions.  Not only has North Korea abducted Koreans but reportedly also foreigners, of which ten Japanese foreigners are the most noted.

In conclusion, North Korea is not only a country who supports terrorism through trade of weapons and technology but it is also a country which participates in terrorism through assassinations, and kidnappings.  North Korea then exists as a country spurned by monetary gain and by lines of distinction between trading partners and the uses those countries may have for nuclear weapons.

Although the above pages attest to the development of North Korea and its invovlement with terrorism it must also be noted that the United States with the advocacy of the United Nations, has established an administration of foreign policy which will attribute to the goals of nuclear disarmament.

Work Cited

Allison, Graham.  (2005).  Nuclear Terrorism, The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.  Owl

Books, New York.

Editorial.  North Korea and Terrorism.  2002.  (Online).  Available:  

Fulford, Benjamin.  North Korea, Another Outcropping of Terrorism.  Forbes.  September 2001.

(Online).  Available:  

Hwang, Balbina.  North Korea Deserves to Remain on US List of Sponsors of Terrorism.

Asia and the Pacific.  November 2001.  (Online).  Available:  

Raman, B.  Pakistan and the North Korea Connection.  Asia Times, October 2002.  (Online).


Terrorism Files.  State-Sponsored Terrorism North Korea.  2002.  (Online).  Available:  

Triplett, William C.  North Korea and Nuclear Terror.  The Washington Times.  2004.(Online).            Available:

Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia.  Rangoon Bombing.  (Online).  Available:       

Unclassified Congress Report.  2001.  (Online).  Available:  

Wagner, Alexander.  US-North Korea Terrorism Talks Resume; North Korea Admits to

Exporting Rocket Technology.  Arms Control Association, September 2000.

(Online).  Available:



Free Essays

NATO and Terrorism

“A key feature of terrorism is that it is directed at a wider audience or target than the immediate victims. It is one of the earliest forms of psychological warfare. An inevitable corollary is that terrorism entails attacks on random and symbolic targets, including civilians, in order to create a climate of extreme fear among a wider group.” (Buckley and Fawn, pg. 1)

Whenever, any country or a nation is at a critical stage and it feels that someone might capture his homeland, and then he bears the courage to fight for his homeland as for the love of his country. There are special rules and principles according to which countrymen can protect their nation from enemies. An alliance was formed by the European countries and the US when they were facing attacks from the Soviet Nations. To fight for their land, they created an alliance which is called NATO.

The abbreviation of NATO is North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It was created to promote harmony among the member countries and throughout the world. The basic responsibilities of the NATO soldiers were to remove the people whose lives were at stake near the borderline so that they could be accommodated too much safer places then those. In this regard, every member country was bound to follow all the instructions of this allied force in connection of the co-operation and peace among these countries. When this allied force was created there were about 51 countries in it and now it comprises about 189 countries. Basically, history tells that it was the unity of all the European nations, United States and Canada against a Soviet attack on their participating or friend nations.

“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as it often has been, is once again at the center of this debate. Today NATO is once again a subject of concern and debate. Member states have put the organization through a major structural overhaul, but there continue to be doubts concerning its future in the absence of a threat”. (Cohen et al, pg. 20)

The NATO is said to be an allied force as it is so it fights against terrorism but the main point to this topic is that if the NATO is fighting against terrorism then terrorism may surely be affecting it in many ways.

The most favorable prove in this regard is the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in the Washington District of the United States of America. “After the events of September 11 2001, a stunned US President George W. Bush declared that ‘night fell on a different world. There was indeed horror around much of the globe that a new and insidious precedent had been set for terror against states, making everyone vulnerable.” (Buckley and Fawn, pg. 1)

This effected the reputation and name of the NATO. While within 24 hours of the attack the NATO declared and proved that it was a plan to destroy the image of the NATO and somewhere they have succeeded. But the real plan was to kill the soldiers of the NATO. However, gradually the planes and aircrafts turned towards the WTC and bumped into the world’s highest building. Till then the NATO has been trying to curb terrorism and is in fight of this fearful activity and its activists.

However, nowadays, the NATO is working against terrorism in Afghanistan and is trying its level best to damage the hideouts of those jihad militants. The NATO fully recognized its duties after the September 11 2001 attacks, which proved to be harmful for the works of the NATO. After that they started an active participation in fight against terrorism and their first operation was chained outside Europe.

The North Atlantic Council, which is the central body of the NATO, directs it from where to start and all the NATO officials have to present their work history or their efforts to this Head Quarter named the North Atlantic Council. The NATO militants are offered their services from here and one is punctual and strict to abide the rules and principles of the Head Quarter.

Recently, the 2006 attacks in Turkey by terrorist groups were highly condemned by the NATO and at a conference held at the NAC0 the base commander declared his sympathy with the people of Turkey and strongly condemned the attitudes of the terrorist groups. The point is only that if these terrorist groups and their militants want us to move from their places then they should clearly come and fight with the NATO’s allied forces, while in this way they are not opening the ways of sympathy for them but are creating an emotional of hate in the hearts and minds of the people.

This conflict and war of terror between NATO and the terrorists have made the lives of people miserable. They do not care about who is living or who dies. The conflicting situation is continoulsy-disturbing the lives of people and is forcing them to kill themselves because of fear and terror but who cares because nobody would leave this war. Everyone should standby his conditions and all is well that end is well. People would die and last of the entire world would be free of us. Terrorist attacks in Algeria are also increasing but all are helpless in front of the terrorist forces.

According to a NATO press release, the Secretary General of the NATO strongly condemning the attacks said that on behalf of all the brave and courageous commandos of the NATO, I strongly condemn the terrorist attacks on Algeria and this is a promise that the NATO will always stand by the Algerians as our Mediterranean teams is also working. We hope for further development in decreasing the number of terrorists from the terrorist affected areas because our teams are working there to combat with the terrorists.

However, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NATO has become more serious and effective in playing its complete role against terrorism. Now, the forces of the NATO are removing people who are living near the terrorist camps especially in Afghanistan. The forces of the NATO fear that these people might be victimized in their context so it would be better to remove and relocate them to a much safer place. The NATO has been much supported and encouraged by its partners in regard of the fight against terrorism. The member countries are always present to help the NATO manage voluntary camps and they also launch campaigns for the betterment of theses courageous soldiers.

Nowadays the plan, which is residing among the partner countries, comprises of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the NATO-Russia Council. These two comprise of the supporting countries that have been with the NATO since its formation and have supported this alliance against terrorism in every positive means.

Apart from its member countries, the NATO is also sharing up its part with other international organizations and is taking and giving information to those organizations so that their law enforcement agencies could be proven helpful for the NATO in finding fearful and wanted people. In accordance with all of the above statements it has been proved that the NATO is trying its level best to curb the germ named terrorism but is continuously failing in it because the rising umber of crimes and criminals. However, a team like the NATO should be within every country so that it could have a worldwide terror-curbing network.

“Israel and its overseas network in the US…. (threatens) not only the oppressed people of Palestine (and Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and any other state Israel takes aim at) but the rights of people throughout the world.” He stresses we have mass public opinion on our side nearly everywhere outside the US, and it’s gaining resonance here as well. It sees Israel and our actions in support of the Israeli state as the greatest of all threats to world peace and stability. Petras ends his book with one final impassioned call to arms: “Let’s move ahead and de-colonize our country, our minds and politics as a first step in reconstituting a democratic republic, free of entangling colonial and neo-imperial alliances.” (Petras, 2006)

It has been proved that what were the aims and objectives on which the NATO was created. However, it is reminded again that when the US and UK colonies and European nations faced severe attacks from the sides of the Soviet Unions and Soviet nations, then they decided to create an allied force named the NATO. The NATO is supposed to be helpful in curbing the roots of terrorism and it is doing it as its prime duty but the greatest terrorist shock that rocked the whole world as well as the NATO was the 9/11 attacks.

“The September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States have made a smooth joint planning and coordination process even more urgent. While NATO invoked for the first time in its history its collective defense clause, it seems likely that the United States will coordinate its planned attacks on terrorist targets outside the European theater with individual allies rather than through the North Atlantic Council. As a result of the attacks, Washington will be reluctant to add more resources to Balkan peace management, at least in the short term”. (Cohen et al, pg. 74)

After these severe attacks, the NATO became more terror and fear conscious and now it has started its operations in Afghanistan and the Ukraine Mediterranean area. However, besides all of this conflicts and situation, terrorism has always been a wall in the social and humanitarian services of the NATO. Wherever the NATO services try to spread peace and harmony, there is a bomb blast reported and same of every attack, the name and the blame comes directly on the allied force the NATO.

The NATO has been contributing its services since 1955 and the countries, which are supporting it, should understand to announce an increase in the security of the soldiers. In that, if anybody is severely injured or dies during the military operations, the there should be special arrangements to remind those soldiers who contributed their part for the beloved country land. These soldiers should be regarded as a part of an active and alive society so that the forth-coming generation could remind the services of the beloved ones who sacrificed their lives for the love for their country. In that, it should be remembered and recognized that if these brave soldiers are neither paid tributes for their services or are never recognized for their never ending courage, we will lose these brave soldiers and then we should be ready to face another shock of a new Soviet or another union.

Works Cited

James Petras (Sep 26, 2006). The Power of Israel in the United States.

Lenard J. Cohen, Alexander Moens, and Allen G. Sens. Praeger. NATO and European Security: Alliance Politics from the End of the Cold War to the Age of Terrorism. Westport, CT. Year: 2003. Page Number: 20

Mary Buckley and Rick Fawn. Global Responses to Terrorism: 9/11, Afghanistan and beyond. Routledge.  New York, Year: 2003. Page Number: 1



Free Essays

Religion and Terrorism

Terrorism has long plagued the existence of peace and security in society, where secular groups have resorted to violence against non-combatant targets in order to influence the policies of a governmental or nongovernmental organisation. The concept of terrorism, whilst elusive and vague in definition has been categorised into various forms of terrorism, these being dissident, state-sponsored, and religious terrorism to name a few.

This paper will argue that the most dangerous form of terrorism is religious terrorism. To deliver an effective argument this paper has been divided into three sections; the first will argue that the most dangerous form of terrorism is religious terrorism by examining what it is, how it is dangerous, and why it is more dangerous than other forms of terrorism.

Secondly, this paper will argue that the most dangerous proponent of religious terrorism is the organisation of the Taliban, to support this claim; an analysis of the group will be given, including background information, information on the Taliban’s policies and recent activities, and the threat this groups poses on the international community. Lastly, this paper will analyse and critique the current governmental policies combating terrorism, and will then provide policy recommendations which could be implemented by governments, militaries or NGO’s.

The justification for this paper is simply that the validation of religious terrorism as the most dangerous form of terrorism will allow for effective international coordination towards combating terrorism. Various parameters of study were encountered in the process of this paper as there is much contention on which is the most dangerous form of terrorism, which gave way to biased opinions and misleading quotations regarding factual information on various organisations implementing terrorist tactics, namely the Taliban.

Although the concept of terrorism has no definition which is universally agreed upon, the notion of religious terrorism has been defined by Bruce Hoffman (1999), where religious terrorism must have three factors; “the perpetrators must use religious scripture to justify their violent acts or gains recruits; clerical figures must be involved in leadership roles; and apocalyptic images of destruction are seen by the perpetrators as necessary”.

Religious terrorism has arguably been an ongoing occurrence in contentious religious areas for centuries, where religious groups have resorted to violence against non-combatants in order to combat real or perceived threats to their own ideology (Alexander, 1994). Debate on the original terrorist aside, terrorism is quite a modern concept stemming from the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror prompted by Maxmilien Robespierre who targeted the “enemies of liberty” indiscriminately in the ideology of the “greater good” (Cooper, 2004).

Religious terrorism is thought to be caused by the misinterpretation (or fundamentalist belief) of religious scripture, however the belief in religious scripture is not the problem; it is only when these fundamentalist individuals act on their beliefs through violent means and justify their actions using religious scripture that we encounter the potential threat of terrorist tactics (Mendelsohn, 2009). Furthermore, this fundamentalist behaviour is only worsened when a threat to the religious ideology is perceived (Mendelsohn, 2009).

Religious terrorism is reasonably widespread throughout the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, predictably this may be due to the religious zeal in these regions (Alexander, 1994). A United Nations report (August, 2010) showed that 76% of all casualties (in the first six months) in Afghanistan and Pakistan were attributed to the actions of the Taliban and their associate organisations, showing the danger associated with religious terrorism.

Although religious terrorism has “become the predominant model for political violence in the modern world” (Martin, p 171, 2010) it is still not the only medium for extremist violence, as nationalism and ideology still remain strong motivators for radical violence (Martin, 2010). However, religious terrorism still remains a more dangerous form of terrorism when compared to other forms, such as state-sponsored or dissident terrorism. The factors which make this form of terrorism dangerous is the potentially apocalyptic ideology of religion, and furthermore the promise of an ethereal paradise awaiting those who follow this faith completely.

This factor seems to provide a motivation arguably more influential towards violent behaviour then other forms of terrorism. Bruce Hoffman (p 92, 1998) stated that “it is perhaps not surprising that religion should become a far more popular motivation for terrorism in the post-Cold War era as old ideologies lie discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union and communist ideology, while the promise of munificent benefits from the liberal-democratic, capitalist state… fails to materialise in many countries throughout the world”. A stronger motivation for terrorism signifies that more violent activity, and at a higher requency, is to be expected from religious terrorism than state-sponsored or dissident terrorism. In recent times, the frequency, scale of violence, and global reach of religious terrorism has been increasing, while at the same time a decrease in secular, non-religious terrorism has been occurring (Martin, 2010). The fact that religious terrorism provides a stronger motivation is more widespread, causes more casualties than any other form of terrorism, and is increasing in frequency, scale of violence, and global reach, is reason enough to argue that religious terrorism is the most dangerous form of terrorism.

Evidence of religious terrorism may be seen in the various attacks conducted on non-combatants throughout 2011. For example, on the 13th of May 2011, two suicide bombers were responsible for 80 deaths in Shabqadar, Pakistan, the attacks were claimed by the Taliban and were labelled a response to the death of Osama bin Laden on the 3rd of May 2011 (The Guardian, 13/5/11). Another example may be seen in the terrorist attacks in Somalia on the 4th of October 2011, claiming over 70 lives and injuring many more, the Islamic militant terrorist group Al-Shabaab soon claimed responsibility for the attack.

The attacks categorised as religious terrorism predominately occur throughout the Middle-East and Southeast Asia, with the most contentious areas being Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (Mendelsohn, 2009). To examine Pakistan individually, this region has become a trouble-spot for terrorism resulting in a largely contentious area. The terrorism occurring in Pakistan is predominately religious, resulting in over 350000 Pakistani civilians killed as of 2010 (New York Review of Books, 2011).

Pakistan has a long history involving religious conflict, and although many attempts have been made by the Pakistani government to resolve these conflicts, there is no sign of the conflict coming to an end. The fact that Pakistan is not an overly wealthy nation has contributed to the effectiveness of religious terrorist recruiting, as when individuals have nothing to lose they invest in religious ideology (Mendelsohn, 2009). Although there are many religiously based terrorist organisations, the Taliban is arguably the most dangerous proponent of religious terrorism.

It is important to understand the origins, policies, methods, and other information on the organisation before effective policies can be implemented to combat the Taliban’s terrorist tactics. The Taliban is an Islamist militant organisation which has had rule of the majority of Afghanistan from September 1996, however the Taliban-formed state called the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ only gained political recognition as a state from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE (Mockaitis, 2007).

However, the attacks on the USA on the 11th of September 2001 saw the Taliban overthrown during the conflict in Afghanistan. The Taliban regrouped and drafted an insurgency movement to oppose the newly formed ‘Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’, and to achieve their motives the use of guerrilla and terrorist tactics were applied (Mockaitis, 2007). Whilst in power the Taliban enforced an extremely strict interpretation of their holy scripture, becoming notorious in the international community for the poor treatment of women (Mockaitis, 2007).

This fundamental following of Holy Scripture and Islam law has seen the Taliban use Holy Scripture to justify their violent actions. Whilst not much is known about the leader of the Taliban, Mohammed Omar, a 25 million dollar reward has been issued by the US department of defence for his capture. The policies of the Taliban were initially to disarm Afghanistan, end the lawlessness and heavily enforce the Islamic or Sharia law on the entirety of Afghanistan (Mendelsohn, 2009).

The Taliban have been relatively successful in bringing law and order to around 85% of the country in their control, mainly by disarming or conscripting the tribes of Afghanistan (Mockaitis, 2007). Some of the Taliban’s relentless policies and unyielding nature on issues such as the treatment of Osama bin Laden have isolated them internationally resulting in non-recognition by the United Nations regarding their legitimacy, and the imposition of political sanctions aimed at denying the Taliban any funding or aid (Mendelsohn, 2009).

As of yet, the Taliban have failed to develop any plan or policy to revive the state of Afghanistan should they retake political control. The methods or tactics utilised by Taliban forces has predominately been a guerrilla struggle against Western forces, however the use of terrorism has brought much notoriety to the organisation itself. However the question of funding is important, how does the Taliban receive its funding? Twelve percent of Afghanistan lives off the opium trade, which constitutes 30 percent of its gross domestic product (Schmidt, 2010).

Whilst the Taliban gain finance through the sale of opium and poppy, the decrease in production of poppy would not work against the Taliban, through simple economics this organisation is able to manipulate opium prices which have seen a downward spiral over the past 5 years due to an over-supply of poppy and opium (Schmidt, 2010). Estimations show that the Taliban has stockpiled over eight thousand tonnes of opium in the event poppy production is eradicated by the US government.

However the eradication of poppy in Afghanistan would for a short term aid the Taliban as prices would increase exponentially in the face of low supplies, simple economics being exploited by the Taliban (Schmidt, 2010), (UN World Drug Report, 2009). A report given in 2006 analysing the Taliban likened the organisation to a starfish (decentralised organisation) as opposed to a spider organisation (centralised) (Brafman, Beckstrom, 2006). “The spider and the starfish both appear to have a number of legs coming out of one body, but that is where the similarity ends.

In the case of the spider, what you see is a clear “head’s head and a leg’s leg. ” However, a starfish is entirely different from a spider because the head is not even in charge of anything. In fact, a starfish does not even have a head. If a starfish is cut in half, it does not die. Instead, what you get are two starfish. The long-armed Linckia starfish can even replicate itself from just one piece of an arm. Unlike the spider, having no brain to give the affirmative on anything, the starfish functions as a decentralized network. (Schmidt, p 72, 2010). A table from this report gives a description of the comparison: (See below) The events which occurred on the 8th of August 1998 are evidence to show the danger and lethality of the Taliban and its policies. On the 24th of May 1997 the Taliban occupied the northern town of Mazar-i-Sharif and on the 8th of August 1998 were responsible for an attack which killed over 8000 people of different nationalities including Uzbekistani, and Shiite Iranian (Kelling, Saludin, Von-Feigenblatt, Alis, Shuib, 2010).

In this attack the Taliban also attacked the consulate of Iran killing 10 Iranian diplomats, which incidentally generated Iran’s opposition on the political legitimacy of the Taliban (Kelling, Saludin, Von-Feigenblatt, Alis, Shuib, 2010). The Taliban has taken responsibility for countless attacks on both combatant and non-combatant targets, with no signs of a decrease in the frequency of attacks; the Taliban is an extremely dangerous advocate of religious terrorism.

The failure of allied forces to subdue the Taliban as of yet has left Afghanistan coloured with destruction, death and poverty. An article in the International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences accused the US of “ignoring the hope and prospect of Afghanistan”, by being oblivious and promoting victory over the Taliban in order to justify the war on Afghanistan (Kelling, Saludin, Von-Feigenblatt, Alis, Shuib, 2010).

The US policy to use military power against the Taliban and other terror organisations has made it more difficult to find a conclusive solution to the violence in Afghanistan; additionally the weakness of the United States’ new government in Afghanistan failed to bring stability and therefore enhanced the terrorism from the Taliban (Kelling, Saludin, Von-Feigenblatt, Alis, Shuib, 2010). The question left is how we stop the terrorism?

Through government, military and NGO policy development, political, management, financial and administrative “mechanisms” arranged to reach explicit goals. This paper will therefore examine various responses to terrorism, and the policies put in place by major international actors. After September 2001, the member of the Security Council (UN) adopted a set of comprehensive measures to combat terrorism; they did so under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, thereby making all decisions compulsory for all members (Boulden, Weiss, 2004).

Two resolutions were particularly important, these being “Resolution 1368 of September 12”, which legitimised all military action against a terrorist organisation; and “Resolution 1373 of September 28 2001” which broadened the scope of international responses (Boulden, Weiss, 2004). Resolution 1373 stated that “all states should prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalize the willful provision or collection of funds for such acts”.

The purpose of this resolution was to minimize the financing of terrorism and to encourage member states to deny safe haven to known terrorists, assist states in need of anti-terrorism measures, and to accelerate the exchange of information regarding terrorist activity; in other words this resolution deeply encouraged international cooperation in combating terrorism. While the resolve of the Security Council (UN) is to be commended, four problems are still to be addressed.

First, although member states of the UN agree on the importance of combating terrorism, member states continue to have different views on the precise nature of these threats, and different opinions on the appropriate responses to these threats (Boulden, Weiss, 2004). The US should take responsibility and forge a consensus on the nature of the terrorist threat and what an appropriate response would be.

If the US takes consideration of other states and develops a genuine international response effort, then this should convince other states that the US is not only concerned for itself but for the international community as a whole (Boulden, Weiss, 2004). Secondly, the long term implications for the Security Council’s resolution regarding the legitimization of force against terrorist organizations are problematic. Permission to use military force without a proper criteria for reason has been seen as handing a “blank check” to the USA.

Although the US argues preemptive action and covert military action is necessary to combat terrorism, the absence of an international agreement on a definition for terrorism can lead to the possibility of abuse of this “blank check” (Boulden, Weiss, 2004). To solve this issue, the UN should engage member states in a discussion to answer the important questions, “when are terrorist acts the equivalent of armed attacks? ”, “Do imminent threats of attack always justify a military response? ” (Boulden, Weiss, 2004).

Third, the issue of finance always seems to plague attempts at combating terrorism. The implementation of the UN’s counterterrorist measures will therefore continue to be difficult unless financial assonance is given by member states. A solution to this problem would be the investment of funds into the Counter-terrorism committee (CTC), this committee would thereby invest funding into state counter terrorism agencies who lack the financial capacity to effectively fight terrorism (Boulden, Weiss, 2004).

Fourth, the war against terrorism has been labeled as the “long war”, and it is true that the effort against terrorism will take time and finance, however there must also be an effort against the root causes of terrorism; poverty, disease, social disorder, unstable governments, etc (Boulden, Weiss, 2004). The UN has a promising track record when dealing with these problems, therefore the investment into social development programs will allow for significant advancements in the effort against terrorism (Boulden, Weiss, 2004).

This paper will now offer a list of policy recommendations. In order to combat terrorism effectively, Thomas Mockaitis (2007) suggests there should be elements of four broad tasks present. 1. Anti-terrorism to protect military forces, installations and personnel and to assist member nataions in protecting their citizens and infrastructure from terrorist attack. 2. Consequence management to aide member states in mitigating the effects of an actual terrorist attack. 3. Counterterrorism to take offensive action against terrorist organizations, personnel and facilities. 4.

Military cooperation with civilian institutions, government and private, to defend against terrorism. Evidently this system of counter-terrorism has been drafted as a military doctrine labeled the NATO Concept, which provides an excellent framework for organizing an effective response against terrorism (Mockaitis, 2007). Below is a chart which illustrates the three core measures of combating terrorism. ‘Consequence management’ refers to the measures taken by local, state, and national departments to prepare for and if necessary respond to a terrorist attack (Mockaitis, 2007). Counterterrorism’ and ‘Antiterrorism’ is the offensive military enforcement of operations against terrorists (organisations, networks, and individuals), and the economic, social, and diplomatic measures to combat the root causes of terrorism (poverty, civil unrest, etc) (Mockaitis, 2007). All three tasks require effective cooperation and rely on the intelligence which lies at the centre of the three and helps organise the effort (Mockaitis, 2007). This paper has argued that the most dangerous form of terrorism is religious terrorism.

In order to deliver an effective argument, this paper was divided into three sections; first, it was argued that religious terrorism is the most dangerous form of terrorism by examining defining it, examining how it is dangerous, and discussing why it is more dangerous than other forms of terrorism. Secondly, this paper argued that the most dangerous proponent of terrorism is the organisation of the Taliban, supporting this claim was an analysis of the group, giving background information, information on the Taliban’s policies and recent activities, and the threat this organisation poses on the international community.

Lastly this paper analysed and critiqued the anti-terrorism policy of the UN, and provided policy recommendations for all member states to implement, namely the policies currently implemented by NATO forces. This paper was written in order to legitimise religious terrorism as the most dangerous form of terrorism, thereby allowing for more effective international cooperation towards combating terrorism. This paper can therefore conclude that the most dangerous form of terrorism is Religious Terrorism. References: Alexander, Y. (1994).

Middle east terrorism: Current Threats and Future Prospects. International library of Terrorism. England: Dartmouth Publishing Co. Brafman, O. , & Beckstrom, R. (2006). The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. New York: Penguin Group Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press. Kelling, M. , Saludin, M. , Von-Feigenblatt, O. F. , Alis, M. , &Shuib, M. (2010). Taliban: How it Emerged and why the U. S and Pakistan Failed? International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. Martin, G. (2010).

Understanding terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. (3rd Ed). UK: Sage Publications Mendelsohn, B. (2009). Combating Jihadism. London: University of Chicago Press. Mockaitis, T. (2007). The “new” terrorism: Myths and Reality. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc. Schmidt, F. (2010). From Islamic warriors to drug lords: The evolution of the Taliban Insurgency. Mediterranean Quarterly, 21(2), 61-1. doi: 10. 1215/10474552-2010-005 The Guardian. (May 13, 2011). Pakistan suicide bomb kills 80 as Taliban seeks revenge for Bin Laden. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://www. uardian. co. uk/world/2011/may/13/suicide-bombing-revenge-osama The New York Review of Books. (2011). Why they get Pakistan wrong. Retrieved from http://www. nybooks. com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/why-they-get-pakistan-wrong/ United Nations. (August, 2010). Afghan civilian casualties rise 31 per cent in first six months of 2010. Retrieved from http://unama. unmissions. org/Default. aspx? tabid=1741&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=9955 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2009). World Drug Report. Received from www. unodc. org/unodc/data-and-analysis/WDR. html

Free Essays


1. Philosohies and rules of war dictate that it is both sound and practical that groups with the same opponent and the same schema forge alliances or common supportive coexistence, and there is a very high probability that that dogma would be followed, considering the fact that terror group leaders are learned men.

But the question of having the same agenda is putting terrorism in a very general and pop culture perspective since the truth is that these types of militant extremists have, at some level, varying aims and goals. But another important point is the fact that these different groups can be brought together to act as one unit in a full scale operation. The best example of this tendency is the 9/11 bombing, described by the FBI a few days after the incident as a handiwork of an alliance of terrorists.

2. The pall of gloom that terrorism brought not just in the US but around the world is not just the threat to life, but as well as the threat to liberty. Because of the growing manhunt for suspected terrorists and the increased drive to take the upper hand and identify terrorists even before they can accomplish their missions, some elements of the law enforcement agencies are willing to overstep their boundaries marked by the exercise of individuals of their most basic human right, ready to trespass the domain of private communication with the use of many and all technologies available, including the Internet.

Terror groups also found the use of Internet for their cause – ransom demands are telecast via video streaming while home made and improvised bombs know-how is just a few mouse clicks away. For this new problem, the solution may lie in old practices – kill the head of the serpent and the body ceases to be dangerous. The Internet should not be the target, as US knows it cannot afford to start a new war – even in cyberspace.

3. Michael Hamm reported that motor vehicle violations, counterfeiting, smuggling weapons of mass destruction and armed bank robbery, are several criminal acts terrorist participate in. The most common criminal action that terrorists do is the falsification of documents and forgery. Almost every terrorist who entered the country carries a false identification. This criminal act is very crucial in the operation of terrorist cells in the country since the first and most important part of a terrorist mission is the entry of a terrorist in a country or place wherein the terrorist action would take place. This is the reason why border officials are consistently monitoring the many entry and exit points of the country.

4. The most significant findings and information contained in the Hamm report is the moving away of the image of the mythical militant extremists to purely purist forms of terrorism from the true terrorists which is much less now conformed in the mold of idealist / hero into nothing more than a common criminal.

The implications for the criminal justice system of this newfound knowledge consist of the possible responsibility law enforcement and criminal justice elements when it comes to profiling active and prospective terrorists by investigating the offenses for they are in trial for. Hamm concluded how a certain set of criminal acts bend towards particular groups as its identifiable crime suspects and this newfound information can be utilized as another efficient tool to battle terrorism.

5. Both international and domestic terrorism presents a clear and urgent threat to the US, simply because a threat to even one single life is an important issue to the US government, or to any government for that matter. Domestic and international terrorism may have many similarities and differences which include M.O. (method of operation), financing, training, orientation, goals, aims and motivation, strength in numbers, leadership hierarchy. Intelligence network and arms and ammunitions supplies, terrorism still wears the same face and the government’s efforts to counter it do not diminish based on the type of terror group it faces.

Terrorism and the government’s fight against it is a microcosm of the proverbial battle of good versus evil; the truth is that there will always be a group of people who will try to use force and intimidation to achieve there cause. Terrorists might have a different name in the future, and the government which the people created is always tasked to battle a constant threat to life presented by another man as a result of differences in ideology.


Hamm, M. S. (2005). Crimes Committed by Terrorist Groups: Theory, Research and

Prevention. US Department of Justice. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from

Schmid, A. (2005). Links between Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: A Case of “Narco

terrorism”. Retrieved October 10, 2007.

Sisk, R. and Smith, G. B. (2001). Feds Have Names Of 19 In Dark Alliance. The New York

Daily News. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from





Free Essays

Combating the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Statement at end of two-day summit in Seoul pledges strong action and closer co-operation against nuclear terrorism. | World leaders attending a summit in the South Korean capital Seoul have pledged strong action and closer co-operation to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism.

In a statement issued at the end of the two-day 53-nation nuclear summit, the leaders reaffirmed “shared goals of nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy”. “Nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threats to international security,” it said. “Defeating this threat requires strong national measures and international co-operation given its potential global, political, economic, social and psychological consequences. The statement welcomed “substantive progress” on national commitments made at the  first nuclear security summit in Washington in 2010. Action stressed Before the summit concluded, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said nuclear terrorism remained a “grave threat”, while US President Barack Obama said action was important. Chinese President Hu Jintao urged the group to work together on the issue. “The planned missile launch North Korea recently announced would go against the international community’s nuclear non-proliferation effort and violate UN Security Council resolutions. – Yoshihiko Noda, Japanese PM While the official agenda of the summit was to strengthen measures to track the movement of nuclear materials worldwide, much of the dialogue focussed on efforts to get North Korea to back off a planned rocket launch scheduled for next month and return to disarmament talks. North Korea announced earlier this month that it would send a satellite into space aboard a long-range rocket. Pyongyang has said the launch is part of its peaceful space programme and says a new southern flight path is meant to avoid other countries.

Previous rockets have been fired over Japan. The secretive North was widely criticised on the sidelines of the meeting, including by main ally China, but host Seoul has explicitly stated Pyongyang’s weapons of mass destruction programmes were off the table during the summit itself. Defiant North Korea On Tuesday, a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said that the launch would go ahead as planned. North Korea ”will never give up the launch of a satellite for peaceful purposes”’, the spokesman said in a statement in the official KCNA news agency.

A report by the KCNA also described the ”weather satellite” Pyongyang planned to launch as useful for ”the study of weather forecast needed for agriculture and other economic fields”. Yoshihiko Noda, the Japanese prime minister, speaking at the summit, called on Pyongyang to cancel the rocket launch, saying that it would violate UN Security Council resolutions. Nuclear stockpiles| * Russia: 10,000 * US: 8,500 * France: 300 * China: 240 * UK: 225 * Pakistan: 90-110 * India: 80-100 * Israel: 80 * North Korea: fewer than 10Source: Federation of American Scientists| The planned missile launch North Korea recently announced would go against the international community’s nuclear non-proliferation effort and violate UN Security Council resolutions,” Noda said. Obama had urged North Korean leaders to abandon their rocket plan or risk jeopardising their country’s future and thwarting a recent US pledge of food aid in return for nuclear and missile test moratoria, considered a breakthrough after years of deadlock. On Monday while speaking at a university in Seoul, Obama said that he was pushing for “a world without nuclear weapons”.

Iran’s nuclear programme was also on the minds of the summit participants, as Obama met the leaders of Russia and China on the sidelines to work towards a resolution. Obama had said that the threat of nuclear weapons remained a potent challenge for the globe to confront, telling foreign leaders that “the security of the world depends on the actions that we take”. Neither Iran nor North Korea had participated in the summit. Asia-Pacific | | S Korean minister warns of energy crisis | |

Economy minister Hong Suk-Woo says “unprecedented” power shortages possible after two nuclear reactors are shut down. Last Modified: 05 Nov 2012 09:01 inShare1EmailPrintShareFeedback| S Korea operates 23 nuclear power reactors which meet more than 35 per cent of the country’s electricity needs [EPA]| A South Korean minister has sounded a warning about “unprecedented” power shortages after two nuclear reactors were shut down to replace components that had not been properly vetted. The two units at the Yeonggwang nuclear complex were shut down on Monday and may remain offline until early January. It’s inevitable that we will experience unprecedented power shortage during the coming winter with the two reactors shut,” Hong Suk-Woo, the economy minister, said. However, he said the “non-core” components posed no safety threat and were unrelated to a string of systems malfunctions at reactors this year that triggered calls for a safety review. Last month, authorities temporarily shut down two 1,000-megawatt reactors at separate nuclear plants after system malfunctions which were also blamed for another reactor at Yeonggwang being tripped into automatic shutdown in July.

Engineers will replace more than 5,000 fuses in the units shut down, cooling fans and other parts for which suppliers had provided bogus quality certificates. “Comprehensive safety check-ups are necessary at these two reactors where the uncertified parts were used extensively,” Hong said. South Korea operates 23 nuclear power reactors which meet more than 35 per cent of the country’s electricity needs. It plans to build an additional 16 reactors by 2030. The government has pledged to continue using nuclear energy despite public concerns arising from last year’s nuclear disaster in Japan.

If the two Yeonggwang reactors are not brought back online as scheduled, Hong warned of a “dramatic” drop in national power reserves to 300,000 kilowatts in January, compared to the government target of 4. 5 million kilowatts. “Energy authorities are preparing a super-intense power supply emergency plan, which will be carried out in mid-November,” Hong said, without elaborating. All parts supplied for use in South Korea’s nuclear plants require quality and safety warranties from one of 12 international organisations designated by Seoul.

Eight suppliers cited by Hong faked 60 warranties covering nearly 7,700 items that had been provided at a cost of $750,000, Hong said. Of the total, more than 5,200 parts have been used in five reactors – 99 per cent of them in the two Yeonggwang units closed on Monday. Hong said prosecutors would investigate the suppliers as well as possible collusion by officials of the state-run Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP). | Inside Story | | Is nuclear terrorism preventable? | |

World leaders gather for their second summit to strengthen efforts in securing nuclear material around the world. | Around 50 world leaders have gathered in South Korea to discuss measures to fight the threat of nuclear terrorism, including the protection of nuclear materials and facilities, as well as the prevention of trafficking of nuclear materials. Barack Obama, the US president, used the opening day of the nuclear security summit to set out a series of wide-ranging goals on nuclear policy.

He praised achievements made so far, and promised more would emerge from these discussions. “We have to question whether the rules we have today are adequate, and my view is that they’re totally inadequate. There’s no uniformity, no requirement to control materials a certain way. “Kenneth Luongo, Fissile Materials Working Group| The summit represents the half way point of a four-year process set out by Obama with the goal of locking down nuclear materials worldwide and preventing their use in a terrorist attack.

But this year’s summit takes place against a backdrop of growing tensions over the nuclear standoff with Iran and concerns about North Korea’s plans to launch a satellite next month – a launch that the US, South Korea and others believe is a missile test. So, how big a threat is nuclear terrorism? Who sets the criteria for acquiring nuclear weapons? Are there grounds for accusing Western governments of double standards? And can a problem of such magnitude be tackled by voluntary agreements made at the summit?

Inside Story, with presenter Laura Kyle, discusses with Richard Burt, the chief US negotiator in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty who is also the US chairman of Global Zero which seeks elimination of nuclear weapons; Mark Hibbs, a senior associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Riad Kah-waji with the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis. “Even after New Start [Treaty signed with Russia two years ago], the US will still have more than 15,000 deployed nuclear weapons and some 5,000 warheads.

I firmly believe that we can ensure the security of the United States and our allies, maintain a strong deterrent against any threat and still pursue further reductions in our nuclear arsenal. “Barack Obama, the US president| Nuclear warheads around the world: Though the exact number of nuclear weapons in each country’s possession is a closely-guarded national secret, there are estimates available. Of the countries that are members of the non-proliferation treaty: * Russia is believed to have around 10,000 nuclear warheads * The US is estimated to have 8,500 France is believed to have 300 * China is estimated to have 240 * The UK is said to have 225 Of the non-member countries: * Israel is said to have 80 nuclear warheads, though it refuses to confirm or deny whether it has any * Pakistan is thought to have between 90 and 110 * India is believed to have between 80 to 100 * North Korea is believed to have enough material to produce up to 10 devices Asia-pacific | | South Korea set to host nuclear summit | | Security and safety on agenda, but diplomatic fallout from North Korea’s rocket launch plan could dominate on sidelines. |

South Korea is preparing to host the heads of more than 50 nations and international organisations at a nuclear security summit in Seoul. The meeting, starting on Monday, comes a year after the meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan and participants will discuss efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and how to restore faith in civil nuclear energy. Participants include US President Barack Obama, who is due to visit the border zone between the two Koreas on Sunday, and Chinese President Hu Jintao. The controversial nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran are not due to be formally discussed.

But Obama is expected to hold talks on the sidelines with both Hu and South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak over North Korea’s plans to launch a satellite into space aboard a long-range rocket next month. Dozens of protesters from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Thailand gathered near the summit venue in downtown Seoul on Friday to denounce the gathering, saying nuclear energy was threatening the safety of their lives. “The nuclear energy industry told us the industry is safe, but actually, there have been many accidents that happened,” Lee Heonseok, a protester, said. We think those accidents will be repeated in the future. Therefore, we insist the nuclear energy industry should disappear. ” Richard Broinowski, a professor at the University of Sydney and former Australian ambassador to South Korea, told Al Jazeera that the summit was aimed at rebuilding confidence in the nuclear industry. “The point of the safety nuclear conference should be about terrorism and the breakdown of systems, such as what happened in Fukushima, and what to do about them,” he said. But the summit could be overshadowed by diplomatic fallout from North Korea’s announcement of its planned rocket launch.

North Korea said earlier this month that it had halted its nuclear programme, weapons testing and long-range missile launches and was ready to return to international talks in return for US food aid. The US says April’s rocket launch would violate that agreement, while Japan’s defence minister said on Friday he had ordered the military to prepare to shoot down the rocket if it entered Japanese airspace. China, North Korea’s closest regional, has also expressed concern that the launch could endanger regional stability. North Korea halts nuclear programme | Uranium enrichment, weapons testing and long-range missile launches to be stopped in return for US food aid. | North Korea has agreed to stop nuclear tests, uranium enrichment and long-range missile launches and to allow international inspectors to visit its Yongbyon nuclear complex in return for food aid from the United States. The announcement, made simultaneously by the US state department and North Korea’s official news agency on Wednesday, paves the way for the possible resumption of six-party disarmament negotiations with the Communist state.

It also marks a significant policy shift by North Korea’s reclusive leadership after the death of longtime ruler Kim Jong-il in December. “The DPRK, upon request by the US and with a view to maintaining positive atmosphere for the DPRK-US high-level talks, agreed to a moratorium on nuclear tests, long-range missile launches, and uranium enrichment activity at Yongbyon and allow the IAEA to monitor the moratorium on uranium enrichment while productive dialogues continue,” the official KCNA news agency said. North Korea is known formally as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

China, North Korea’s only powerful ally, approved the announcement. Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement posted on Thursday that China welcomed efforts by the two sides to improve relations and preserve peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. He reiterated China’s willingness to participate in efforts to restart the six-party talks. ‘Profound concerns’ The state department was cautious in its response but said Washington was ready to finalise details of a proposed food aid package of 240,000 metric tonnes of nutritional assistance, and that more aid could be agreed based on continued need. Secret talks that led to the agreement were held at the North Korean embassy in Beijing [AFP]| “The United States still has profound concerns regarding North Korean behaviour across a wide range of areas, but today’s announcement reflects important, if limited, progress in addressing some of these,” a state department statement said. A South Korean foreign ministry spokesman said the development reflected “the close work Seoul and Washington have done to try to resolve the nuclear standoff,” while the International Atomic Energy Agency called it “an important step forward”.

Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said that its linking “nutritional assistance” with political developments was contrary to standard US foreign policy. “[This move] is certainly going to come under the microscope in terms of US policy. The US has used [food aid] successfully as leverage and there is going to be some talk about that,” she said. The announcement comes as the Obama administration steps up pressure on Iran over its atomic ambitions, which Western governments fear are aimed at producing nuclear weapons.

It followed talks between the US and North Korea last week in Beijing, the first such meeting since veteran leader Kim Jong-il’s son, Kim Jong-un, succeeded his father as leader. Christopher Hill, the former chief US negotiator in the six-party talks, said it was an important step that Kim’s son, Kim Jong-un, had made such a high-profile decision in the wake of his father’s death. He said that the military, which is influenced by Chang Song-taek,  Kim Jong-il’s powerful brother in law, had probably played a role in the agreement. I think the first order of business is to try to figure out the terms by which we provide the food aid,” Hill said. “We’re going to have to make sure the North Koreans have the aid and that we can monitor that the food aid goes to the right people. ”  Six-party talks North Korea agreed to curtail its nuclear activities under an aid-for-denuclearisation agreement reached in September 2005 by six-party talks bringing together North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the US.

Under the terms of that deal, the North agreed to abandon its nuclear programmes in exchange for economic and diplomatic incentives to be provided by the other parties involved in the negotiations. But the embryonic deal was never fully implemented. Instead, the North held two nuclear bomb tests, in 2006 and 2009, and later disclosed a uranium enrichment programme, giving it a second path to obtaining fissile material for bombs, in addition to its long-standing programme of producing plutonium.

The US, South Korea and their allies had been sceptical of North Korea’s assertions that it stands ready to return to the six-party talks, and said they would insist on evidence of the country’s willingness to denuclearise before any such talks could resume. World leaders: Nuclear terrorism a ‘grave threat’ Comments (250) Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version President Obama: ”There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials” Continue reading the main story Related Stories * Which countries have nuclear weapons? North Korea’s missile programme * Timeline: Nuclear stand-off World leaders have called for closer co-operation to tackle the threat of nuclear terrorism at a summit on nuclear security in Seoul. A communique at the end of the summit reiterated a joint call to secure “vulnerable nuclear material”. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said nuclear terrorism remained a “grave threat”, while US President Barack Obama said action was key. The meeting was dominated by North Korea’s plan to launch a rocket. North Korea says the long-range rocket will carry a satellite when it goes up in April.

The US says any launch would violate UN resolutions and constitute a missile test. Iran’s nuclear programme was also on the minds of the summit participants, with Mr Obama pledging to meet the leaders of Russia and China on the sidelines to work towards a resolution. ‘Bad actors’ At the meeting, world leaders discussed measures to fight the threat of nuclear terrorism, including the protection of nuclear materials and facilities, as well as the prevention of trafficking of nuclear materials. Continue reading the main story Analysis Jonathan Marcus BBC Diplomatic Correspondent

The communique describes nuclear terrorism as one of the most challenging threats to international security. But the responsibility to maintain security over nuclear materials lies firmly with states rather than international bodies. And any effort to try to establish or impose common international standards inevitably raises concerns in some quarters that the world’s major powers are seeking to intrude into the nuclear affairs of other countries. That’s why this communique reaffirms that measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The summit urges states to minimise the use of highly enriched uranium – one of the building blocks for a nuclear bomb. The summit highlights the threat from radioactive materials more generally. But again all the summit can do is urge states to take measures to secure these materials and work towards ratifying international conventions on nuclear security. It is hardly a resounding outcome from a gathering over-shadowed by the more immediate wrangling over North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear activities.

A joint communique reaffirmed their commitment to nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. “Nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threats to international security,” it said. “Defeating this threat requires strong national measures and international co-operation given its potential global, political, economic, social and psychological consequences. ” But it omitted a reference made in a draft communique last Thursday on the need for “concrete steps” towards a world without nuclear weapons, AFP news agency reports.

There are currently no binding international agreements on how to protect nuclear material stored peacefully inside its home country, says the BBC’s Lucy Williamson in Seoul. An amendment seeking to do that is still unratified after seven years. Addressing the summit, Mr Obama warned there were still “too many bad actors” who were threatening to stockpile and use ”dangerous” nuclear material. “It would not take much, just a handful or so of these materials, to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and that’s not an exaggeration, that’s the reality that we face,” he said. The security of the world depends on the actions that we take. ” Mr Hu called for “an international environment conducive to boosting nuclear security” to be created and Mr Lee called for concrete action to tackle a threat that posed “a grave challenge” to peace. The summit was attended by almost 60 leaders from around the world. Rocket launch Meetings on Monday were overshadowed by North Korea’s planned launch, scheduled to take place between 12 and 16 April. Pyongyang says it is intended to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of North Korea’s founding leader Kim Il-sung.

Continue reading the main story Nuclear stockpiles in numbers * Russia: 10,000 * US: 8,500 * France: 300 * China: 240 * UK: 225 * Pakistan: 90-110 * India: 80-100 * Israel: 80 * North Korea: fewer than 10 Source: Federation of American Scientists * Nuclear weapons: Who has what? On Tuesday, a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said that the launch would go ahead as planned and criticised Mr Obama’s stance as ”confrontational”. North Korea “will never give up the launch of a satellite for peaceful purposes”, the spokesman said in a statement in the official KCNA news agency.

A KCNA report also described the ”weather satellite” Pyongyang planned to launch as useful for ”the study of weather forecast needed for agriculture and other economic fields”. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, speaking at the summit, called on Pyongyang to cancel the rocket launch, saying that it would violate UN Security Council resolutions. “As such, the international community strongly urges North Korea to exercise restraint and cancel the launch,” he said. The resolutions were passed after a similar launch in April 2009.

Japan is particularly concerned as that rocket was launched over the country three years ago. The US and Chinese presidents met on Monday on the sidelines of the summit and agreed to co-ordinate their response to any “potential provocation” if Pyongyang went ahead with the launch. South Korea and the US say North Korea risks further sanctions and isolation if it does not cancel its plans. Seoul has also warned it will shoot down the rocket if it strays over South Korean territory. Which countries have nuclear weapons? There are an estimated 20,000 warheads in the world’s combined stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Of these, almost 5,000 are considered operational and about 2,000 belonging to the US and Russia are believed to be ready for use at short notice. Although the exact number of nuclear weapons in each country’s possession is top secret, the Federation of American Scientists has made best estimates about the size and composition of national nuclear weapon stockpiles based on publicly available information. Their sources include the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Countries and their nuclear weapons |

Country | Operational and strategic weapons* | Total arsenal** | Source: Federation of American Scientists, as of 6 March 2012| Russia| 2,430| 10,000| US| 1,950| 8,500| France| 290| 300| China| 0| 240| UK| 160| 225| Pakistan| 0| 90-110| India| 0| 80-100| Israel| 0| 80| North Korea| 0| Fewer than 10| *Strategic weapons are designed to target cities, missile locations and military headquarters as part of a strategic plan **Total arsenal inventory includes non-strategic and non-deployed weapons as well as stockpiles North Korea’s missile programme

Continue reading the main story Related Stories * North Korea rocket plan condemned * N Korea agrees to nuclear freeze * North Korea country profile North Korea is believed to have more than 1,000 missiles of varying capabilities, including long-range missiles which could one day strike the US. Pyongyang’s programme has progressed over the last few decades from tactical artillery rockets in the 1960s and 70s to short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles in the 1980s and 90s. Systems capable of greater ranges are understood to be under research and development.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent think-tank, some of North Korea’s missiles also have the capability to carry nuclear warheads. However, the country is not yet thought to have developed such warheads. The country’s missile programme has mainly been developed from the Scud. It first obtained tactical missiles from the Soviet Union as early as 1969, but its first Scuds reportedly came via Egypt in 1976. Egypt is believed to have supplied North Korea with missiles and designs in return for its support against Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

By 1984, North Korea was building its own Scuds, the Hwasong-5 and Hwasong-6, as well as a medium-range missile, the Nodong. Its latest missile combines these technologies to give a long-range missile, the Taepodong. In 2006 and 2009 it test-fired a new missile called the Taepodong-2, which experts say could have a range of many thousands of miles. The missile failed to perform on both occasions. Short range missiles North Korea is believed to be in possession of a variety of short-range missiles, such as the KN-02, which can reach up to 120km and could target military installations in neighbouring South Korea.

The Hwasong-5 and Hwasong-6, also known as Scud-B and C, have longer ranges of 300km and 500km respectively, according to the US Center for Nonproliferation Studies. These missiles can deliver conventional warheads, but may also have biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities. The Hwasong-5 and 6 have both been tested and deployed, defence experts believe, and would enable North Korea to strike any area in South Korea. Relations between the two Koreas are fraught and they remain, technically, in a state of war. The two countries never signed a peace treaty after an armistice ended their 1950-53 conflict.

They are separated by one of the world’s most heavily fortified borders and both have strong military capabilities. Nodong missile North Korea went on to embark on a programme in the late 1980s to build a new missile, known as the Nodong, with a range of 1,000km. Its likely target is Japan. But, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, little is actually known about the development, production, and deployment of the Nodong. The institute believes the weapon is not accurate enough for effective use against military targets, such as US military bases in Japan.

A March 2006 report by the US Center for Non-proliferation Studies, concluded it had a “circular error probable” of 2km to 4km, meaning that half the missiles fired would fall outside a circle of that radius. Analysts therefore believe that should the Nodong be used as a weapon against Japan, it could lead to high levels of civilian casualties. Musudan missile The Musudan, also known as the Nodong-B or the Taepodong-X, is an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Its likely targets are Okinawa, Japan, and US bases in the Pacific.

Range estimates differ dramatically. Israeli intelligence believes they have a 2,500km range while the US Missile Defense Agency estimates they have a range of 3,200km; other sources put the upper limit at 4,000km. These differences are due in large part to the fact that the missile has never been tested publicly, according to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Its payload is also unknown. Taepodong-1 and 2 missiles (including the Unha space launcher) The Taepodong-1 – known as Paektusan-1 in North Korea – was the country’s first multi-stage missile.

Based on satellite photographs, independent think-tank the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) believes the first stage is a Nodong missile and the second stage a Hwasong-6. Continue reading the main story Missile ranges * Short range: 1,000km or less * Medium range: 1,000-3,000km * Intermediate range: 3,000-5,500 km * Intercontinental: Greater than 5,500km Source: Federation of American Scientists It has an estimated range of 2,200km, but is understood to be even less accurate than the Nodong. The Taepodong-1 is understood to have test flown once in August 1998 as a space launcher.

Instead of a normal ballistic missile payload, the missile carried a third stage that was meant to send a small satellite into low Earth orbit. The FAS believes that although the first two stages worked, the third stage did not function correctly and no satellite entered orbit. The federation also says it is possible the Taepodong-1 was always meant as a space launcher and was never intended to be an intermediate range military missile. The Taepodong-2 – or Paektusan-2 – is also a two to three-stage ballistic missile, but is a significant advance on the Taepodong-1. Its range has been estimated at anything between 5,000-15,000km.

The Center for Nonproliferation Studies puts the figure at a maximum estimated 6,000km. Taepodong-2 and its technology has been flight tested twice – in 2006 and 2009. It failed to perform on both occasions. In the early morning of 5 July 2006 (still 4 July in the US), it flew only 42 seconds before exploding – according to US sources. A three-stage space launcher version of the Taepodong-2 was then used in a failed attempt to send a satellite into space in April 2009. The launch was widely condemned by the US and South Korea, among others, as cover for a long-range missile test.

North Korea refers to the space launcher version of the Taepodong-2 as Unha – Korean for galaxy – and describes it as a “carrier rocket”. Although space launches and missile launches follow slightly different trajectories and the rocket may be optimised for one purpose or the other, the basic technology used is the same. This includes the structure, engines, and fuel. If the Taepodong-2 were successfully launched and it reached its maximum estimated range, its increased power could put Australia and parts of the US, among other countries, within range. North Korea profile * Overview * Facts * Leaders * Media Timeline For decades North Korea has been one of the world’s most secretive societies. It is one of the few countries still under nominally communist rule. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have exacerbated its rigidly maintained isolation from the rest of the world. The country emerged in 1948 amid the chaos following the end of World War II. Its history is dominated by its Great Leader, Kim Il-sung, who shaped political affairs for almost half a century. After the Korean War, Kim Il-sung introduced the personal philosophy of Juche, or self-reliance, which became a guiding light for North Korea’s development.

Kim Il-sung died in 1994, but the post of president has been assigned “eternally” to him. Continue reading the main story At a glance * Politics: A family dynasty heads a secretive, communist regime which tolerates no dissent * Economy: North Korea’s command economy is dilapidated, hit by natural disasters, poor planning and a failure to modernise * International: The armistice of 1953 ended armed conflict on the Korean peninsular, but the two Koreas are technically still at war; tensions have been exacerbated in recent decades by North Korea’s nuclear ambitions Country profiles compiled by BBC Monitoring

Decades of this rigid state-controlled system have led to stagnation and a leadership dependent on the cult of personality. Aid agencies have estimated that up to two million people have died since the mid-1990s because of acute food shortages caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement. The country relies on foreign aid to feed millions of its people. The totalitarian state also stands accused of systematic human rights abuses. Reports of torture, public executions, slave labour, and forced abortions and infanticides in prison camps have emerged.

A US-based rights group has estimated that there are up to 200,000 political prisoners in North Korea. Pyongyang has accused successive South Korean governments of being US “puppets”, but South Korean President Kim Dae-jung’s visit in 2000 signalled a thaw in relations. Seoul’s “sunshine policy” towards the North aimed to encourage change through dialogue and aid. Nuclear tensions This tentative reaching-out to the world was dealt a blow in 2002 by Pyongyang’s decision to reactivate a nuclear reactor and to expel international inspectors.

In October 2006 North Korea said it had successfully tested a nuclear weapon, spreading alarm throughout the region. Since then, intensive diplomatic efforts have aimed to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. After years of on-and-off talks, a deal was thrashed out in February 2007 under which Pyongyang agreed to shut down its main nuclear reactor in return for aid and diplomatic concessions. But negotiations stalled as North Korea accused its negotiating partners – the US, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia – of failing to meet agreed obligations.

North Korean soldiers keep watch over the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Tensions between North Korea and the rest of the world increased steadily again from late 2008 onwards, especially after the new South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, ended his predecessor’s “sunshine policy” of rapprochement with the North. In April 2009 North Korea walked out of international talks aimed at ending its nuclear activities. The following month the country carried out its second underground nuclear test and announced that it no longer considered itself bound by the terms of the 1953 truce that ended the war between the two Koreas.

Tensions reached a new high in spring 2010, when the South accused North Korea of sinking one of its warships, the Cheonan, and cut off all cross-border trade. Pyongyang denied the claims, and in turn severed all ties with Seoul. After the US imposed tough sanctions in August, the North began to make overtures again. Its then leader, Kim Jong-il, signalled a readiness to resume six-party nuclear talks during a visit to China, and indicated a willingness to accept Southern aid to cope with major flood damage.

Kim Jong-il’s successor in December 2011, his third son Kim Jong-un, continued the dynastic policy of sending out mixed signals. He agreed to suspend long-range missile tests in order to receive US food aid in February 2012, only to challenge the US and the other frontline states almost immediately by announcing a forthcoming “rocket-launched satellite” for April, to mark Kim Il-Sung’s birthday. In October 2012, Pyongyang responded to the unveiling of a new missile deal between Seoul and Washington by saying that it had missiles capable of hitting the US mainland.

North Korea maintains one of the world’s largest standing armies and militarism pervades everyday life. But standards of training, discipline and equipment in the force are reported to be low. Q&A: North Korea nuclear programme Negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear programme have been a stop-start process North Korea’s nuclear programme remains a source of deep concern for the international community, amid reports from South Korea suggesting Pyongyang is planning a third nuclear test. The BBC looks at North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and multi-national efforts to curtail them.

Has North Korea got the bomb? Not yet. In 2006 and again in 2009 North Korea announced that it had conducted successful nuclear weapons tests. Satellite data from P’unggye-yok, in a remote area in the east of the country, appeared to tally with claims that the experiments had been conducted underground. The North is believed to possess enough weapons-grade plutonium for at least six bombs – but experts say it has not yet solved the problem of making a nuclear warhead small enough to fit into a missile. Opinions vary on how close the regime is to completing this process of “miniaturisation”.

American expert Siegfried Hecker told South Korea’s Yonhap news agency late last year that a third nuclear test could be sufficient for them to master the technology. Mr Hecker is one of the few people to have seen the North’s capabilities first-hand. In 2010, he was shown a uranium-enrichment facility with 1,000 centrifuges and said he was “stunned” by the sophistication of the plant. He said he saw no evidence that the fuel was for anything other than generating power, but added that it could be “readily converted to produce highly enriched uranium bomb fuel”. What does the regime say about its programme?

Over the years Pyongyang has issued brash, contradictory and often inflammatory statements about its programme. After the 2009 nuclear test, an official communique stated that the test was “part of measures to enhance the Republic’s self-defensive nuclear deterrent in all directions”. And in a rare unguarded moment after the 2006 test, deputy foreign minister Kang Sok-ju told reporters: “Why would we abandon nuclear weapons? Are you saying we conducted a nuclear test in order to abandon them? ” Yet Pyongyang also regularly proclaims that it is committed to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.

It has frequently promised to give up part or all of its programme in return for aid. In February 2012, the regime promised to allow UN inspectors back into the country and to suspend uranium enrichment in return for US food aid. But shortly after that it launched a rocket in apparent defiance of UN resolutions banning missile tests, leaving that deal dead in the water. What has the international community done about the programme? Multiple rounds of negotiations have taken place between the North, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions.

In September 2005, after more than two years of on-off talks, North Korea agreed a landmark deal to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for economic aid and political concessions. But implementing the deal proved extremely difficult and the talks stalled in April 2009 over the issue of whether North Korea was fully disclosing its nuclear assets. In July 2011, contact began again between the US and North Korea aimed at restarting the talks. Less than six months later, North Korea’s long-time leader Kim Jong-il died. He was succeeded by his son, the young and inexperienced Kim Jong-un.

In February 2012 North Korea suddenly announced it had agreed to suspend nuclear activities. It also said it was placing a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests. Its reward would be food aid from the US. But that deal has now been suspended following Pyongyang’s 13 April 2012 rocket launch. What is the current state of the North’s programme? The Yongbyon site is thought to be North Korea’s main nuclear facility. The North has pledged several times to halt operations there and even destroyed the tower in 2008.

But both the US and South Korea have said in the past that they believed the North had additional sites linked to a uranium-enrichment programme. And Mr Hecker’s revelations in 2010 of a hitherto undeclared plant suggest that clandestine nuclear work is continuing. In December 2010, US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said that the work being done at the site shown to Mr Hecker could not have been achieved if other related sites did not already exist. “We’re very conscious of the fact that, in the recent revelations to American delegations, what they saw did not come out of thin air,” he said. It certainly reflects work being done at at least one other site. ” Why does the issue of North Korea’s nuclear capability matter so much? The two Koreas remain technically at war, since no peace treaty was signed after the 1950-53 Korean conflict. Tension has been high since an international panel blamed North Korea for sinking a South Korean navy warship in March 2010, with the loss of 46 lives. Ties were further strained in November 2010, when North Korea shelled a border island, killing four South Koreans.

North Korea has a million-strong army and its border with the South is one of the most militarised in the world. Pyongyang’s nuclear tests have sparked debate in Japan on allowing its military the option to launch a pre-emptive strike if it fears a missile attack. A fully nuclear North Korea could trigger an East Asian arms race, as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, for instance, consider whether to go nuclear as well. North Korea claims nuclear plant progress Pyongyang says it has made rapid advances in building a light-water reactor and enriching uranium * Share 45 * * * inShare10 Email * Associated Press in Seoul * guardian. co. uk, Wednesday 30 November 2011 07. 38 GMT Pyongyang says it is making rapid progress on work to enrich uranium and build a light-water nuclear power plant Link to this video North Korea says it is making rapid progress on work to enrich uranium and build a light-water nuclear power plant, increasing worries that the country is developing another way to make atomic weapons. Pyongyang’s foreign ministry said in a statement that the construction of an experimental light-water reactor and low enriched uranium were “progressing apace”.

It added that North Korea had a sovereign right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and that “neither concession nor compromise should be allowed”. Concerns about North Korea’s atomic capability took on renewed urgency in November 2010 when the country disclosed a uranium enrichment facility that could give it a second route to manufacture nuclear weapons, in addition to its existing plutonium-based programme. North Korea has been building a light-water reactor at its main Yongbyon nuclear complex since last year. Such a reactor is ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but it would give the North a reason to enrich uranium.

At low levels, uranium can be used in power reactors, but at higher levels it can be used in nuclear bombs. Earlier this month, North Korean state media said “the day is near at hand” when the reactor will come into operation. Washington has concerns about reported progress on the reactor construction, saying it would violate UN security council resolutions. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking to reporters on Wednesday at an international aid forum in the South Korean port city of Busan, did not address the North’s statement on uranium.

She called the US-South Korean alliance strong and mentioned the recent first anniversary of North Korea’s artillery attack on a frontline South Korean island that killed four. “Let me reaffirm that the United States stands with our ally, and we look to North Korea to take concrete steps that promote peace and stability and denuclearisation,” Clinton said. Five countries, including the US, have been in on-again, off-again talks with North Korea to provide Pyongyang with aid in exchange for disarmament. North Korea pulled out of nuclear disarmament talks in early 2009 in protest at international condemnation of ts prohibited long-range rocket test. In recent months North Korea has repeatedly expressed its willingness to rejoin the talks, and tensions between the Koreas have eased. Diplomats from the Koreas and the UShave had separate nuclear talks, and cultural and religious visits by South Koreans to the North have resumed. South Korean and US officials, however, have demanded that Pyongyang halt its uranium-enrichment programme, freeze nuclear and missile tests and allow international inspectors back into the country before resuming negotiations.

The North Korean statement on Wednesday accused the U S and its allies of “groundlessly” taking issue with the North’s peaceful nuclear activities. They are “deliberately laying a stumbling block in the way of settling the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula through dialogue and negotiations”, the statement said. Kim Yong-hyun, a professor at Dongguk University in Seoul, said the North’s statement appeared aimed at applying pressure on Washington and the international community to rejoin the nuclear disarmament talks quickly. “North Korea is expected to step up its rhetoric,” he said.

History of Nuclear proliferation The impetus behind the NPT was concern for the safety of a world with many nuclear weapon states. It was recognized that the cold war deterrent relationship between just the United States and Soviet Union was fragile. Having more nuclear nuclear-weapon states would reduce security for all, multiplying the risks of miscalculation, accidents, unauthorized use of weapons, or from escalation in tensions, nuclear conflict. The NPT process was launched by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958.

It was opened for signature in 1968, with Finland the first State to sign. Accession became nearly universal after the end of the Cold War and of South African apartheid. In 1992 China and France acceded to the NPT, the last of the five nuclear powers recognized by the treaty to do so. In 1995 the treaty was extended indefinitely. After Brazil acceded to the NPT in 1998 the only remaining non-nuclear-weapons state which had not signed was Cuba, which joined NPT (and the Treaty of Tlatelolco NWFZ) in 2002. Several NPT signatories have given up nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs.

South Africa undertook a nuclear weapons program, allegedly with the assistance of Israel in the 1970s, and may have conducted a nuclear test in the Indian Ocean in 1979, but has since renounced its nuclear program and signed the treaty in 1991 after destroying its small nuclear arsenal; after this, the remaining African countries signed the treaty. Several former Soviet Republics, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, destroyed or transferred to Russia the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union.

The former Soviet republics joined NPT by 1994. Successor states from the breakups of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia also joined the treaty soon after their independence. Montenegro and East Timor were the last countries to sign the treaty on their independence in 2006 and 2003; the only other country to sign in the 21st century was Cuba in 2002. The three Micronesian countries in Compact of Free Association with the USA joined NPT in 1995, along with Vanuatu. Major South American countries Argentina, Chile, and Brazil joined in 1995 and 1998.

Arabian Peninsula countries included Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in 1988, Qatar and Kuwait in 1989, UAE in 1995, and Oman in 1997. The tiny European states of Monaco and Andorra joined in 1995-6. Also signing in the 1990s were Myanmar in 1992 and Guyana in 1993. See also: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, 2006 North Korean nuclear test, and Six-party talks North Korea ratified the treaty on December 12, 1985, but gave notice of withdrawal from the treaty on January 10, 2003 following U. S. allegations that it had started an illegal enriched uranium weapons program, and the U.

S. subsequently stopping fuel oil shipments under the Agreed Framework[52] which had resolved plutonium weapons issues in 1994. [53] The withdrawal became effective April 10, 2003 making North Korea the first state ever to withdraw from the treaty. [54] North Korea had once before announced withdrawal, on March 12, 1993, but suspended that notice before it came into effect. [55] On February 10, 2005, North Korea publicly declared that it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out of the six-party talks hosted by China to find a diplomatic solution to the issue. We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have manufactured nuclear arms for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration’s evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea],” a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement said regarding the issue. [56] Six-party talks resumed in July 2005. On September 19, 2005, North Korea announced that it would agree to a preliminary accord. Under the accord, North Korea would scrap all of its existing nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities, rejoin the NPT, and readmit IAEA inspectors.

The difficult issue of the supply of light water reactors to replace North Korea’s indigenous nuclear power plant program, as per the 1994 Agreed Framework, was left to be resolved in future discussions. [57] On the next day North Korea reiterated its known view that until it is supplied with a light water reactor it will not dismantle its nuclear arsenal or rejoin the NPT. [58] On October 2, 2006, the North Korean foreign minister announced that his country was planning to conduct a nuclear test “in the future”, although it did not state when. 59] On Monday, October 9, 2006 at 01:35:28 (UTC) the United States Geological Survey detected a magnitude 4. 3 seismic event 70 km (43 mi) north of Kimchaek, North Korea indicating a nuclear test. [60] The North Korean government announced shortly afterward that they had completed a successful underground test of a nuclear fission device. In 2007, reports from Washington suggested that the 2002 CIA reports stating that North Korea was developing an enriched uranium weapons program, which led to North Korea leaving the NPT, had overstated or misread the intelligence. 61][62][63][64] On the other hand, even apart from these press allegations—which some critics worry could have been planted in order to justify the United States giving up trying to verify the dismantlement of Pyongyang’s uranium program in the face of North Korean intransigence—there remains some information in the public record indicating the existence of a uranium effort. Quite apart from the fact that North Korean First Vice Minister Kang Sok Ju at one point admitted the existence of a uranium enrichment program, Pakistan’s then-President Musharraf revealed that the A.

Q. Khan proliferation network had provided North Korea with a number of gas centrifuges designed for uranium enrichment. Additionally, press reports have cited U. S. officials to the effect that evidence obtained in dismantling Libya’s WMD programs points toward North Korea as the source for Libya’s uranium hexafluoride (UF6) — which, if true, would mean that North Korea has a uranium conversion facility for producing feedstock for centrifuge enrichment. [65] The history of nuclear weapons chronicles the development of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons possess enormous destructive potential derived from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion reactions. Starting with scientific breakthroughs of the 1930s made by the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom during World War II in what was called the Manhattan Project to counter the assumed Nazi German atomic bomb project. In August 1945 two were dropped on Japan ending the Pacific War. An international team was dispatched to help work on the project.

The Soviet Union started development shortly thereafter with their own atomic bomb project, and not long after that both countries developed even more powerful fusion weapons called “hydrogen bombs. ” There have been (at least) four major false alarms, the most recent in 1995, that resulted in the activation of either the US’s or Russia’s nuclear attack early warning protocols. [1] North Korea Main article: Ryanggang explosion On September 9, 2004 it was reported by South Korean media that there had been a large explosion at the Chinese/North Korean border.

This explosion left a crater visible by satellite and precipitated a large (2 mile diameter) mushroom cloud. The United States and South Korea quickly downplayed this, explaining it away as a forest fire that had nothing to do with the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program. List of most powerful nuclear tests The following incomplete list contains nuclear tests conducted with a yield of over 10 Mt TNT. Date| Yield| Test mode| Country| Test Site| Remarks| October 30, 1961| 50 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| Tsar Bomba| December 24, 1962| 24. Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| Test 219| August 5, 1961| 21. 1 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| | September 25, 1962| 19. 1 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| | February 28, 1954| 15 Mt| ground| USA| Bikini Atoll| Castle Bravo| May 5, 1954| 13. 5 Mt| sea surface| USA| Bikini Atoll| Castle Yankee| October 23, 1961| 12. 5 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| | March 26, 1954| 11 Mt| sea surface| USA| Bikini Atoll| Castle Romeo| November 1, 1952| 10. 4 Mt| ground| USA| Eniwetok| Ivy Mike| September 27, 1962| 10 Mt| air-drop| Soviet

Union| Novaya Zemlya| | Background Korea has been a divided country since 1945, when it was liberated from the defeated Japan after World War II. The Korean War was fought from June 25, 1950, until an Armistice Agreement was signed on July 27, 1953. As part of the Armistice, both sides, including U. S. forces, conduct military patrols within the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). [citation needed] In September 1956 the U. S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Radford told the U. S. Department of State that the U. S. ilitary intention was to introduce atomic weapons into Korea. From January 1957 the U. S. National Security Council considered, on President Eisenhower’s instruction, and then agreed this. However, paragraph 13(d) of the Korean Armistice Agreement mandated that both sides should not introduce new types of weapons into Korea, so preventing the introduction of nuclear weapons and missiles. The U. S. decided to unilaterally abrogate paragraph 13(d), breaking the Armistice Agreement, despite concerns by United Nations allies. 8][9] At a June 21, 1957, meeting of the Military Armistice Commission the U. S. informed the North Korean representatives that the U. N. Command no longer considered itself bound by paragraph 13(d) of the armistice. [10] In August 1957 NSC 5702/2[11] permitting the deployment of nuclear weapons in Korea was approved. [8] In January 1958 nuclear armed Honest John missiles and 280mm atomic cannons were deployed to South Korea,[12] a year later adding nuclear armed Matador cruise missiles with the range to reach China and the Soviet Union. 8][13] North Korea denounced the abrogation of paragraph 13(d) as an attempt to wreck the armistice agreement and turn Korea into a U. S. atomic warfare zone. At the U. N. General Assembly in November 1957 the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia condemned the decision of the United Nations Command to introduce nuclear weapons into Korea. [9] North Korea responded militarily by digging massive underground fortifications resistant to nuclear attack, and forward deployment of its conventional forces so that the use of nuclear weapons against it would endanger South Korean and U.

S. forces as well. In 1963 North Korea asked the Soviet Union for help in developing nuclear weapons, but was refused. However, instead the Soviet Union agreed to help North Korea develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, including the training of nuclear scientists. China later, after its nuclear tests, similarly rejected North Korean requests for help with developing nuclear weapons. [8] Tensions between North and South have run high on numerous occasions since 1953. The deployment of the U. S.

Army’s Second Infantry Division on the Korean peninsula and the American military presence at the DMZ are publicly regarded by North Korea as an occupying army. In several areas, North Korean and American/South Korean forces operate in extreme proximity to the border, adding to tension. This tension has led to numerous clashes, including the Axe Murder Incident of 1976. In the early 1960s security concerns in the region and an apparent Soviet dismissal of these concerns hastened the DPRK’s efforts to acquire the technology to produce nuclear weapons.

In the wake of the student-led April 19 movement in 1960 that overthrew the South Korean president Rhee Syngman and the May 16, 1961, military coup d’etat that brought General Park Chung-hee to power in the south, North Korea sought a mutual defense treaty with the Soviet Union and China. Soviet leaders reportedly did not even consider such a pact necessary, despite the military posture of the anti-communist Park regime, as long as the Soviets improved relations with the United States. 14] Perhaps the two most important factors in North Korea’s attempts to obtain nuclear weapons and become militarily self-reliant were the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 and the prospect of a US–Japan–ROK alliance following the 1965 establishment of diplomatic relations between the ROK and Japan. Kim Il-sung reportedly did not trust that the Soviets would live up to the conditions of the mutual defense pact and guarantee North Korea’s security since they betrayed Castro by withdrawing nuclear missiles in an effort to improve relations with the United States.

As a North Korean official explained to Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin in 1965, “the Korean leaders were distrustful of the CPSU and the Soviet government, they could not count on that the Soviet government would keep the obligations related to the defense of Korea it assumed in the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, Kim Il-sung said, and therefore they were compelled to keep an army of 700,000 and a police force of 200,000. In explaining the cause of such mistrust, the official claimed that “the Soviet Union had betrayed Cuba at the time of the Caribbean crisis. “[15] However, as recently declassified Russian, Hungarian, and East German materials confirm, no communist governments were willing to share the technology with the North Koreans, out of fear that they would share the technology with China. [16] With the collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korean leaders recognized the need for a new security relationship with a major power since Pyongyang could not afford to maintain its military posture.

North Korean leaders therefore sought to forge a new relationship with the United States, the only power strong enough to step into the vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the early 1990s, throughout the first nuclear crisis, North Korea sought a non-aggression pact with the United States. The U. S. rejected North Korean calls for bilateral talks concerning a non-aggression pact, and stated that only six-party talks that also include the People’s Republic of China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea are acceptable.

The American stance was that North Korea had violated prior bilateral agreements, thus such forums lacked accountability. Conversely, North Korea refused to speak in the context of six-party talks, stating that it would only accept bilateral talks with the United States. This led to a diplomatic stalemate. On October 9, 2006, the North Korean government issued an announcement that it had successfully conducted a nuclear test for the first time. Both the United States Geological Survey and Japanese seismological authorities detected an earthquake with a preliminary estimated magnitude of 4. in North Korea, corroborating some aspects of the North Korean claims. [4] On November 19, 2006, North Korea’s Minju Joson newspaper accused South Korea of building up arms in order to attack the country, claiming that “the South Korean military is openly clamoring that the development and introduction of new weapons are to target the North. ” North Korea accused South Korea of conspiring with the United States to attack it, an accusation made frequently by the North and routinely denied by the United States. 17] The United Nations Security Council condemned the test in Resolution 1874. On May 25, 2009, North Korea conducted a second test of a nuclear weapon at the same location as the original test (not confirmed). The test weapon was of the same magnitude as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in the 2nd World War, (confirmed South Korea and Russia). At the same time of the test North Korea tested two short range missiles (reported a South Korean News Network YTN – not officially confirmed). In July 2011, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the key figure in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons evelopment, allegedly claimed that North Korea had gained access to Pakistan’s nuclear technology in the late 1990s by paying bribes to Pakistan’s senior military officials, a claim Pakistan’s senior officials disputed. Khan stated that he had personally helped transfer $3 million in gratuities to senior Pakistan’s military officers, though he neither provided any proofs to his claims. [18] Chronology of events Main article: Timeline of North Korea nuclear program [edit] Plutonium | This section needs additional citations for verification. (October 2009)| MWe experimental reactor at Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center North Korea has had two operating reactors, both located at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center. The older reactor is a Russian supplied IRT-2000 research reactor completed in 1967. [19] Uranium irradiated in this reactor was used in North Korea’s first plutonium separation experiments in 1975. [20] Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the reactor is not to produce plutonium and North Korea has had trouble acquiring enough fuel for constant operation. The U. S.

Department of Energy estimated that this reactor could have been used to produce up to 1–2 kg of plutonium, thoug

Free Essays

Terrorism in Peru

ENGLISH * Forgiveness Means Love Name: Alejandra Cardenas Modality: Essay School: Villa Caritas Grade:11 B Stage:High School July 2012 Forgiveness Means Love What would happen if a doctor told you are dying tomorrow, would you forgive the people who ever hurt you? Or would you die with that resentment in your heart? Everyone has been hurt at least once by actions or words from another person. It is difficult to forgive such an injury. These wounds can stay forever if you don’t learn to forgive the ones who hurt you.

Forgiveness means peace, love, respect, hope. We all talk about a peaceful world, but we don’t make an effort to make it happen. “Love is around us” but we reject it and prefer to obey our carnal desires. We expect people to respect us, but we don’t respect others, and sometimes we make fun of their believes. Hope is all it is left. Hope to have a better world, hope to become a better person, and hope to forgive others. A clear example of forgiveness is terrorism in Peru. Today we still have resentment and thoughts of revenge for what Abimael Guzman did.

But we need to forgive so we can live our lives in a peaceful way. After a long battle of terrorism in Peru, Abimael Guzman was finally put in jail in 1992. All the families were enthusiastic by the news and felt more secured. He was captured by the Intelligence Special Group, led by Alberto Fujimori, the president on that time. They started investigating various residence of Lima and found out that Mr. Guzman was hiding in a house of a lady. They found some medicines used for a treatment of psoriasis, a disease that Abimael Guzman suffered.

Shining Path was a group of terrorists, who believed in marxism-leninism-maoism. They thought that fighting would solve all their problems. They wanted a change but they were not heard. It was a fight between the proletariat and the state, between the landowners and the capitalists in the city. This group of terrorists wanted to replace what it was seen as bourgeois democracy with a “new democracy”. The Shining Path wanted to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat, lead a cultural revolution, and eventually introduce communism and have the complete control of the government.

Before he was captured, Abimael Guzman wanted to get the whole power of the Peruvian government. He used violence to achieve his goals. He attacked the Peruvian Armed Forces and the National Police. Guzman placed diverse bombs in schools, houses, streets and popular places. Many people died, and families were devastated with their loss. It was a time of mourning. Every day was a new wake, and every day more people lost faith. Many families, who lived in such a devastating period of time, blamed Abimael Guzman for all their misfortunes. Wished him the worst, and wanted to put him in jail.

At the end, Guzman was captured; people were safer but still felt a grudge towards him. But it is necessary to forgive and wish him the best. Everybody makes mistakes, some of them are big or small, but mistakes are made to learn from them and become a better person. Generally, forgiveness is a decision to let go the resentment and thoughts of revenge. Many people may think: Why is it important to forgive a man who hurt so many families? Forgiveness can lead to feelings of understanding, empathy and compassion for the one who hurt you.

It doesn’t mean that you deny the other person’s responsibility for hurting you, and it doesn’t minimize or justify the wrong of his action. Forgiveness brings peace that helps you go on with life. And that’s what Peruvians should do. It’s not easy but it is the right thing to do. We are free to decide what the best is for us, and the best is to always forgive. “…but I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool! will be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. ” It is possible that many Peruvians agree to forgive Abimael Guzman. On the other hand, there might be some of them who refuse to even consider forgiving him. Unforgiving means to have anger, resentment and bitterness in your life. Having all this negatives aspects would make life harder to enjoy.

Also it is possible to become more negative and insecure. Having a good future means to forgive the past. As Jesus once said: “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. ” It is an obligation for all the citizens to let go that resentment and feeling of revenge towards Abimael Guzman. Peace is not reached easily; it takes time and reconciliation with everyone who has hurt you.

Forgiveness means to have an open heart and mind. Forgiveness does not come easy for anyone. Human’s natural instinct is to protect itself when he or she has been injured. Forgiveness can change lives; it brings peace, happiness and emotional healing. It is job of everyone to build a better world, a world with love, peace, kindness and reconciliation. There is no love without forgiveness and there is no forgiveness without love. ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Matthew 5:22-24 [ 2 ]. Luke 6:27-29

Free Essays

Trends in Modern International Terrorism

Trends in Modern International Terrorism Boaz Ganor Abstract This chapter examines some of the most widely researched trends and developments within the phenomenon of modern international terrorism, providing policy recommendations on how to counter its emerging threats – particularly that of the Global Jihad movement and “homegrown” terrorism. The magnitude of the modern terrorist threat was demonstrated by the attacks of September 11, and ever since, the field has experienced a renewal of sorts, attracting unprecedented attention by both scholars and the mainstream public.

This chapter will introduce readers to the main schools of thoughts within the academic field that explain terrorism. It will also present the many disciplines applicable to the study of terrorism, demonstrating that the phenomenon is multifaceted in nature, requiring a cohesive international and broad-based response. In covering a number of dilemmas facing terrorism experts, the chapter explores the debate over a definition of terrorism, providing a proposed definition that distinguishes acts of terrorism from criminal acts.

The chapter continues on to explore the phenomenon of modern terrorism, the role of traditional crime within the terror sphere, and the growing threat of Global Jihadi terrorism – including terror networks and homegrown cells and activists who have emerged as a result of the spread of radical Islamic ideology. The role of terrorism in democratic states and the economic ramifications of terrorism are also explored. Finally, the chapter ends with recommendations on how governments should effectively respond to terrorism and discuses room for further research.

Trends in Modern International Terrorism In recent years, the academic world has witnessed a surge of research and academic programs in the field of homeland security and counterterrorism. After the attacks of 9/11, the threat of global terrorism immediately topped the international agenda. B. Ganor Lauder School of Government, International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel e-mail: [email protected] ac. il D. Weisburd et al. (eds. ), To Protect and To Serve: Policing in an Age of Terrorism, DOI 10. 007/978-0-387-73685-3_2, © Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009 11 12 B. Ganor Growing recognition of the threat, combined with an increase in government spending, spurred the development of academic research institutions, think tanks, and new higher education programs in the study of homeland security and counterterrorism. The trend was particularly prominent in the United States, as researchers sought a basic understanding of the characteristics of terrorism and agencies sought ways to effectively cope with the phenomenon.

This trend was accompanied by a significant increase in the number of researchers focusing on the phenomenon of terrorism. These researchers came from a wide array of academic disciplines, applying varied quantitative and qualitative research tools and methods in their analysis of the threat. In understanding the phenomenon and preventing future terrorist attacks, researchers have focused primarily on understanding the rationale of terrorist organizations in general and Global Jihad organizations in particular – their cost-benefit calculations and their decision-making processes. Trends” in terrorism have also been explored – often focusing on the introduction, transition, or prominence of a specific modus operandi or a method, such as suicide bombings, the Global Jihad movement, or the use of unconventional weapons. Reviewing these trends and themes in terrorism – and the academic research that has accompanied them – is crucial in determining how far we have come and how far we have to go, both in terms of the governments designing and deciding on counterterrorism policy and the academics informing such decisions.

In exploring the phenomenon of modern international terrorism, this chapter will first introduce readers to the various schools of thought and academic approaches used in explaining terrorism – drawing on a wide range of disciplines and theories. Discussion will then move to one of the most basic components of the terrorism dilemma, with implications on how the term – and thus phenomenon of terrorism itself – is treated, applied, and understood by the international community – the debate over defining terrorism.

As will be demonstrated, definitions of terrorism vary widely – with equally as wide implications – yet there is still a general consensus among most leading scholars as to the essential nature of the threat. “Modern terrorism,” the next theme that will be explored in this chapter, is regarded as a form of psychological warfare intended to spread fear and anxiety among the target population. This fear is translated into political pressure on decision makers to change policies in such a manner that will serve the terrorist’s interests.

As such, modern terrorists attempt to exploit the liberal values of democratic states, forcing governments to adhere to their demands as a result of the physical, psychological, and economic ramifications of terrorist attacks. The nature of terrorism in relation to the democratic state will be explored in a later section of this chapter as well. As terrorist groups are usually engaged in a long war of attrition, terrorist organizations need ongoing support and funds to ensure they can maintain their activities.

In fact, one of the main sources of funding for many terrorist organizations is criminal activity: smuggling, counterfeiting, extortion, and narcotics. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the threat of international terrorism grew with the spread of Global Jihad terrorism. Made up of complex networks of hierarchal terrorist organizations, proxy and affiliate organizations, local and international terror 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 13 etworks, sleeper cells, and indoctrinated radical activists, all these actors share a common extreme ideology and the readiness to use violence in general – and terrorism in particular – in order to achieve their goals. The economic ramifications of these activities only further exacerbate the damage posed by terrorist attacks, another focus of terrorism research. This dynamic terrorist phenomenon has threatened an increasing number of states while involving more terror organizations, networks, activists, and supporters worldwide.

The growing level of the threat, its international scope, its lethality,1 and the possible use of nonconventional terrorism (CBRN – chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons) necessitate future multidisciplinary research in the field and a more cohesive, international response. Explaining Terrorism In general, two schools of thought explaining the phenomenon of modern terrorism have emerged out of the collection of academic work within the discipline – the “psychological-sociological” school of thought and the “political-rational” school of thought.

Both schools maintain that terrorism seeks to achieve political goals by instilling fear and anxiety among the target population, but each stresses a different aspect of the explanation. The psychological-sociological school, represented most recently by scholars such as Dr. Jerrold Post (1998) and John Horgan (2005), stresses the phenomenon’s psychological component, maintaining that the immediate and central goal of terrorism is to instill fear and anxiety, while its political goals are long term. Terror as a clinical term refers to a psychological state of constant dread or fearfulness, associated with an abnormally high level of psych-physiological arousal. This is central to what terrorists aim to achieve, since after all, while they have some ultimate set of political objectives, it is an immediate goal of most terrorist groups to cause terror” (Horgan, 2005:14). The psychological-sociological school addresses both the desired effect of terrorism and its root causes, relying primarily on social group dynamics and the psychological profile of an individual terrorist actor.

Some early psychological explanations of terrorism have focused on the disruptive or psychopathological personalities of terrorist operatives, analyzing terrorists based on characteristics or disorders associated with violent or aggressive behaviors (De la Corte et al. , 2007). Some of the common psychological characteristics that have been attributed to alleged terrorists Analysis of terrorist incidents over the last 35 years confirms that terrorist attacks, while arguably decreasing in quantity, are growing more deadly over time, as the number of fatalities per attack has increased (LaFree and Dugan, in this volume).

Such data, however, rely on a definition of terrorism that LaFree and Dugan themselves note is relatively “inclusive. ” The Global Terrorism Database (GTD), on which their analysis is based, excludes “attacks on the military by guerilla organizations,” but includes military targets attacked by substate actors motivated by political, economic, or social motives (See LaFree and Dugan; in this volume). 1 14 B. Ganor re paranoia, antisocial and narcissistic personalities (Millon, 1981; Post, 1987), lack of empathy with victims, hostility toward parents, dogmatic or ideological mentality, or a simplistic or utopian worldview (Victoroff, 2005). At one end of the spectrum within such literature is the assertion – and at times assumption – that terrorists are to some degree psychologically “abnormal,” possessing personality disorders that qualify them as insane or psychopathic (as discussed by Cooper, 1978; Hacker, 1976; Lasch, 1979; Pearce, 1977; Taylor, 1988).

Despite early research providing psychological profiles of terrorists, other terrorism researchers have come to the general conclusion that there is no universal terrorist personality pattern; most terrorist operatives are not necessarily “psychopaths” (Silke, 1998), nor do they show traces of being clearly or consistently mentally ill (Crenshaw, 2000; Post, 1998; Stahelski, 2004). Early studies on the topic have been largely disproved or debunked, in fact, even within the psychological-social school of thought.

Further research has shown that terrorists rarely meet the criteria for insanity,2 but rather may possess some “particular personality dispositions” related to psychological conditions or disorders (Post, 1987). Dr. Jerrold Post, an expert in political psychology, maintains that even though terrorists fit within the spectrum of “normality,” a large number have demonstrated specific personality characteristics that indicate a minor psychopathology, such as aggression, activism, thrill seeking, an externalist psychological mechanism and factionalism.

These are characteristics of narcissistic disorders and borderline personalities (Post, 1998:25–27). While Post stops short of actually diagnosing terrorists with such disorders or characteristics, he does claim they tend to have high frequency among terrorists, contributing to a uniform rhetorical style and logic (Silke, 1998:65). According to Post, there is a unique logic that characterizes a terrorist’s thought process – a “terrorist psycho-logic. Post claims that terrorists are motivated by psychological influences when they choose to conduct violent acts, as expressed in rhetoric that relies on “us versus them” and “good versus evil” dichotomies. He further claims that lodged in a terrorist’s permanent logic is the notion that the regime must be toppled, which is a result of the terrorist’s search for identity. In an attack against the regime, a terrorist is actually trying to destroy the inner enemy within him.

However, even as some researchers cite it as the primary cause, a terrorist’s individual psychological profile is not the only significant explanation for the phenomenon of terrorism. Rather, group psychology and sociology may be significant explanatory factors behind terrorist attacks. Various researchers have cited group pressure as a variable to explain recruitment, methods of operation and involvement in terrorism (Merari, 2004). Others have applied the cult model to terrorist organizations (Morgan, 2001). Studies by Heskin (1984), Rasch (1979), and Taylor (1988) have all cited evidence discrediting the assumption that terrorists are psychologically “abnormal. ” 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 15 It is in this context that Post emphasizes the group as a framework in which a sense of belonging and importance for its members is created. He claims that ideology plays an important role in supporting a unifying environment for the group.

Shared ideology justifies the group’s activity and quickly transforms into the group’s moral guide. The psychological-sociological school relies, therefore, on psychological and sociological characteristics, motives, and grievances in explaining the phenomenon of terrorism. In contrast, the “political-rational” school of thought views terrorism as a rational method of operation intended to promote various interests and attain concrete political goals (Crenshaw, 2000; Hoffman, 1998; Shprinzak, 1998).

Rational choice theory has been adopted by a number of terrorism researchers within this school, and maintains that terrorist action derives from a conscious, rational, calculated decision to choose one route of action over another (Crenshaw, 1992; Sandler et al. , 1983; Sandler and Lapan, 1988; Wilson, 2000). 3 Leading researcher Martha Crenshaw explains that an organization chooses terrorism among several operational alternatives in order to promote their mutual values and preferences.

In making a rational calculation of the costs and benefits, terrorism is deliberately chosen as the preferred method of political activity because it is perceived to be the most effective of the operating alternatives – the benefits exceed the costs. In this context, Ehud Shprinzak similarly stressed that the phenomenon of terrorism is not the result of disturbed human activity or a random thoughtless attack. This is a process that almost always begins without violence or terrorist activity (Shprinzak, 1998:78).

Rand terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman further clarified the “rationalist” approach: “I have been studying terrorists and terrorism for more than twenty years. Yet I am still always struck by how disturbingly ‘normal’ most terrorists seem when one actually sits down and talks to them… Many are in fact highly articulate and extremely thoughtful individuals for whom terrorism is (or was) an entirely rational choice…” (Hoffman, 1998:7)

The dispute between the rationalist and psychological approach is important in understanding the root causes of terrorism, allowing experts and security professionals to identify characteristics of the threat and formulate effective counterstrategies. While the two schools may seem to fundamentally clash, an interdisciplinary explanation of terrorism may actually be the most effective way to approach the phenomenon. In a sense, these two schools can complement and complete each other.

In the Israeli setting, for example, the case of a suicide bombing is likely motivated by a combination of the rational calculations of the organization, a cost-benefit analysis made by the attackers themselves, social pressure from the attackers’ peer group, and personal psychological, social, cultural, and religious motivations. The decisionmaking process functions on a number of levels, in which both political-rational 3 For an overview of psychological, social, and rational choice theories, see Victoroff, 2005. 16 B. Ganor Psychology H ci ol og ist or y So Law Why Terrorism ? Economics Media & Communication Political Science Fig. 2. 1 Explanatory disciplines to terrorism and the psychological-sociological explanations have their place, demonstrating the multidisciplinary nature of terrorism. As Crenshaw noted, even though an act of terrorism may not be wholly the result of a psychological disorder, that is not to say “the political decision to join a terrorist organization is not influenced or, in some cases, even determined by subconscious or latent psychological motives” (Crenshaw, 1998:386).

It seems that only multivariable explanations based on methodologies and theories from different disciplines can adequately address the complex phenomenon of terrorism, provide explanations for the growth, development and characteristics of the phenomenon, and suggest methods for effectively dealing with terrorism (Fig. 2. 1). Explanatory Disciplines to Terrorism Different research disciplines may be able to provide answers to fundamental questions at the core of terrorism research, such as:

Psychology The field of psychology can provide answers to such questions as: Do terrorists have common psychological characteristics? Do terrorists have a psychological profile? Why do people become terrorists? Which people might become terrorists and which will not? Why do people join a terrorist organization and why do they leave it? When, why, and how does the personal radicalization process take place? (See Post, 1998; Raine, 1993; Hubbard, 1971). 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 17 Economics How important are economic variables in explaining the development and motivation of terrorism?

To what degree can terrorists’ financial situation explain the motives for their behavior? How much does the economic factor determine the scope and characteristics of terrorism activity? 4 (See Abadie, 2004; Kahn and Weiner, 2002; Krueger and Laitin, 2008; Krueger and Maleckova, 2002; Piazza, 2006). Sociology How much influence does one’s peer group have on the decision to join a terrorist group or the motivation to conduct acts of terrorism? How much can processes of socialization and delegitimization by society – ostracizing, discrimination, alienation, etc. serve as variables explaining the motives of terrorism? Why does a certain population at a specific time tend to carry out terrorist attacks while another population with similar characteristics does not choose this course of action? What is the extent of the connection between terrorism and different cultures? 5 (See Bandura, 1973, 1998; Gibbs, 1989; Merari, 2004; Morgan, 2001; Webb, 2002). Criminology To what extent should terrorism be treated as a phenomenon in the criminal sphere? What are the differences between the characteristics of criminal and terrorist activity?

What are the similarities and the differences in the organizational characteristics between terrorist and criminal organizations? 6 (See Klein et al. , 2006; Klein and Maxson, 2006; Lafree, 2007). 4 Several studies have focused on refuting the widely claimed link between poverty and terrorism (Harmon, 2000; Hasisi and Pedahzur, 2000; Schmid, 1983). In fact, a 2003 study by Krueger and Maleckova showed that higher-earning Palestinians were more likely to justify the use of terrorism to achieve political goals; and a 2002 study (Krueger and Maleckova, 2002) did not find a link between Hezbollah fighters and impoverished conditions – ather, they were richer and more educated than their counterparts. Another study looked at the biographies of 285 suicide bombers and found them to be richer and more educated than members of the general population (Victoroff, 2005:21). 5 Until September 11, there were few academic studies of terrorism from a strictly sociological viewpoint. However, Bandura (1973, 1998) used social learning theory to suggest that violence follows observation and imitation of an aggressive model. Friedland (1992) cited the “frustrationaggression hypothesis” in understanding why terrorists turn to violence (as cited in Victoroff, 2005).

Morgan (2001) applied the cult model to understand individual actors and group dynamics within terrorist groups. 6 For the role of policing in counter-terrorism strategies, see Chaps. 3–5 of this volume. LaFree and Dugan (Chap. 2) also briefly discuss the comparison between rates of terrorist attacks and other types of criminal violence. The interplay and linkages between organized crime and terrorism are explored in several anthology volumes, such as Holmes (2007), among many others. 18 B. Ganor

Political Science and International Relations To what extent should terrorism be understood in rational terms (cost-benefit calculation) as an effective method intended to achieve political goals? To what extent can political terms such as sovereignty, power, authority, and social justice serve as variables to explain the phenomenon of terrorism? To what degree is the phenomenon of terrorism connected to certain ideologies or a certain form of government? To what degree does modern terrorism aim to take advantage of the liberal democratic form of government’s values and traits?

To what extent is the media component essential in order to explain the strategy of modern terrorism? How are the decision-making processes different in terrorist organizations than other organizations? Can terrorism be understood as a means for states to achieve their interests in the international arena? To what extent can terrorism be dealt with by using deterrent measures in general and deterring state-sponsors of terrorism in particular? (See Crenshaw, 2000; Ganor, 2005; Hoffman, 1998; Nacos, 1994). Theology To what extent is modern terrorism a result of religious extremism?

How is incitement to terrorism carried out with the use of religious rationalizations and how can this incitement be dealt with? (See Atran, 2006; Hoffman, 1995; Juergensmeyer, 2003; Ranstorp, 1996; Rapoport, 1984). Hence, nearly every academic research discipline has been, and will continue to be, critical in providing answers to some of the central issues that lie behind understanding the phenomenon of terrorism and the methods for dealing with it. Only this multidisciplinary approach can provide a profound understanding of the phenomenon. The Definition of Terrorism

Growing interest in the field of terrorism and increased funding allotted to academic research and teaching budgets post-9/11 has spurred and supported the publication of hundreds of books and articles in the past few years, many professional and academic conferences, and a general flourishing of the field. Yet, six years after the world recognized the magnitude of the terrorist threat on 9/11, researchers, security professionals, politicians, jurists, and others have still not been able to agree upon its most fundamental component – what is terrorism?

Moreover, and somewhat surprisingly, the only consensus these individuals have reached is that it might be impossible, or even unnecessary, to reach an internationally 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 19 accepted definition of terrorism. 7 Those who hold this opinion – in fact the majority in the field – usually cite the cliche “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” in order to imply that, in their opinion, the issue of definition is subjective. As such, even partial agreement regarding its content cannot be reached. Louis Henkin (1989) captured this entiment in 1990 when he said that: “Terrorism… is not a useful legal concept. ” Those who do not regard a definition as critical believe that the international system – and the security establishment in particular – can manage without consensus on the issue. They claim that terrorists, in a sense, commit regular crimes – extortion, murder, arson, and other felonies already covered by conventional criminal law. Therefore, they can be tried for committing these felonies without the need for a special criminal classification, and thus definition, for terrorism.

Needless to say, there is no shortage of proposed definitions for terrorism. Every researcher, expert, security professional, NGO, country, and politician espouses their own definition, one that likely represents a distinct world view and political stance. By the early 1980s, Schmid and Jongman had already listed 109 definitions of terrorism proposed by researchers in the field (Schmid and Jongman, 1998:5). In their chapter in this volume, LaFree and Dugan touch upon the difficulty in reaching a consensus on a definition of terrorism given its controversial and highly politicized nature.

It is within this context that they note the U. S. was reluctant to define the attacks by Contra rebels in Nicaragua as terrorism, while regarding practically all violence in Iraq and Afghanistan as such. They further note that more inclusive definitions of terrorism are often preferred by businesses or private think tanks that are collecting data for the purpose of risk assessment, as such an approach ultimately benefits their clients (LaFree and Dugan, in this volume). Among the hundreds of definitions of terrorism that have been accepted throughout the years, some contain conceptual and phrasing problems (Hoffman, 2004:3).

Many researchers note that the only certainty regarding terrorism is the pejorative manner in which the word is generally used and associated (Hoffman, 2006:23; Horgan, 2005:1). As such, when scholars, politicians, or activists describe and analyze the activities of alleged terrorist organizations, they very often use alternative terms that bear more positive connotations, such as guerilla or underground movements, revolutionaries, militias, militants, commando groups, national liberation movements, etc. (Hoffman, 2006:28).

Many in the Western world have accepted the premise that terrorism and national liberation are located on two opposite ends of a spectrum legitimizing the use of violence. The struggle for “national liberation” is, allegedly, located on the positive 7 In a presentation on the definition of terrorism to the UK Parliament in March 2007, Lord Carlile quoted David Tucker from Skirmishes at the Edge of the Empire, stating that: “Above the gates of hell is the warning that all that enter should abandon hope. Less dire but to the same effect is the warning given to those who try to define terrorism” (See http://www. amilnation. org/terrorism/ uk/070317carlile. htm); for a reporter’s perspective see Kinsley, 2001; see also Levitt (1986), in which he claims a definition for terrorism is no easier to find than the Holy Grail. 20 B. Ganor and justified end of the violence spectrum, while terrorism is its unjust and negative polar opposite. Within this framework, it would be impossible for a specific organization to be considered both a terrorist group and a national liberation movement, as Senator Henry Jackson claims: “The thought that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is unacceptable.

Freedom fighters or revolutionaries do not blow up buses with noncombatants; terrorists and murderers do. Freedom fighters do not kidnap and slaughter students, terrorists and murders do…” (As cited in Netanyahu, 1987:18) There is little basis for the claim that “freedom fighters” cannot carry out acts of terrorism and murder. This approach unintentionally plays into the hands of terrorists, who claim that since they are acting to expel who they consider to be a foreign occupier, they cannot also be considered terrorists.

However, many freedom fighters in modern history committed crimes and purposely targeted innocent civilians. The difference between “terrorism” and “freedom fighting” is not a subjective distinction based on the observer’s point of view. Rather, it derives from identifying the perpetrator’s goals and methods of operation. Terrorism is a means – a tool – for achieving an end, and that “end” can very well be liberating the homeland from the yoke of a foreign occupier. An organization can be, at the same time, both a national liberation movement and a terrorist group.

It is not the specific goal – whether “freedom fighting” or another legitimate political objective – that distinguishes a group as a terrorist organization or justifies its activities. Many groups, however, such as the Muslim World League, do not clearly make this distinction. In a special publication from 2001, the Muslim World League states that: “Terrorism is an outrageous attack carried out either by individuals, groups or states against the human being (his religion, life, intellect, property and honor).

It includes all forms of intimidation, harm, threatening, killing without a just cause… so as to terrify and horrify people by hurting them or by exposing their lives, liberty, security or conditions to danger… or exposing a national or natural resource to danger” (Al-Mukarramah, 2001). In presenting the activities that constitute terrorism as being committed “without a just cause,” the Muslim World League’s definition infers that such acts committed with a just cause are not considered terrorism.

Such definitions are typical of attempts to create confusion between the means and the end, ultimately foiling any possibility of reaching a consensus on a definition. Since September 11, international terrorism has emerged on the top of national and international security agendas, widely perceived as a severe and very real threat to world peace. It is a threat that necessitates international alignment and cooperation on an unprecedented level. Such a high degree of cooperation cannot be established or sustained however without agreement over the most basic common denominator – the definition of terrorism.

Outside intelligence and military circles, the effectiveness of other apparatuses essential in countering the terrorist threat is dependent upon a clear, broad, and objective definition of terrorism that can be accepted internationally. Such a definition is essential in order to: disrupt the financing of terrorism, respond to states and 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 21 communities that support terrorism, prevent recruitment and incitement of terrorist operatives, and establish legal measures and guidelines to both outlawed terrorist organizations and activities, and arrest and extradite alleged terrorists.

Above all else, the international community must establish a binding normative system to determine what is allowed and not allowed – what is legitimate and not legitimate – when violence is used for political objectives. A definition that would address all these requirements is: Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political goals (nationalistic, socioeconomic, ideological, religious, etc. ) In defining terrorism within the above framework, it is important to note that a terrorist act would not be classified as a “regular” criminal activity warranting the application of criminal legal norms.

Rather, terrorism would be viewed as an act of war, and the countermeasures mounted against it would too be conducted in accordance to the norms and laws of war. The Israeli High Court of Justice has itself struggled with the distinction between criminal acts and acts of war, reflecting the tension facing those studying and responding to terrorism today. According to Justice Cheshin, “a judge’s job is difficult. It is sevenfold as difficult when he comes to deal with a hideously murderous attack such as we have in front of us.

The murderer’s action is inherently – though not within the framework of or as part of the formal definition – an act of war, and an act that is inherently an act of war is answered with an act of war, in the ways of war” (Abd Al-Rahim Hassan Nazzal and others vs. the Commander of the IDF forces in Judea and Samaria, 1994). In a different verdict, the judge ruled that a “criminal code created for daily life in human society does not have an answer for the question” (Federman and others vs. the Attorney General, 1993).

The debate over whether terrorism should be considered a criminal act or an act of war remains strong among academics, NGOs, and counter terrorism professionals. Without consensus on the issue, states have applied their own policies in trying and convicting alleged terrorist suspects – whether as criminals or combatants. Despite the fact that criminal acts can consist of the same actions as terrorism – murder, arson, and extortion – terrorism, unlike an average criminal act, threatens the internal social order, personal and national security, world peace, and the economy. As previously noted, acts of terrorism are intended to achieve various political goals and could thus be considered arguably more severe than criminal violations. In addition, as international law expert and terrorism prosecutor Ruth Wedgwood has argued, criminal law may be “too weak a weapon” to counter terrorism, as destroying terrorist infrastructure and networks requires diplomacy, use of force, and criminal 8 Resolution 1566 (2004) adopted by the Security Council in its 5053rd meeting, on Oct. 8 2004: “…Reaffirming that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to peace and security.

Considering that acts of terrorism seriously impair the enjoyment of human rights and threaten the social and economic development of all states, they undermine global stability and prosperity. ” (See: http://daccessdds. un. org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/542/82/ PDF/N0454282. pdf? OpenElement. ) 22 B. Ganor law combined. She adds that the restrictions embedded in a criminal justice system make sense in civil society where deterrence is a factor, but this may not apply in a fight against a highly networked terrorist organization (Wedgwood and Roth, 2004). Bruce Hoffman points to a fundamental difference between a criminal and a terrorist when he asserts that while a criminal seeks personal material goals, a terrorist usually sees himself as an altruist acting for and in the name of many others (Hoffman, 2006:37). Therefore, a terrorist may be perceived as posing greater danger through his actions, since he is significantly more willing than a criminal to sacrifice in order to achieve his goals – even to the point of self-sacrifice in certain situations. The criminal code in itself does not serve as an adequate platform to define terrorism.

The laws of war are better suited as a framework for defining and dealing with terrorism, since the phenomenon is a violent action intended to achieve political goals, often involving the use of pseudo-military methods of operation. By basing the definition of terrorism on an established system of norms and laws, already included in international conventions and accepted by most of the countries in the world, the international community is more likely to reach a broad international agreement on the definition of terrorism – a basic tool in the joint international struggle against terrorism.

At the core of the Geneva and The Hague conventions are rules differentiating between two types of personnel involved in military activity: “combatants,” military personnel who deliberately target enemy military personnel; and “war criminals,” military personnel who, among other actions forbidden by the laws of war, deliberately target civilians. Currently, the moral differentiation between a legitimate combatant and a war criminal is based on the attacked target (military or civilian), and, at least in principle, only applies to state entities and their armies and not to substate entities.

In the Israeli setting for example, a Palestinian, considered part of a subnational group, who is involved in a deliberate attack against an Israeli military target, will receive the same treatment and punishment as a Palestinian who deliberately attacks a civilian target. Since there is no distinction made between the two, despite the difference in their targets, the degree of international legitimacy or condemnation of both cases will likely continue to be dependant on the supporter or condemner’s political stance and not necessarily on the character or target of the deliberate operation – its legality under applicable rules and norms.

The American government, for example, classifies attacks against its troops in Iraq as terrorist attacks, as it does the October 2000 attack against the USS Cole or the attack against the American military barracks in Dhahran (June 1996). In fact, in an attempt to expand the definition of terrorism to include attacks against soldiers, the U. S. State Department’s definition states that terrorism is the Ruth Wedgewood and Human Rights Watch Director Kenneth Roth debate the US’s treatment of terrorist suspects – as combatants versus criminals – in a series of articles in Foreign Affairs (See Roth, 2004; Wedgwood and Roth, 2004). 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 23 deliberate use of violence against “non-combatant targets,” which includes both civilians and military personnel not on the battle field. 10 While it is natural for victims of terrorism to adopt this broad-based definition, terrorist organizations and their supporters can legitimately argue that in seeking to achieve their political goals, they cannot reasonably be required to either not confront military personnel entirely, or do so only when they are fully armed and prepared for war.

They claim that they must be given the right to attack and surprise soldiers whatever the circumstances. In applying these considerations, the U. S. State Department’s definition of terrorism could not successfully serve as a common denominator leading to international agreement. It is only in reducing the scope of the definition to the deliberate targeting of civilians – as opposed to “non-combatants” – that may solve this problem, enabling the establishment of a clear moral boundary that should not be crossed. A terrorist act would be considered, in a sense, the equivalent for a substate entity to a war crime committed by a state. 1 During a state of war, normative principles and the laws of war forbid the deliberate targeting of civilians but allow deliberate attacks on an enemy’s military personnel (in accordance with other applicable regulations). Similarly, in modern asymmetric warfare, a normative rule must be set to address limitations on substate actors, differentiating between guerilla warfare (violence against military personnel) and terrorism (violence against civilians) – just as the rules of war differentiate between legitimate combatants and war criminals.

For the purpose of defining terrorism, it is not significant what goal the organization aspires to achieve (as long as it is political); both the terrorist and the guerilla fighter may aspire to achieve the same goals. However, they each chose a different path – a different means – in order to realize these goals. Defining terrorism is critical in ensuring that the same normative standards currently enforced on states are applicable to nonstate actors, defining when their use of violence is permissible and when it is prohibited.

Paradoxically, what is currently prohibited for states is not yet prohibited for organizations. Defining terrorism does not raise or lower the obligation of states to behave normatively and certainly does not place additional legal burdens upon them. It simply makes organizations accountable for their actions under the same value system currently obligating states. Terrorism is defined by the U. S. State Department as: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. (from the 22 U. S. C. , 2656f(d)(2); See http://www. state. gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65353. htm. ) 11 The UN short legal definition of terrorism, proposed by terrorism expert Alex P. Schmid, states that an act of terrorism is the “peacetime equivalent of a war crime. ” While such a definition does not consider terrorism an act of war, in drawing a parallel with a war crime it notes the importance of the target (civilian vs. military) in legitimizing acts of violence. (See: http://www. unodc. org/ unodc/terrorism_definitions. html. ) 10 24 B. Ganor

Reaching a broad international agreement regarding the definition of terrorism may require the international community to apply laws of war that forbid the deliberate targeting of civilians, but allow for the deliberate attack (in accordance with the other regulations) of an enemy’s military personnel. The definition proposed in this chapter may be capable of eliciting a broad base of support from many countries and organizations, both because it is based on already accepted international norms, and because it seemingly provides subnational organizations the possibility of legitimately using violence in order to achieve their goals.

Such a definition would not allow for the artificial distinction that is often made between “bad” terrorism and “good” or “tolerable” terrorism. It instead adheres to the principle that “terrorism is terrorism is terrorism,” no matter who carries it out – a Muslim, Christian, Jew, or member of any other religion. Terrorism would be considered an illegitimate and forbidden method of operation in all cases, under all circumstances. The ideological or cultural background of the perpetrators; and the religious, political, social or economic motives of the act; would all be irrelevant in classifying an act of terrorism.

Many view the effort to achieve a broad international agreement on terrorism as hopeless and naive. However, Security Council Resolution 1566, which was unanimously accepted by Council members in October 2004, may be a basis for hope that countries will overcome prior disputes, rise above their own interests, and reach an agreement in the near future regarding the international definition of terrorism. Resolution 1566, without serving as the definition itself, already establishes one basic principle on which an international definition can be built.

It stipulates that terrorism is a crime against civilians, which in no circumstance can be justified by political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other considerations. 12 Modern Terrorism Descriptions of typical terrorist operations and their common characteristics are often included in proposed definitions of modern terrorism – particularly in those that address the fear and anxiety created by terrorist acts. In such definitions, terrorism is presented as a form of violent activity (or threat of violence) that 2 Resolution 1566 (2004): “Condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious threats to peace and security…Recalls that criminal acts, including against civilians committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or taking hostages with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons intimidate a population or compel a government or an offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic religious or other similar nature and calls upon all states to prevent such acts…”. (See: http://daccessdds. un. org/doc/UNDOC/ GEN/N04/542/82/PDF/N0454282. pdf? OpenElement) 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 25 intends to frighten a group of people beyond the actual victims (Horgan, 2005:1).

After reviewing the development of the definition of terrorism and examining a variety of definitions, Bruce Hoffman reaches the following conclusion in his important book, Inside Terrorism: “We may therefore now attempt to define terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change… terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack…” (Hoffman, 2006:40). Definitions that refer to terrorism as an act intended to instill fear and anxiety in the public are generally based on the literal meaning and historical use of the term “terrorism,” its application dating back to the French civil war. 13 Such definitions also rely on what is perceived to be the primary operational tactic of modern terrorism – psychological warfare – which seeks to achieve political goals by instilling fear and anxiety among its target population.

While definitions vary widely, there is a general consensus among most leading scholars as to the essential nature of the terrorist threat; researchers will rarely dispute the importance fear and anxiety play in understanding the phenomenon of modern terrorism. However, it is important to note that resulting fear and anxiety may not be an essential variable in defining a terrorist attack. In order to ensure that acts are objectively classified as terrorist attacks, an accepted definition must, in application, serve as a checklist of components. Based on the definition proposed in the previous section, if an act is not violent, does not deliberately target civilians, or does not attempt to achieve a political goal, then it is not a terrorist attack.

Adding the element of fear and anxiety to the definition – essentially putting it on the checklist of required components – significantly changes the term’s application. If an attack, which would otherwise be considered an act of terrorism, does not aim to frighten, but rather only seeks to achieve concrete, tangible objectives – such as the release of prisoners or the assassination of a leading political figure – would the action not be considered terrorism? Similarly, a nuclear attack aimed at eradicating the majority of the population or contaminating an extensive area – which ultimately seeks to disable the state and prevent it from operating as an independent political entity – would be widely considered a terrorist attack, even though instilling fear and anxiety is not its primary purpose.

Since such circumstances and scenarios can reasonably exist, the “fear and anxiety element” may not be necessary in defining terrorism; rather, it is valuable in explaining the modus operandi of a significant portion of modern terrorist attacks. 13 The term “terrorism” comes from the Latin terrere, “to cause to tremble. ” The term became popularized during the “Reign of Terror” carried out by the revolutionary government in France from 1793 to 1794 (Juergensmeyer, 2003: 5). 26 B. Ganor Indeed, modern terrorism is not necessarily about the numbers. In fact, most modern terrorist attacks, while violent in nature, generally produce limited damage or casualties. 4 Instead, they rely on psychological warfare as a tool in achieving their goals, creating fear and anxiety among the general population. In many cases, a terrorist attack is random, aimed not at someone specific, but rather a group that shares a common trait and symbolizes the organization’s broader target (Americans, Israelis, “infidels,” Westerners, etc. ). By simultaneously transmitting several messages, these attacks intensify the sense of anxiety felt by the target group, which leads civilians to pressure decision makers and their government into changing policies and agreeing to terrorists’ demands. Some of the messages terrorist organizations aim to send through their attacks include: 1.

Uncertainty – The randomness of the attack is supposed to instill a sense of uncertainty in the public regarding “safe behavior,” prompting fear that anyone could be the next victim (Horgan, 2005:3). 2. Vulnerability – A terrorist attack can take place anywhere, anytime, making all citizens feel vulnerable. 3. Helplessness – The state’s security apparatus cannot foil or prevent attacks, or protect civilians. 4. Personalization – You or someone close to you may not have been hurt in a recent attack, but it could very well be you the next time, since the victims have the same pro? le as you (Ganor, 2005:256). 5. Disproportional price – The price the individual must pay due to his government’s policy is very high. For that reason he must act to change national/international priorities in a way that will serve the terrorist’s objectives. 6.

Vengeance – The citizen suffers due to the government’s actions against the terrorist organization and its supporters, and for this reason it is in his best interest to pressure the government to avoid this activity. Such attacks aim to create anxiety among the target group at a level disproportionate to the actual capabilities of the terrorist organization, forcing members of the target population to reprioritize and shift their concerns from that of national security to personal security. The target population perceives a growing threat from terrorism, which may be viewed by the public as largely fueled by the government’s supposedly dangerous policies.

As political tension and criticism against the government in the target country mount, according to the strategy of modern terrorism, the public will pressure decision makers to change their policies in a manner that will suit the interests and goals of the terrorist organizations, or call for a change in administration that will establish policies more favorable to terrorist groups. In order to create this effect of fear, terrorist organizations often choose to escalate their activity in such a manner as to shock the public. According to Crenshaw, a review LaFree and Dugan note that over 53% of terrorist organizations from the Global Terrorism Database included in their study (1974–2004) have never produced a single fatality (LaFree and Dugan, in this volume). 14 2

Trends in Modern International Terrorism 27 of the history of terrorism reveals that terrorists have purposely chosen targets considered taboo or unpredictable in order to attract international media coverage (Crenshaw, 1998:14–15). The media component is central to modern terrorism’s strategy. Without media coverage, a terrorist organization has little opportunity to convey its message, let alone shock or scare its target population. The success of a modern terrorist campaign is arguably dependent on the amount of publicity it receives; the “journalist and television camera are the terrorist’s best friends” (Laqueur, 1987). Terrorism and Traditional Crime

In seeking funding to support ongoing operations or infrastructure, terrorist organizations in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East have increasingly come to rely on “traditional” criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, counterfeiting, petty crime, human trafficking, and extortion (Vidino and Emerson, 2006; Mili, 2006). In fact, over the last three decades, law enforcement agencies have reported increased cooperation between terrorist organizations and criminal actors and activities – including attacks that have been financed through illegal crimes and suspects who have been prosecuted for crimes in which proceeds were directed to international terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda (Noble, 2003).

Growing expenses associated with terrorist activity, such as payments to organization personnel, transportation, accommodation, training, and procurement of weapons, have served as incentive for terrorist organizations to get involved in common crime. These activities only further exacerbate the danger posed by terrorist organizations to the global economy and to the safety and wellbeing of the world’s population. By counterfeiting currency, for example, a terrorist organization can damage a country’s economy while it raises funds. Similarly, by producing and smuggling drugs to certain countries, an organization can cause considerable harm to the local population and simultaneously finance its activities.

In the early 1970s, terrorist organizations, particularly those not supported financially by states, funded their activities through criminal activities such as bank robberies, kidnappings for ransom, and blackmail. Terrorist organizations, such as the Red Brigades in Italy, cooperated with criminal elements, enlisting them into the ranks of their organization. However, in the late 1970s and more so in the early 1980s, terrorist organizations realized that drug trafficking was far more lucrative than other routine criminal activities, leading to a phenomenon known as “narco-terrorism. ”15 Terrorist organizations have been involved in producing and selling narcotics throughout the world – in Latin America (Colombia, Peru, Cuba, Bolivia); in Asia and 5 To illustrate the amount of money involved, a survey conducted by the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention described the production, trafficking, and sales of illicit drugs to be an estimated $400-billion-a-year industry. A 2005 UN report estimated that global drug trade generated an estimated $322 billion in 2003, greater than the gross domestic product of 88% of the countries in the world (Pollard, 2005). 28 B. Ganor the Middle East (Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Afghanistan, India, the Philippines, Pakistan); and even in Western countries such as Italy, Spain, Ireland, and the United States. Drug trafficking by terrorist groups in Columbia is of particular concern to western governments. According to reports from the U. S.

Bureau of Narcotics and Law Enforcement affairs, revenues earned from narcotics cultivation, taxation, and distribution have accounted for at least half the funding used to support terrorist activities by two of the country’s largest terrorist groups – the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (AUC). The State Department estimates that the FARC receives $300 million a year from drug sales to finance its terrorist activities. 16 The tri-border area (TBA), or “triple frontier” as it is known, centered along the borders of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, has been widely recognized as another hotbed for terrorism financing and activity, particularly to groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Without strict border controls, the area serves as a haven for drugs and arms trafficking, counterfeiting, smuggling and other illegal activities.

Tens of millions of dollars are estimated to have been transferred to groups through illegal remittances and other illegal activities, according to investigations by local police forces (Madani, 2002; Tri-border Transfers “funding terror,” 2006). Most terror organizations, however, are not directly involved in actually growing or producing drugs. They are tasked primarily with protecting the drugs and ensuring the safety of growers and producers. They also are active in smuggling narcotics to the marketing centers in countries where the drugs are distributed (Hudson, 2003:24). These organizations usually have a diverse network of contacts, enabling them to cross borders via indirect routes and smuggle weapons, ammunition, and various other products.

Terrorist organizations can use the same routes and network used by their supporters in order to smuggle drugs. In some cases, drugs have been used to recruit foreign activists, in a sense bribing them to execute terrorist attacks. In these cases, the activists, who are not members of the organization, are enlisted in order to carry out attacks on behalf of the terror organizations, sometimes unbeknownst to the activists themselves, in return for a regular supply of drugs. 17 In other cases, terrorist organizations supply their members with drugs in order to increase their dependence on the organization and encourage obedience to its leaders. 8 Some terrorist organizations refer to the distribution of drugs as an alternative form of attack, since drug consumption can harm the national morale and weaken the ability of the population to cope with crises. 16 See Deborah McCarthy’s testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, May 20, 2003, “Narco-Terrorism: International Drug Trafficking and Terrorism – A Dangerous Mix. ” 17 For example, On August 28, 1971, a Dutch citizen, Henrietta Hundemeir, was arrested in Israel with a suitcase containing a timer-activated bomb with a barometric altimeter. The bomb was meant to explode in the El Al aircraft in which she herself was flying to Israel.

Hundemeir was enlisted in Yugoslavia by a member of the “Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,” who became her close friend by supplying her with drugs and using them with her. 18 One example is the “Weatherman” organization, which was responsible for terrorist attacks in the U. S. at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. The group perceived drug use as a part of the revolutionary process. 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 29 Global Jihadi Terrorism Terrorism is a dynamic phenomenon that develops over time, gradually changing its shape and activities. It is carried out by various organizations in the service of different ideologies.

Despite the fact that various local terrorist groups have operated in the international arena in the past decade, there is growing recognition by scholars and the intelligence community that the current international terrorist threat does not come from organizations motivated by nationalist grievances or separatist goals (such as the IRA, ETA, Fatah, LTTE, PKK, and others). Instead, the main threat is that of radical Islamic terrorism primarily aimed at promoting a radical religious world view. 19 Such groups are motivated by what they perceive as a divine command, making them potentially more dangerous than groups motivated by other causes. Hoffman stresses that while religion was an inseparable component of many terrorist organizations in the past, the dominant motivation for their actions was political rather than religious.

This is not the case with Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations today. For them, religion is the most important component defining their activities, ideology, characteristics, and recruitment methods (Hoffman, 2006:82). According to James Thomson, “religions are very effective at guiding in-group morality and out-group hatred. They permit the take-over of groups by disenfranchised young males, they minimize the fear of death by spreading the belief in an afterlife reward for those who are dying in a holy war, etc. ” (Thomson, 2003:82). Radical Islamic terrorism, part of the Global Jihad movement, includes acts perpetrated by many organizations, groups, and cells around the world.

The movement is headed by Al-Qaeda, which, despite the many setbacks it has endured since September 11, 2001, is still capable of carrying out “direct attacks” through activists reporting directly to its authority or “indirect attacks” through proxy organizations – radical Islamic terrorist organizations and networks that share a similar fundamentalist Islamic ideology, aspirations, and interests. Some of these organizations, such as Egyptian, Bangladeshi, and Afghan Jihadi groups, were established by Osama bin Laden under the umbrella of his “International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders” (February 1998). Some of these organizations have made pacts or commitments to bin Laden over the years, such as the Egyptian Al-Jama’a Al-Islamiya and the GSPC (currently referred to as Al-Qaeda of the Maghreb). However, the most significant trend of the past several years has been the phenomenon of “homegrown terrorism. Lone activists and local radical groups of Muslims, who either immigrated to Western countries There are also terrorist organizations that combine religious grievances with national-political motivations, such as Hamas. On the one hand, Hamas derives its ideology from the same narrative and background as Al-Qaeda, based on the early religious global ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time though, Hamas seeks to achieve the nationalistic goal of destroying Israel and creating a Palestinian state in its place. 19 30 B. Ganor (first, second, or third generation) or converted to Islam in their country of origin, become inspired by the Global Jihad movement, leading them to carry out terrorist attacks.

Al-Qaeda, its allies in the Global Jihad movement, other radical Islamic terrorist organizations, and the radical Islamic networks and cells of the West, all believe in one divine mission, which calls upon them to spread their radical beliefs throughout the world (Sageman, 2004:1). In seeking to achieve this mission, they believe it is permissible and necessary to make use of violence and terrorism, and that they are fighting a “defensive war” that allows them to use drastic measures. One perspective shared by several researchers is that this defensive war is not actually pitted against American or Western imperialism, as Global Jihad organizations commonly claim. Rather, the “fight against the West” is used to help mobilize and recruit activists, arguably acting as “lip service” by Al-Qaeda.

It also serves to at least express their concern over every aspect of modernization, including democratic forms of government, liberal values, and even modern technology that threaten the way of life they strive for – a radical Islamic caliphate governed by Sharia law. It is also important to note that the threat of Global Jihad is not, as many tend to think, a war between Islam and other religions. Rather, it can be understood as a war of cultures – the culture of radical Islam against the outside world; or the culture of radical Islam against the culture of the “infidels,” as Islamists call all those who do not share their world view. Many in the radical Jihadi movement recognize that they will not be able to succeed in their worldwide campaign in the near future. Therefore they aim, as a first stage, to create localized radical Islamic revolutions, primarily in Arab and Islamic countries.

In fact, the majority of Global Jihad attacks over the past several years occurred in countries of the Arab or Islamic world,

Free Essays


Global Terrorism Terrorism is a big issue all around the world. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. Also are violent acts which are intended to create fear, are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal and deliberately target or disregard the safety of civilians. Terrorists use murder, kidnapping, hijacking, and bombing to pursue a political agenda. Terrorists are not just subject in the United States, it happens all over the world. Primary reason for terrorist’s actions is to force a change in their nations’ government.

If terrorists are not pleased with their government political positions they may consider taking the issue into their own hands. In which can cause harm to many people. Also terrorists may cause harm because the difference in race, nationality, or religion. Major terrorist groups are the Palestinian Liberation Army, Hezbollah, and Al- Qaeda. Al- Qaeda is best known from being under leadership of Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden was behind the hijacking of the planes that flew into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and also the attack on the USS Cole.

Many innocent lives were taken on that horrifying day, people lost their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends. It was an emotional time for everyone and till this day it still causes pain to people’s lives that were affected by it. The terrorist’s main objective is to free all Muslim holy places like Medina, Mecca, and Jerusalem from Western influence. Al Qaeda members are considered true believers and strive for Martyrdom, and that they are ready to die. They are trained to be ready to attack and to know that they are going to die.

It is basically committing suicide but killing many other people while doing it. Terrorism is not cheap, government funding oil and other goods are a big part in the Middle East. One of the major ways terrorists make money is the development and exporting of illicit drugs like cocaine and heroin. The Taliban which operates out of Afghanistan was responsible for eighty percent of the world’s production of heroin. The Taliban, the Italian Mafia, and Russian Mafia are constantly in the drug arkets that helps finance terrorists. The good thing is that there has not been a major foreign terrorists attack in the United States since September 11. Although terrorism has become a fact of life we should not stop fighting for our country. We have to try to stop them from forming more attacks and killing thousands of innocent people. Stop them from causing more pain and heartache to our country and to the people who suffer from it. Terrorism is all around the world and it will not stop unless we fight back.

Free Essays

Article Review: the Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism

1. The article “The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism” by Shmuel Bar takes an in-depth look into the potential justifications of terrorism in regards to religion. In this article, Bar attempts to identify the differences between the religion of Islam and the duties associated with being a Muslim including participating in jihad. The author explains the various differences between the ideas of both the traditional Muslim as well as the moderate Muslim. He goes on to identify jihadist-type acts that could potentially be changed if the right movement and implementation of rules were set.

The key points and concepts in this article are: • the explanation of the Islamic religion; • the jihadist movement; • the traditional versus the moderate Muslim; • the potential strategy to deal with radical ideology. 2. The Islam religion is not one that has blatant disregard for the value of human life. It is regarded as a peaceful religion and should not be misconstrued as being a religion that promotes terrorism. Unfortunately, there have been numerous acts of violence and terrorism in the name of Islam and a surface-educated individual will blame the entire religion.

Many individuals’ lack of knowledge lead them down a path of generalization and intolerance for the religion itself. The author of this article does a good job explaining that it is not the religion that commits these acts of terror; it is the individual’s interpretation of the writings that radicalize its teachings. 3. The jihadist movement is where much of the violent aspect of the religion can be derived from. The belief is that it is their personal duty within their religion to fight for their faith.

This may be non-violent such as an internal struggle with one’s spiritual life. A more physical aspect is displayed in other forms such as the obligation to spread the religion or a more violent approach, fighting to defend a once Muslim country from invasion of infidels. The act of jihad in a violent manner typically is displayed by the radical Islamists whom are more focused on the traditional and literal meanings of the scripture; hence there exists a conflict between them and the moderates. 4.

The ideas of the traditionalist versus the moderate Muslim are conflicting in how they interpret various teachings of their scripture. Participation in jihad may be considered an obligation due to the occupying of so many countries by non-Muslims; however, the idea that it must be fought with acts of terror remains debated. The traditionalists will take a more literal interpretation resulting in acts of violence and terror; even though this initiative tends to have more political motives rather than religious.

The moderate Muslim struggles with the possibility that their less orthodox beliefs will appear as though they are abandoning their religion. Due to the fact that the traditionalist is more likely to resort to violence, there is also a fear of retaliation against the moderate Muslim. Unfortunately, with that mentality, the radical Islamists prevail. 5. A long-term strategy has to include ideas and not necessarily weapons and a bunch of rules. The author explains that the solution is a lot deeper than the acts they are committing on the surface.

Creating a strategy to potentially combat a radical, religious ideology seems as though it would be impossible. A long-range strategy that outlines the teachings of their religion and focuses on how terrorism is actually against their scripture could succeed. The author acknowledges the idea that Western civilization must take a look within and realize that there are more ways than just their way. This realization, and possibly tolerance, could allow for an interpretation that both societies could deal with. 6. The author of this article, Dr.

Shmuel Bar, has notable credibility in this subject matter. According to his biography on The Intelligence Summit website, Dr. Bar is the Director of Studies at the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzliya, Israel. He has also held various intelligence positions within the Israeli government and headed various research projects including some for the United States government, according to the Hudson Institute. His academic, professional, and personal expertise lends him to be a reliable source of information.

The only question that may be proposed is, what is his religious affiliation? With the extent of his background and knowledge, this may seem like a moot point; however, religion relies on very little logic. Faith is based on how one feels, not just what one has researched or has seen. It is a powerful driving force that is almost impossible to describe. The idea that persuasion could be achieved without truly knowing this driving force is naivety in itself.

Free Essays


The heart of the word Terrorism is Terror. In our society when many hear terrorism, fear takes a grip on our emotions. Since the days of overseas bombings, racial unrest and many other ugly acts upon the United States, this fear has been justified. Studying Domestic Terrorism has been one of my goals since September 11, 2001. Taking this course will give me a deeper understanding of the mindset of terrorists to enhance training for dangerous deployments. As a United States solider, I have come to appreciate the many freedoms that we celebrate in this country.

I entered the military just shy of my eightieth birthday. The desire to serve and protect stemmed from having five younger brothers, who seemingly needed one thing or another. Their needs ranged from fights on the playground to comforting colds and bruises. When the bombing occurred in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, my family and I were in Maryland preparing to leave for Germany. The world stopped on its axial. Neither plane movement nor some of the freedoms that we had taken for granted could be exercised.

We were relegated to the military installation. The fear that I saw in my children’s eyes was unimaginable. It was during those days of stillness that I vowed to learn more of how and why this sadistic act occurred. I do not know the complete mindset of a terrorist, and the reasoning on why some feel the need to take such destructive actions against others. I hope to learn more about them-terrorists, to enhance my military training especially during deployment.

Free Essays

International Terrorism – the World’s Greatest Challenge Today

Today the threat of terrorism is becoming more and more serious. Terrorism is considered the greatest threat against the safety of the world, and especially the USA, today. The extent of the terrorism has increased significantly over the last couple of years, since the terrorist attacks against the US on the 11th of September 2001. After these attacks former president of the US, George Bush declared a war against terrorism. There are various opinions about what can be defined as terrorism. Because there are so many situations that can be defined as terrorism, it is be very difficult to find an exact definition.

Many countries have different definitions, and the definitions have also changed over the years. Not even the UN has managed to agree about one common definition. In short we can say that terrorism is some sort of attack at civilians to achieve a political goal. Terrorism has existed for many centuries, but in the last couple of years the attacks have become more extensive and the devastations has become greater. In the future scientists expect that the terrorists will carry out actions with weapons of mass destruction such as chemical, radiological and biological weapons.

The war on terrorism is a global campaign led by the USA. The goal is to fight international groups that are considered to be terroristic. They especially focus on radical Islamic terror groups, such as the Al-Qaida. Today the war on terrorism goes on in countries such as Afghanistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, and Israel. Many human rights organizations have criticized the war on terrorism because they think it in many cases can lead to violations of the human rights. Around the globe there are various terrorist organizations, all with different goals and reasons for their terrorist-activities.

The most known group today might be the Al – Qaida which origins form Afghanistan, but has become an international organization. The Al-Qaida became known after the terrorist actions on the 11th of September 2001 when 4 airplanes were hijacked. Two of them were flown into the two main buildings of the World Trade centre in New York. One airplane was crashed into the Pentagon, and the last airplane crash-landed in a field in Pennsylvania. After these attacks the USA decided to attack Afghanistan. The leader of Al-Qaida is Osama Bin Laden who has been hiding from the US troops ever since the war started.

The reasons for Al-Qaida’s actions are based on the Islamic “Sharia” – laws. They want to fight the states they consider a threat against Islam, and especially the USA and Israel. The Al-Qaida leaders encourage all Muslims to kill American citizens, both military and civilians. We can separate the terrorist actions into two main groups; local and international terrorism. Local terrorism consists of actions such as suicide missions, car bombings and so on. International terrorism is actions where the citizens and/or territory of several countries are affected.

There are many situations that can lead to the use of terrorism. Terrorism can occur in both poor as well as wealthy countries, and in both democracies and states under different kinds of dictatorship. However, terrorism is most likely to occur in countries that are characterized by poverty and oppression. People in poor countries might feel like they are subjected to an unfair distribution of the world’s wealth. Poverty is claimed to be an underlying part of all the causes of terrorism. Terrorism is a global issue that has to be fought globally.

Organizations like the UN, NATO and the EU have the war against international terrorism as their highest priority. The UN is currently working on a convention that can be an important part of handling terrorism. They have also established a strategy on how we can fight the terrorism. But we still have a long way to go, and the world might never be completely terror-free. However, if we work on preventing planned terrorist-actions and focus on improving the circumstances that lead to terrorism, the amount of terrorism could be decreased significantly.

Free Essays

Terrorism: An Illegal Undertaking


How do terrorists able to fight governments while having no own operation bases and escape taxable economic entities? Terrorism are applied time and again as affairs of state tags of the morally wrong, haphazard, or intolerable practice of aggression or hazard of ferocity by particular perpetrators as for their specific purposes. Social change is their ultimate goal and this collective revolution is aspired so appallingly that terrorists may execute vastly unswerving crimes, especially for spiritual principles, that they may prefer their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians to attain their objective. Those regarded as terrorists hardly ever distinguish themselves as such, and normally make use of other general names or terms particular to their situation (Hans, 2002).

The focal predicament with terrorism is that terrorists do not admit that they are terrorists and asserts that the governments are the terrorists. Despite the fact that an autonomous state adopting social freedom may maintain an implication of privileged ethical position than other administration systems, a performance of terror campaign within such a nation may bring about an apparent problem on whether to uphold its civic liberation and as a consequence run the risk of being recognized as pointless in dealing with the dilemma, or otherwise constrain its communal emancipation and hence risk unjustifiable allegation of sustaining a democratic organization.

With this information at hand, it is indeed difficult to fight terrorism since they are usually not well organized or located. They don’t have their own operations bases since they are hiding and do not want to be caught or captured. Terrorism can be carried out by covert individuals, assemblages, or federations, funded by certain organizations, with mysterious orderly strategies and assaults in public places. Interaction may come about via prevailing telecommunications or all the way through conventional means such as couriers. Additionally, since revolutionaries who are involved in intimidation are not well organized and are considered to be illegal, they are not taxable and will hardly be taxable.

Speaking of illegitimacy, several authorized government characterizations of terrorism put in a condition of unlawfulness to differentiate between proceedings that are certified by bylaws and those of other persons and minor units. Using this decisive factor, events that would otherwise be eligible of terrorism would not be taken into account as terrorism if they were approved by the board. For instance, a terrorist attack in a municipality, which is intended to distress national reinforcement for a basis, would not be regarded as terrorism if it were allowed by a reasonable authority (Cronin, 2003).

Shared ideologies among permissible meanings of terrorism offer a rising consensus as to denotation and also promote collaboration between regulation enforcement staff in discrete nation states. Among these delineations, there are quite a few that do not make out the likelihood of  acceptable custom of fierceness  by civilians against an assailant in a dominated nation and would categorize all opposition engagements as terrorist parties. Others create a peculiarity between legally recognized and prohibited exploitation of ferocity. Sanctioned classifications ascertain counter-terrorism documents and are usually made available to act it. Most authority descriptions give a rough idea about the subsequent vital standards such as target, purpose, intention, executor, and authenticity of the feat.

Groups carrying out viciousness are also frequently identifiable by a following set of executors. Oftentimes the word terrorism and radicalism are employed as exchangeable. Nevertheless, there is a noteworthy dissimilarity between the two as terrorism is basically a threat or a deed of substantial fierceness, whereas radicalism entails the use of non-physical mechanisms to activate people’s attention to realize some ideological occurrences (Kalyvas, 2004). They should have their own definite distinction as to which must be taxable.


Hans, Köchler (2002). Terrorism and the Quest for a Just World Order. Manila Lectures. FSJ

Book World, ISBN 0-9710791-2-9.

Cronin, Audrey Kurth (2003) Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism. International Security, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 40-41.

Kalyvas, Stathis (2004) The Paradox of Terrorism in Civil Wars in Journal of Ethics 8:1, p. 137-138.

Free Essays

Anti Terrorism

Philosophical arguments Retribution Supporters of the death penalty argued that death penalty is morally justified when applied in murder especially with aggravating elements such as multiple homicide, child murder, torture murder and mass killing such as [terrorism], massacre, or genocide. Some even argue that not applying death penalty in latter cases is patently unjust. This argument is strongly defended by New York law professor Robert Blecker [4], who says that the punishment must be painful in proportion to the crime.

It would be unfair that those who have committed these horrible crimes stay alive, even incarcerated. Abolitionists argue that retribution is simply revenge and cannot be condoned. Others while accepting retribution as an element of criminal justice nonetheless argue that life without parole is a sufficient substitute. Human rights Abolitionists believe capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the right to life is the most important, and judicial execution violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture.

Albert Camus wrote in a 1956 book called “Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death”: An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. [… ] For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life. 5] This view contradicts classic natural rights doctrine, which stresses that the right to life can be forfeited by grave misbehavior. [3] Practical arguments Wrongful execution Main article: Wrongful execution Capital punishment is often opposed on the grounds that innocent people will inevitably be executed. Supporters of capital punishment object that these lives have to be weighed against the far more numerous innocent people whose lives can be saved if the murderers are deterred by the prospect of being executed. [6] Between 1973 and 2005, 123 people in 25 states were released from death row when new evidence of their innocence emerged. 7] However, statistics likely understate the actual problem of wrongful convictions because once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case open, and it becomes unlikely at that point that the miscarriage of justice will ever be exposed. Another issue is the quality of the defense in a case where the accused has a public defender. The competence of the defense attorney “is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime”. 8] Also, improper procedure may result in unfair executions. For example, Amnesty International argues that, in Singapore, “the Misuse of Drugs Act contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty”. [9] This refers to a situation when someone is being caught with drugs. In this situation, in almost any jurisdiction, the prosecution has a prima facie case. Racial and gender factors in the United States

African Americans, though they currently make up only 12 percent of the general population, have made up 41 percent of death row inmates and 34 percent of those actually executed since 1976. [10] According to Craig Rice, a black member of the Maryland state legislature: “The question is, are more people of color on death row because the system puts them there or are they committing more crimes because of unequal access to education and opportunity? The way I was raised, it was always to be held accountable for your actions. “[11] As of 2010, women account for only 1. % (55 people) of inmates on death row, with men accounting for the other 98. 3% (3206). Since 1976, only 1. 0% (12) of those executed were women. [12] Deterrence The existence of a deterrence effect is disputed. Studies-especially older ones-differ as to whether executions deter other potential criminals from committing murder or other crimes. One reason that there is no general consensus on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent is that it is used so rarely – only about one out of every 300 murders actually results in an execution. In 2005 in the Stanford Law Review, John J.

Donohue III, a law professor at Yale with a doctorate in economics, and Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote that the death penalty “… is applied so rarely that the number of homicides it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot reliably be disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors… The existing evidence for deterrence… is surprisingly fragile. ” Wolfers stated, “If I was allowed 1,000 executions and 1,000 exonerations, and I was allowed to do it in a random, focused way, I could probably give you an answer. [13] Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University, authored a study that looked at all 3,054 U. S. counties over two decades, and concluded that each execution saved five lives. Mocan stated, “I personally am opposed to the death penalty… But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect. “[13] Joanna M. Shepherd, a law professor at Emory with a doctorate in economics who was involved in several studies on the death penalty, stated, “I am definitely against the death penalty on lots of different grounds…

But I do believe that people respond to incentives. ” Shepherd found that the death penalty had a deterrent effect only in those states that executed at least nine people between 1977 and 1996. In the Michigan Law Review in 2005, Shepherd wrote, “Deterrence cannot be achieved with a half-hearted execution program. “[13] The question of whether or not the death penalty deters murder usually revolves around the statistical analysis. Studies have produced disputed results with disputed significance. 14] Some studies have shown a positive correlation between the death penalty and murder rates[15] – in other words, they show that where the death penalty applies, murder rates are also high. This correlation can be interpreted in either that the death penalty increases murder rates by brutalizing society, or that higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. However, supporters and opponents of the various statistical studies, on both sides of the issue, argue that correlation does not imply causation.

The case for a large deterrent effect of capital punishment has been significantly strengthened since the 1990s, as a wave of sophisticated econometric studies have exploited a newly-available form of data, so-called panel data. [6] Most of the recent studies demonstrate statistically a deterrent effect of the death penalty. [16] However, critics claim severe methodological flaws in these studies and hold that the empirical data offer no basis for sound statistical conclusions about the deterrent effect. 17] Surveys and polls conducted in the last 15 years show that some police chiefs and others involved in law enforcement may not believe that the death penalty has any deterrent effect on individuals who commit violent crimes. In a 1995 poll of randomly selected police chiefs from across the U. S. , the officers rank the death penalty last as a way of deterring or preventing violent crimes. They ranked it behind many other forms of crime control including reducing drug abuse and use, lowering technical barriers when prosecuting, putting more officers on the streets,and making prison sentences longer.

They responded that a better economy with more jobs would lessen crime rates more than the death penalty[18] In fact, only one percent of the police chiefs surveyed thought that the death penalty was the primary focus for reducing crime. [19] However, the police chiefs surveyed were more likely to favor capital punishment than the general population. In addition to statistical evidence, psychological studies examine whether murderers think about the consequences of their actions before they commit a crime.

Most homicides are spur-of-the-moment, spontaneous, emotionally impulsive acts. Murderers do not weigh their options very carefully in this type of setting (Jackson 27). It is very doubtful that killers give much thought to punishment before they kill (Ross 41). But some say the death penalty must be enforced even if the deterrent effect is unclear, like John McAdams, who teaches political science at Marquette University : “If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers.

If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call. “[20] This may be construed as contradicting the traditional legal view of Blackstone and the 12th Century legal scholar Maimonides whose oft-cited maxim is: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death. Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely “according to the judge’s caprice. ” Caprice of various sorts are more visible now with DNA testing, and digital computer searches and discovery requirements opening DA’s files. Maimonides’ concern was maintaining popular respect for law, and he saw errors of commission as much more threatening than errors of omission. [21] Cass R.

Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of Harvard law school, however, have argued that if there is a deterrent effect it will save innocent lives, which gives a life-life tradeoff. “The familiar problems with capital punishment—potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew—do not argue in favor of abolition, because the world of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. ” They conclude that “a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. “[6] Use of the death penalty on plea bargain

Supporters of the death penalty, especially those who do not believe in the deterrent effect of the death penalty, say the threat of the death penalty could be used to urge capital defendants to plead guilty, testify against accomplices, or disclose the location of the victim’s body. Norman Frink, a senior deputy district attorney in the state of Oregon, considers capital punishment a valuable tool for prosecutors. The threat of death leads defendants to enter plea deals for life without parole or life with a minimum of 30 years—-the two other penalties, besides death, that Oregon allows for aggravated murder. 22] In a plea agreement reached with Washington state prosecutors, Gary Ridgway, a Seattle-area man who admitted to 48 murders since 1982 accepted a sentence of life in prison without parole. Prosecutors spared Ridgway from execution in exchange for his cooperation in leading police to the remains of still-missing victims. [23][24][25] Cost Recent studies show that executing a criminal costs more than life imprisonment does. Many states have found it cheaper to sentence criminals to life in prison than to go through the time-consuming and bureaucratic process of executing a convicted criminal.

Donald McCartin, an Orange County, California Jurist famous for sending nine men to death row during his career, has said, “It’s 10 times more expensive to kill [criminals] than to keep them alive. ” [26] This exclamation is actually low according to a June 2011 study by former death penalty prosecutor and federal judge Arthur L. Alarcon, and law professor Paula Mitchell. According to Alarcon and Mitchell, California has spent $4 billion on the death penalty since 1978, and death penalty trials are 20 times more expensive than trials seeking a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. 27] Death penalty proponents disagree, saying the study claiming the costs of the death penalty outweigh implementing life without parole is prepared by an anti-death penalty. [28] When califonians voters voted in 2012 about proposition 34, which aimed to abolish the death penalty, the cost was the main argument of proponents of the proposition in theirs TV ads, and was also written on the ballot. The argument may have convinced some death penalty supporters, but the proposition was rejeted with 53% of the vote against it

Free Essays

Terrorism in the Old Testament

Stacy Norton 03 October, 2012 Old Testament Ballard Terrorism and the Old Testament Many terrorist organizations use their religious texts as justification for their acts of terrorism. People even go as far to say that God, as depicted in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, encourages those acts as a way to defend their actions. While it is true that the Old Testament has evidence of God sending out his people to defend his word and his chosen people, it should not be taken as black and white as others would argue. It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context.

When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. My God is a teacher of love and forgiveness and only uses violence as a last resort. This is more evident in the story of Moses and the release of the Israelite’s from the Egyptians. The Israelite s were being held captive and tortured by the Egyptian Pharaoh and his people. They were forced to spend their days as slaves and lived in deplorable conditions and were beaten routinely by the Egyptians. Moses upset that his people were being treated this way sought guidance from God.

God agreed to help Moses free his people. God first sent Moses to the Pharaoh to ask kindly for his people’s release. The Pharaoh refused. Moses even tried to convince the Pharaoh with the threat of curses being placed on his people. The Pharaoh refused again. Then, after the curses were released, the Pharaoh still held strong and would not release the Israelite s He was willing to have his own people suffer just because he did not want to give up his power over the Israelite s He only relented when the final curse was released and the first born of the Egyptians, including the Pharaoh’s, were killed.

The Egyptian Pharaoh was given multiple opportunities to prevent his own people’s suffering but decided instead that his power was more important. Another part of the bible people like to criticize is the book of Judges. Especially the story of Samson. Samson was a Nazarene leader with incredible strength. The Philistines wanted to capture him but could not find a way. Samson then fell in love with a woman named Delilah, who then tricked him into telling her the secret of his strength. He told her that if his hair was cut he would lose his power.

When Samson fell asleep that night she cut his hair and let the Philistines in to capture him. They shackled him and gouged out his eyes and were planning on offering him up as a sacrifice to their deity. Samson cried out to God for help. He took out his revenge on the Philistines by basically, for lack of a better term, suicidal terrorism. He killed more people that day than in his whole life combined. In conclusion, the bible is not exempt from what some could deem as unflattering to the Christian faith. God does not try to deny that humanity is riddled with faults.

But we must instead of looking at specific stories to justify harming others think about the overall message. He only asks that we try to lead faithful lives. Treat each other kindly . Above all, we must keep his name holy. No where in the bible can we find where he tells us to set out and harm others just because we do not like their culture or religious viewpoints. He teaches tolerance. A most noteworthy verse that I like to remind myself often “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. (Matthew 7:1-2)

Free Essays

Terrorism in Pakistan

Terrorism in Pakistan: Almost a decade has gone by since our involvement in the US-led war on terror and today we are more vulnerable to acts of terrorism and violence than we ever were. In recent years the trend of growing terrorism has shifted from previously hard hit areas such as KPK and FATA to urban centers where it was previously least expected. Now major cities and sensitive locations are under greatest threat. Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define.

Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Pakistan has suffered greatly at the hand of these terrorists. These unfaithful elements have shown no mercy to the people of Pakistan and don’t intend to. It is the root cause of every mishappening. Pakistan is the only country that has sacrificed more than any other country in the war against terror. These factors include social injustice, economic gap, political instability, religious intolerance and global conspiracies.

Terrorist acts like suicide bombings have become a custom of the day. Terrorists have not spared a place. Markets, mosques, educational institutions, offices, all have been targeted. Root Causes of Terrorism in Pakistan: There can be two major root causes of terrorism in Pakistan; •Due to the ongoing war against terror, some people say that this terrorism menace in Pakistan is the just reaction of people living in tribal areas who have been the most affected ones. Now the question is, why do they show such reaction?

It is because of the deadly US. The United States of America works like a boss here. Ongoing drone attacks have made it worse to counter produce the terrorism. The concerned authorities have shown complete negligence in this regard and they seem to be in cahoots with the Allied Forces. •Poverty is one of the root causes of terrorism as it is said that “a hungry man is an angry man”. A large number of people in Pakistan are living under poverty stroke. Unemployment has made the matters awful.

In these unpleasant conditions, some people go to intense levels and join terrorist groups. •Social Injustice is a leading factor that raises terrorism. When the rights of the people are not given, they route to violent measures. And this is happening in Pakistan. Youngsters are joining political parties so that they would save them from critical situations. •We as Muslims are also not contributing to our best to curb this violence. Religious intolerance is another factor which is adding fuel to the fire in terrorism.

Free Essays

Public Fear of Terrorism


Terrorism has become a global challenge, which must be fought by collaborative efforts.  Indeed the war against terrorism takes many forms and shapes.  For instance while traditionally the homeland security has been concerned with fighting terrorism from a military point of view; there is a need for it to be empowered to better deal with terrorism from different dimensions. A new challenge is emerging; that is, the way the media is handling the terrorism and especially how it reports and covers terrorism incidences.

Media plays a very important role in shaping public opinion in many issues including terrorism.  Media coverage of terrorist activities shapes how terrorism events are constructed in the minds of the public.  Of late there are clear indications of general fear in the public to the extent that, whatever the media reports, is seen as a representation of the real situation on the ground.  There is alot of freedom in the media. With so many freelance journalists who are eager to make an extra dime at the expense of the general public.

Indeed, there is little control over the journalists especially the freelance journalists.  The criminal justice has little control over the sifting of information to the general public.  The seemingly free-flow for news in the media means that, whoever comes out with the ‘best’ news is likely to receive the most attention.  The craving for news has seen the freelance journalists keen on making quick money violate journalism code of conduct and therefore failing to put into consideration professionalism but become only concerned about getting the most enticing news.

Unlike in the past when the media would take the time to censor the news they released to the public, nowadays some television channels air some uncensored images.  This has greatly impacted negatively on the media authenticity.  Some media houses are less concerned about the moral implications of such images to the general public. Irresponsible coverage of terrorism activities affects the public by inflicting fear amongst the public especially the uncensored images and broadcasts zoomed by television channels and the internet.  The consistency with which such images are aired has also come to have a bearing on the increased fear levels amongst the general public.

Indeed most media houses flout media rules and are only concerned with getting the mission accomplished.  The criminal justice has largely become incapable of reigning on the media.  This can be explained by lack of effective laws to deal with emerging challenges.  One area where law enforcers are facing challenges when it comes to reigning on offenders who violate the media laws is the fact that, some of the sources of the media images and reports which turn out to have negative effect on the general public originate outside the US and those local media houses which air them bear no responsibility as they act as third parties and are in no way responsible for the contents of the reports (White, Jonathan, 2006).

With globalization the world has become a small village whereby information is exchanged within a very short time. As a result, most of the information which reaches the American public, does not necessarily originate within America media.  The truth of the matter is that, Americans have a choice to tune into any media channel they feel free to. This is not in any way regulated by the state and as such, what the public consumes in terms of information cannot be filtered by state law enforcement agents (Nicholas, William, 2005).

Taking the example of international media houses, which broadcast, to the whole world, they are in the first place not bound by the American laws nor can the American public be denied access to such.  As a result, whatever information they broadcast concerning terrorism ends up being consumed by the American public.  This is very hard to regulate.  The advancement of the Internet has brought with it very complex challenges especially in terms of authenticity.

It is very hard to know which source to trust.  With the craving for news, the public tends to search for any site, whether incredible or not which purports to inform the public.  There are many bogus websites which go to the lengths of capturing live some terrible terrorism activities such as beheading of those captured by terrorists.  As a result, this has really formed a great avenue for fear amongst the general American public.  In addition, there are not many programs or efforts designed to pre-empty the propaganda which some websites linked to terrorists desire to perpetrate in the American public.

The other major problem is the fact that, the laws governing the internet use are at best lax and are not effective to deal with those who decide to use the internet as a media of perpetrating fear amongst the general American public.  Efforts of the government to curb the use of Internet as a propaganda tool led to the introduction of amendments to the privacy acts.  As a result, the government has come under fierce criticism for infringing on the rights of people to access information.  This shows how challenging the fight against the phenomenon has become.

In addition the media has strong unions here in the US which means that, it is not easy for the criminal justice to intervene even in cases where it is evident that, the media is causing a great measure of suffering to the public through the broadcasting of information which is uncensored.  The homeland security has a duty to intervene in the dilemma but only to the extent whereby the source of such negligence lies within its jurisdiction.  Globalization and a culture of consumerism in the American society makes it impossible for the homeland security to impose any meaningful checks and balances to protect Americans from suffering from the fear that has gripped the general American public (Nakaya, Andea, 2005). Indeed, the public cannot be practically protected from the effects of bad media practices today.  It is up to the public to learn to choose what they can listen to or watch.

Recommendation for solving the above problem include; the enactment of tough laws which would see only the most professional media houses get the licence to broadcast in the US.  In addition the homeland security should engage in awareness campaigns meant to make the public to understand that, not every media source has credible and correct coverage on terrorism and that some media sources are actually being used by terrorists for propaganda purposes and believing in them is giving credibility to the terrorists.  In conclusion, there is a need for the criminal justice to work with the information department to reign on the media houses which if unchecked are likely to continue inflicting fear on the public and therefore affect public support on the war against terrorism.


Nakaya, Andea, C. Ed (2005).  Homeland Security.  Detroit:  Greenhaven Press pp. 191.

Nicholas, William C. ed. (2005). Homeland Security Law and policy.  Springfield.  Pp. 377.

White, Jonathan. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security.  Wadsworth (5th ed.).  California:  Thomson.

Free Essays

Domestic Terrorism

Domestic Terrorism in the United States Thomas A. Salisbury HSM 305 Survey of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Professor Erick Stone January 22, 2012 Domestic Terrorism in the United States Domestic terrorism is a real threat to this country. This type of attack is nothing new to this country but until the threat of international terrorism became prominent, there was not a large focus on domestic terrorism. With a look at history, domestic terrorists are a greater threat to security than international terrorists. Some of these threats are easily preventable and others are more difficult to see coming.

The Department of Homeland Security needs to focus on domestic terrorist threats with the same effort as they do for international threats. The official definition of terrorism according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation is “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals”. (Smith, 1994 p6). This definition guides how the FBI takes defines possible terrorist organizations and takes action against them.

Terrorists may be left or right wing, from any religious background or any race. This is what makes identifying these groups of people very difficult. While law enforcement would like to say that a typical terrorist is a young, affluent, white male, for example, it is impossible to make that distinction. There is no profile that would fit terrorists in their entirety. It is possible for a terrorist from a certain group to fit a certain profile. A white supremacist group would have a certain type of person as a member. A black militant group would have a totally different type of person.

With this being the case, it is important to identify the group of people rather than the individual. Some groups focus on a single issue such as anti-nuclear power or anti-fur trade while others call for greater changes in politics or ideology. A single, lone terrorist or small cell is the most difficult to detect and stop. In the history of this country, there have been numerous cases of domestic terrorism. Most people were unfamiliar with domestic terrorism until the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. This is because most cases of domestic terrorism do not involve such a large loss of life.

In many cases, the loss was financial and casualties were low, if any at all. Animal-rights groups have targeted fur dealers by setting fires in vehicles and buildings to destroy these businesses. The Ku Klux Klan may have killed people but the tended to do so one at a time. This does not create as much of a media buzz as a bombing that kills dozens. By doing this, some of these groups may stay out of the spotlight but in reality, they are more deadly than a single bomber. When unions were forming early in the twentieth century, there were incidences of terrorism on both sides.

Strikers were attacked and factories were sabotaged. Some of these incidents resulted in the loss of life and almost all involved financial losses. Sometimes, these conflicts are taking place today. Political change is the aim of some of these groups. Communist organizations wanted to make the United States a Marxist country. Organizations also united under a common cause such as in 1981 when the Weather Underground (WU), the Black Liberation Army (BLA) and the Black Panther party united to form the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO). (Smith, 1994).

This group robbed armored cars to fund operations that resulted in the deaths of security officers. A crime that is in the headlines may actually be a terrorist attack used to gain money. Law enforcement must investigate fully to find out why the crime took place. A look back in history may show that terrorists were active even during the Revolution. The Boston Tea Party was staged by colonists who were protesting taxes imposed by the English. (Les Benedict, 2006). This incident, along with others, like the burning of a revenue ship in Rhode Island, was done to effect a change in English policy towards the colonies.

The English would have viewed these acts as terrorism by today’s standards. Terrorism has also taken place during the Atlanta Olympics and at an abortion clinic when Eric Rudolph planted bombs that killed and injured people. Only an alert security guard at the Olympics prevented a tragedy. A current threat of terrorism is through the use of gangs by international organizations. Al-Qaeda has been closely working with the gang Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13. MS-13 has many ways of passing security at the Mexican border and wants to make money.

Al-Qaeda can use them to provide resources and people to use. (Starita, 2009). MS-13 also wishes to have an international presence and a cooperation would give them prestige. Gangs in general present a threat to homeland security and this gang is one of the largest. According to some sources, there are as many as 96,000 members and many sympathizers. (Starita, 2009). This presents a large threat with the potential of many operatives and resources in place already. As with other terrorist groups, these gangs can come together if there is a common cause that suits all of them.

Responsibility for preventing terrorist incidents starts with the average citizen. Law enforcement agencies have many types of incidents to respond to and anti-terrorism is only one of them. If a person notices something suspicious such as a person buying many weapons and ammunition, looking for information on bomb-making and materials or becoming radical in their ideology, it would be extremely helpful to notify an agency for an investigation. Many times the first signs of an impending attack would be noticed by a civilian. This could be a friend, family member, coworker or a store clerk.

A bystander may also notice an unattended package or suspicious person in an area. This may be just enough to ward off the attack if the police are notified promptly. A major difficulty facing law enforcement in the prevention of these incidents is working within the justice system of the United States. The police have to follow procedures and rule laid out in the Bill of Rights and subsequent laws. These laws restrict the rights of law enforcement and protect the rights of the citizens. The First Amendment gives the freedom of religion and speech and of the press.

A person can go to a mosque or church that may be radical in their teachings. They may voice their radical opinions as long as it is not an outright threat. Even printed materials about their views are legal. According to the Second Amendment, a person can buy arms and ammunition legally. In order for police to obtain a search warrant, probable cause must be present. (Les Benedict, 2006). Just because a person goes to a radical mosque, a search for bomb-making materials cannot be obtained without probable cause that the materials are there. A person cannot be persecuted based on loose suspicions.

Therefore, a tip has to be followed up by an investigation to see if the person is doing something illegally. Only if reliable information is present can the police obtain the warrant and execute it. The warrant can be very specific on what can be searched instead of being broad. This may hamper the police from finding evidence as well. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, President George Bush, along with Congress, passed the USA-PATRIOT Act. The Act is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Del Carmen, 2009). While the act was passed as a reaction to an international terrorist incident, it applies to domestic terrorism as well. This act provided new rules for electronic surveillance such as wiretaps and using technology to gain evidence. These new rules relaxed the requirements for obtaining these types of surveillance. Access to personal information was gained by using fusion centers for intelligence on suspects. The use of these centers has been criticized as being a violation of civil rights by some people. (Del Carmen, 2009).

Some provisions of the act have been declared invalid by some courts and the fight against the act will continue into the future. With the provisions of the act, law enforcement has broader authority in investigating individuals and organizations that are suspected of planning terrorist acts. This authority has to be used with good police work like investigations in order to prosecute the right people. Another difficulty law enforcement has is that the process of stopping domestic terrorists is not just intelligence work and conducting a military-style operation to eliminate the threat.

Criminal procedure has to be followed. Evidence must be collected in order to prosecute the offenders at a later date. This means the rules of evidence must be followed to include chain of custody, proper collection techniques, and documentation. Care must be taken to protect evidence during operations and after the operation is conducted. Multiple agencies may be involved and coordination is necessary between those agencies. A simple incident of a white powder coming from an envelope in the mail involves many agencies. A Hazardous Materials Team would test the powder and most likely take evidence from the scene.

Not only would local police be involved but possibly state police and definitely federal law enforcement such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Postal Service Inspectors. Due to many state and federal laws being involved, there has to be coordination between these agencies as to who gets control of the evidence, suspects, and is the prosecuting agency. These difficulties have to be managed in order to prosecute properly. By prosecuting properly, this may deter future incidents. Without this determent, the terrorist may feel that they can make future attacks without penalty.

Response to an incident of domestic terrorism is a multifaceted operation. In most cases, many agencies will be involved. The type of incident that takes place and its location will determine what agencies become involved. All of these agencies have to be prepared to respond and also to cooperate with other agencies on the scene of the incident. Agencies not on the scene may also have a stake in the response and they have to be included as well. The National Incident Management System was created by a Homeland Security Presidential Directive in 2004 in order to provide for a national Incident Command System. Bullock, 2013). The ICS had been used by many agencies in the past but had not been used on a national scale. ICS was created to deal with California wildfires in the nineteen-seventies and was adopted by many fire departments to manage their incidents effectively. (Bullock, 2013). The system uses a single Incident Commander or Unified Command in a leadership position to manage the whole incident. The IC can call on other functions such as command, operations, logistics and finance as the management if the incident progresses. (Bullock, 2013). Use of this system is critical to a good response and recovery.

The first agencies to respond will most likely be local fire and police departments. They are the agencies with the most resources close to the scene at the outset. The fire department and emergency medical services will primarily deal with life safety and mitigating hazards that are potentially life threatening. The local police will be the first to gather witnesses and evidence. It is important for these agencies to notify other agencies when the incident requires it. Arson may turn out to be a terrorist incident even though not readily apparent at the outset.

A bombing will probably be more apparent. Recognizing an incident for what it is will help an agency bring in the appropriate resources quickly. Some other agencies that may need to be involved include the National Guard, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If the incident involves radioactive material or biological hazards, the Department of Energy or the Center for Disease Control may be needed. Private companies may be needed for equipment or expertise. All of these entities have to be managed by an Incident Commander.

Recognizing the hazards and the incident nature quickly is important. During the 1995 bombing of the Alfred Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, first responders noticed the crater left by the bomb and immediately consulted the FBI. (Cook, 2009). Originally the incident was thought to be a natural gas explosion. By recognizing the incident as terrorism, the proper agencies were then brought in to protect and handle evidence as well as provide some protection to the first responders. In the case of a mass casualty incident, a critical incident stress team may be needed as well.

It is important for first responders to protect themselves during a terrorist incident. A secondary device may be present to kill or injure them in order to hamper rescue and recovery efforts. Eric Rudolph planted a secondary device during a bombing at an abortion clinic. This device was planted where the incident command center would be set up. (Ostrow, 1998). Rudolph has observed first responders during multiple false alarms and noticed where command was set up. All Hazards Response was a system that came about after the attacks of 9/11.

The Nation Response Plan was created to facilitate an efficient response to a major incident. (Bullock, 2013). This framework helps agencies responding to an incident to integrate with other agencies and pool resources to mitigate the incident. Many agencies may be responding to an incident and a plan to handle the response was necessary. By using NIMS, ICS and the National Response Plan, agencies are coordinated the same way across the country. No matter where the incident takes place, agencies can know what to expect for a system in place before their arrival on the scene.

Exercises like Vigilant Guard take agencies such as the National Guard, first responders, state and federal agencies and put them together to practice a response to an incident. In order to become better at responding, these exercises must be held, and agencies willing to take part, to be successful. Domestic terrorism is a real threat to the country. The history of this country shows that this is nothing new and it can be expected to be a threat in the future. Proper planning and the use of exercises are needed to practice the coordination of various agencies.

Intelligence and prosecution of offenders has to be a priority to prevent future attacks. The public has to be vigilant and notify the authorities of any suspicions. Prevention of domestic terrorism is a real threat and it is the responsibility of the whole country to prevent attacks as well as respond properly to them. References: Bullock, J. , Haddow, G. , & Coppola, D. (2013). Introduction to homeland security: Principles of all-hazards risk management (4th Ed. ). Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Starita, Cynthia. (2009).

Mounting Threat of Domestic Terrorism: Al-Qaeda and the Salvadoran Gang MS-13. El Paso, TX: LFB Publishing. Retrieved from http://site. ebrary. com/lib/ashford Cook, Alethia. (2009). Emergency Response to Domestic Terrorism: How Bureaucracies Reacted to the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing. Retrieved from http://site. ebrary. com/lib/ashford Cordesman, A. H. (2002). Terrorism, Asymmetric Warfare, and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Defending the U. S. Homeland. Praeger. From: http://web. ebscohost. com Smith, B. L. (1994).

Terrorism in America: Pipe Bombs and Pipe Dreams. State University of New York Press. From: http://web. ebscohost. com Kamien, D. (2010). The McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook. (1st Ed. ). USA: McGraw-Hill Les Benedict, M. (2006). The Blessings of Liberty. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning Del Carmen, R. (2009). Criminal Procedures. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning Ostrow, R. (1998, October 15). Survivalist Charged in Olympic, Other Atlanta Blasts. Los Angeles Times. p 20. Retrieved from: http://search. proquest. com. proxy/library. ashford. edu/docview/421436549? accountid=32521

Free Essays

Red Brigade, Italian Terrorism

Red Brigade, Good Morning, Night, The Red Brigade emerged in 1968 in Italy, a time of social and political turbulence around the world. For the Red Brigades, their fight with the Italian state was the continuation of the fight that the Italian Left Wing Resistance waged against Nazi Fascism during the Second World War. Offspring of classic Marxist/Leninists, their fight was ideological, and they feared the resurgence of Fascism in Italy which they equated with the rise of Italian and European capitalism and its aging corporate leadership.

Although they saw themselves as continuing the battle waged by their ancestor resistant fighters, to me, they seemed less interested in obtaining benefits for the workers they claimed to support, than in denouncing capitalism and demagoging their rigid view of a pure Marxism. The Red Brigade sought to create and deliver propaganda that would prepare students, workers, the proletariat, and masses for “violent and systematic opposition to the bourgeois order. ” (Christian Science Monitor, 1978).

While the revolutionary predecessors of the Red Brigades, fought Nazism and Fascism to free Italy and Italians, Bellochio’ s movie Good Morning, Night presents a much starker and menacing Red Brigade that in 1968 lost its way as it lost its humanity according to Bellochio. Bellochio says that while ideas are fundamental to a democracy and that political debate and demonstration a virtue, the killing of a human being in the name of one’s ideals is lunacy, and reflects a lack of understanding of life, human reality, and of contemporary Italy.

According to Bellochio the Red Brigades failure was the failure to recognize the complex choices in 1968 Italy, and their inability to change along with a changing Italy. The Red Brigade were ideologues, uncompromising in their world view of a pure class struggle, and they were committed to undermine any other political view in Italy. Their uncompromising view was effective in attracting young, ideological followers and assisted the Brigade in garnering their initial power, but ultimately it led to their undoing.

For in their intransigence and unrelenting purist view of a creation of a proletariat uprising, they increasingly disassociated themselves from the reality of the lives of most Italians. Ultimately, and in particular with the killing of Aldo Moro, they alienated themselves from the very working people upon whose support their revolution of the masses was dependent. Marco Bellochio’s Good Morning, Night demonstrates the Red Brigade’s intransigence and naivete in describing them as “being very far from reality”.

In the world view of Red Brigade’s founder Renato Curcio, the Brigade followed an ideology and a doctrine that advocated “armed violence against the capitalist state (Christian Science Monitor, March 17, 1978). The Red Brigade and their leadership were violent anti-capitalists, and they saw multinational corporations as monsters preparing to devour the world (Raufer). Curio viewed the Red Brigade as true Marxists and he sought to re-create a socialist state along the lines of what Lenin had created in the Soviet Union, and Mao had created in China through the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Raufer, page 319). But in a post Lenin and Mao world where millions of poor people had been instructed that poverty is not virtue and to get rich is noble, the Red Brigade’s dogma seemed well worn, particularly when it was communicated through a gun barrel, and resulted in the death of Aldo Moro, an admired leader. The Red Brigade viewed themselves as the evolution of inexorable historical and social forces, and that their ascendancy in Italy, and perhaps Europe was natural and inevitable.

Curio believed that the Red Brigade would eventual become a key political force in Italy, and that the Brigade was destined through the natural evolution of the revolutionary forces begun by Lenin and Mao to lead a social, economic and political revolution in Italy. Curio believed fervently that this was his and the Red Brigade’s destiny. These beliefs about the destiny of Curio and the Red Brigade in my view are what Bellochio assailed in his movie and in his comments that politics is the art of understanding reality.

Bellachio says that Curio’s naive misreading of the Italian people and of humanity is fundamentally what led to the failure of the Red Brigade and their ultimate dissolution. In their targeting of Aldo Moro, The Red Brigades sought to prevent a “historic compromise” between the Communist Party and the Christian Social Democratic Party which would have created an alliance allowing the Communists to become a legitimate political force in the Italian Government.

Even though this compromise would have allowed the Communists to have a voice in Government, the Red Brigades feared that the Christian Democrats would control the Communists and in so doing constrain the uprising of the proletariat that Curio believed was its destiny. Curio believed that the pact between Moro’s Christian Democrats would “enslave the working class with the help of communist revisionists” (New York Times, 1978)

In Good Morning, Night, Bellochio demonstrates the naivete of this belief, and ultimately the failure of this Red Brigades for they lost their ability to value human life. They believed that symbols were more important than people, and that there are no constraints on human behavior in social and political revolution. Bellochio believes, and demonstrates in Good Morning, Night that this is not so, and to de-humanize people in the name of revolution or any cause is a blindness that divorces the cause from real life and people, and therefore is doomed to fail.

Free Essays

Effectiveness of Racial Profiling in Countering Terrorism

[Student’s Name] [Professor’s Name] [Subject Code and Title] Is Racial Profiling an Effective Counter Terrorism Measure? The September 11 terror attack on the American soil was followed by a successive wave of events that were aimed at countering terrorism. As the global engagement on terrorism intensified, racial profiling became more pronounced along the corridors of counter-terrorism. Conversely, the employment of racial profiling as an instrument for detecting terror suspects and countering terrorism has elicited sharp criticism from different quarters.

Even as protagonists of racial profiling reiterate its effectiveness in combating terrorism, dissenting voices lament the flagrant human rights violations and racial segregations borne of racial profiling. This paper critically examines the issues surrounding racial profiling in order to form a benchmark upon which the effectiveness of racial profiling in countering terrorism can be measured. The September 11 attacks on the US soil, which was one of the single worst acts of terrorism in the world’s history, led to the re-emergence of racial profiling in full force.

In a desperate effort to bring to book the perpetrators of these attacks, security agencies in the US developed prejudice on Middle-Easterners. These prejudices were then codified into law including additional security measures for Arabs and Muslims leaving and entering the US territory. It is against this backdrop that racial profiling gained prominence not only in the US but also among its allies. This then raises a very pertinent concern as to whether racial profiling is effective in countering terrorism across the globe.

Security organs more often than not have based detention and interdiction of suspects primarily on the basis of their race, ethnicity and/or religion. Pickering et al argue that racial profiling occurs against the belief that certain minority groups are more likely to engage in unlawful behavior. They further posit that integrating national security into law has opened up the possibility that racial profiling is inevitable in predicting crime and identifying potential perpetrators of crime.

Profiling is however problematic in terms of its effectiveness given the fact that it is not firstly correlated statistically to risk. Secondly, racial profiling is ineffective in substantially narrowing down a pool of potential suspects (60). Therefore, profiling of suspects fails to meet professional law enforcement principles but instead reflect prejudice and discrimination. Nevertheless, the biggest concerns over profiling lie in the invasion of privacy as well as the erosion of fundamental civil liberties.

The US has been on the forefront in advocating for the sharing of Passenger Name Records (PNR) information in an effort to single out possible terror suspects. However, this action invariably subjects individuals of particular ethnicities and religions to additional security checks consequently giving leeway to arbitrary discrimination (Muffler 241). What authorities do is basically identify names on the PNR that are Muslim or Arabic in nature. With the perception that Arabs and Muslims are potential terror suspects, they subject bearers of such names to more rigorous security screening.

This act does not only discriminate affected individuals but it also produces a large number of false positives. Pickering et al have ascertained that large numbers of false positives divert resources needed to enhance more productive law enforcement activities. Moreover, false positives draws attention away from real threats and this is welcome news for terrorists. To that respect, racial profiling becomes self-defeating in the sense that it overlooks mainstream target groups thus ignoring the real danger of homegrown non-target terror groups (62).

In the recent past, we have had terror attacks instigated by native citizens who have been either inspired by radical religious teachings or who are angry with their governments for reasons known to themselves. These individuals are never prioritized by the authorities thus pose a greater danger to national security. Over-emphasis on foreigners paves way for homegrown extremists to plan and execute terror attacks undetected. It is therefore a morally repugnant practice to target individuals as terror suspects based on their race and/or religion.

Not all Muslims are terrorists and neither are all people of Arabic origin terrorists. It is really fallacious to generalize Muslims and Arabs as terrorists based on religious and ethnic prejudices. This then means that these individuals who would have otherwise provided intelligence on terror activities become sympathetic to terror groups with whom they share racial and religious inclinations. In the long run, racial profiling degrades social cohesion; it fuels animosity and ends up instigating more terror attacks that it intended to counter in the first place (Pickering et al 62).

Racial alienation in the wake of racial profiling has given rise to a new phenomenon referred to as social terrorism. Intolerance experienced in society today has left victims of racial profiling with indelible marks of acute, episodic and vicarious discrimination. Social terrorism shutters minds, bodies and souls with affected individuals developing serious spiritual disturbances. These disorders may include questioning the essence of living, cessation from religious practices as well as loss of vitality and aliveness.

Spirituality in particular is at the heart of resilience to adversity among people of color. Attacking a person’s spiritual beliefs therefore creates individuals prone to radical religious teachings. It is the victims of social terrorism that have been found to cause the worst atrocities against humanity since they have nothing to lose after all (Etiony 97). Profiling indeed increases the detection of terrorists attack in the short run. Through racial profiling, terror suspects have been apprehended before initiating their attacks.

In the long run however, racial profiling creates the possibility of dangerous substitution. On the current trajectory, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever exploring the use of racial profiling as a counter terrorism measure. This means that we have no idea whether racial profiling is indeed bearing fruits in countering terrorism or not. What we are aware of is how racial profiling has negatively impacted those subjected to it (Center for Human Rights and Global justice 19).

It is not my intention to ruffle people’s feathers the wrong way or even stir still waters. To that respect, I will try my very best to keep friendly skies friendly by condemning terrorism unreservedly with the strongest words possible. Terrorism destabilizes democracies by attacking the life and liberties of citizens. It must be met with firmness and increased co-operation among democratic countries. However, inasmuch as we must counter terrorism, we must denounce the escalation of barbaric acts that strike down innocent victims.

People do not immigrate to foreign lands just to bomb them but they rather do so to appreciate the quality of life in these foreign countries. It is therefore incumbent upon the citizens of resident countries to welcome these foreigners and help them integrate in their communities. When all is said and done, it is imperative that we win the war on terrorism if we desire to make the world a peaceful haven. This war will not however be won through covert and coercive methods of intelligence gathering. Law enforcement agencies must desist from hiding their laziness and inefficiencies behind racial bigotry.

What is needed is development of security structures for sharing intelligence between security agents and citizens on counter terror activities. Security agencies can no longer afford to guard terrorism as a top secret since terrorism affects all people regardless of their status in society. Fundamental rights must never become casualties of the politics of fear that have characterized States’ response to the war on terror. A faithful adherence to human rights incorporated in international, regional, and domestic law is the only sure way of securing and protecting all persons.

Works Cited Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. Irreversible Consequences: Racial Profiling and Lethal Force in the War on Terror. NY: NYU School of Law, 2006. Print. Etiony, Aldarando. Advancing Social Justice Through Clinical Practice. NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, 2008. Print. Muffler, J. Steven. Racial Profiling: Issues, Data and Analyses. NY: Nova Science P, 2006. Print. Pickering, Sharon, McCulloch and Wright-Neville David. Counter-Terrorism Policing: Community, Cohesion and Security. NY: Springer, 2008. Print.

Free Essays

Themes of Modern Terrorism Bakunin’s God and the State

Mohit Mulani Prof. James Gilligan 22/12/12 “God and the State” The idea of malevolent terrorism is fundamentally rooted in an extremist interpretation of religion enabled and to a great extent encouraged by priests and political figures. To examine this closely with reference to historical situations and ideas, we can apply the notions bought forward by the Russian 19th century philosopher and nihilist Bakunin in his seminal book, “God and State. ”

In the book, doctinaires are critiqued quite heavily for their relentless imposition of impractical ideals upon the world. With regards to the, Bakunin states, “They are so jealous of the glory of their God and of the triumph of their idea that they have no heart left for the liberty or the dignity or even the sufferings of living men, of real men. Divine zeal, preoccupation with the idea, finally dry up the tenderest souls, the most compassionate hearts, the sources of human love. God & the State, 65)” Comparing these 19th century doctinaires with modern day terrorists we see a group of people so completely enthralled by the superiority of their belief systems that they are more than willing to compromise the lives of non-believers to ‘persuade’ others. This follows in the line of a traditional process that requires the destruction and absolute overhaul of a current system and its institutions in order for a new one to establish itself and thrive.

Referred to in the line, “Every development necessarily implies a negation,” the idea is the basis of aggressive and violent terrorism globally (God & the State, 9). The September 11th attacks for instance were planned to include bombings of the Pentagon and White House, both symbolic locations representing the centers of Western imperialism and sources of resentment for the jihadis. This is particularly important given how modern day authors, journalists and thinkers have emphasized the peaceful nature of Islam when interpreted by its scriptures. Looking at the sheer organization and potency of terrorist rganizations, it seems as though the hyper-violent aspect of this otherwise ‘peaceful’ religion must have arisen from an understanding of this dogma. There must prevail the idea that without the destruction of certain reviled Western ideals, their preferred value systems cannot be secured across the world. Another aspect bought up in Bakunin’s statement about doctrinaires was the erasure of love and sympathy towards the victims of terrorist acts. The perpetrators here have been blinded by the aggressive, nationalistic rivalry between ideologies towards the pain and suffering of others.

In some cases, the real or imagined suffering of their own people, often at the hands of the West is used as a tool to harden their emotional facilities towards demonized groups of people. Several recruitment communications and propaganda display in explicit detail the torture practices, prison camp conditions and drone attacks the Western nations have inflicted upon suspected terrorists. This intensifies the unbridled hatred that ultimately fuels the metaphorical terror machine-churning out thousands of graduates armed with suicide vests and destructive ideals that they wish to impose upon the world.

An important point here is that the origin of such behaviour isn’t singularly caused by hate or resentment; it is rather the amalgamation of several factors including socio-political ones that in their totality create this belligerent section of the world. Bakunin speaks of, “the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, [being] but a reflection of its economic history (God & the State, 9). ” The fiscal nature of countries and their people often have direct consequences on the views and positions adopted by them.

The effect of poverty on the terrorist world-view most directly can be two fold. In the first case, people join jihadist factions for direct monetary recompense to themselves or their family; a significant factor in desperately poor nations and villages. An instance of this was seen after the Mumbai train bombings of 2008 in which the prime suspect Ajmal Kassab confessed to expecting approximately US$3,352 after succeeding in his mission. According to police sources, he was unaware of any Islamic tenets or verses from the Quran but had a virulent message to send nonetheless.

The other effect of a poor economic state is an increased susceptibility to false priests and their version of religion. Lower socio-economic groups when faced with inconsequential lives resort to belief systems that give them comfort, solace and often a sense of superiority with respect to ideology held. This often translates to more suicide bombers by means of greater anticipation for the afterlife. A fair amount of terrorists that go onto perform suicide missions do so after comparing their current lives with the ones they expect to lead in heaven or jannah.

They see poverty, distress, debt and suffering as something they can leave behind to reach a land of fountains, gardens, angels and virgins if they do the right thing. Here is where opportunistic priests and politicians swoop in employing, “base and criminal means … to keep the nations in perpetual slavery. (God & the State, 11)” These self-proclaimed, “guardians and the fathers of the people,” clearly do not have their best interests at heart and see them rather as tools by which they can achieve their respective political and religious agendas.

A preacher who sermonizes on the value of taking lives, leveling cities and particularly in Iran- the use of nuclear weapons, cannot possibly be representing to the people any interpretation of religious texts. Instead of performing his duties as the spiritual head of a community, he uses incendiary rhetoric to stir people who are repeatedly manipulated by their governments into believing serious propaganda against Western nations. Bakunin expresses particular outrage at such figures referring to their acts as, “ this crime of treason against humanity committed daily, in broad day, over the whole surface of the civilized world. This is interesting mostly because it alters our perspective on ideas of terrorism and makes us look intensely at what goes into the formation of one. As a global community, we express daily outrage when acts of terror be they car bombings, hijackings, kidnappings and murders occur. Caught up in these, it gets difficult to see the simultaneous crime being carried out throughout large tracts of the Middle East where the populace is systematically denied a real education in lieu of religious madrasas and indoctrination.

Though vastly different, we can examine Bakunin’s analysis of 19th century education and modern day madrasas. “Such are the absurd tales that are told and the monstrous doctrines that are taught, in the full light of the nineteenth century, in all the public schools of Europe, at the express command of the government. They call this civilizing the people! Is it not plain that all these governments are systematic poisoners, interested stupefies of the masses? ” ( God ; the State, 11) There is quite certainly a reason for the establishment of such schools.

We can posit that due to a certain moral vacuum, created by the influx of Western/European morality which itself was a consequence of the Scientific Revolution, there exists a motive to enforce conservative and restrictive moral systems. These motives when taken to their extreme engender resentment towards other forms of thinking and see them as counterproductive or directly hostile to their own. In the case of Islamic theology, the teachings have been co-opted by a small, but active militant and extremist sector.

This group opposes in principle all people who do not share their belief systems calling them indicatively; non-believers, infidels and heretics. Much like how in post war Europe this very moral vacuum was filled with branches of Totalitarianism and Fascism, the radical Middle East has adopted a similarly authoritarian system. This system is firstly authoritarian in the literal sense as most nations like Saudi Arabia have no free press, democratic governments or political parties. Secondly on a more abstract level, its religious tenets when exercised by extremists or the Mutaween are highly prohibitory and insular.

An example of this sprung to international attention when in March of 2002, a girl’s school in Mecca caught on fire. Members of the Mutaween or the religious police were on hand to prevent improperly dressed girls from leaving the burning building. As school was in session with an entirely female population, for the sake of comfort most girls had seen fit to take of their confining abayas and headdresses. When attempting to escape, According to a civil defense officer, the girls were forced to return by use of force.

This is one of many examples of religious confinement and how it is inherently parochial and inhibitory. The masses must indeed be stupefied, as Bakunin says if they consider it God’s will that girls burn to death for not being dressed appropriately. Though applicable to a wide range of scenarios, this example gives us insight into the aggressions of terrorist groups. It is clearly not enough that they follow the rigid principles set in the scriptures and interpreted by their mullahs, virtually everyone must do so as well.

Some priests go so far as to imply that forcing or “converting” non-believers to the jihad proffers to them a place in heaven. With this tendency to make the world follow the teachings of Allah, it seems natural that they would resort to the means made popular by tradition and used quite frequently in history for such purposes; violence. Bakunin reprimands this agenda harshly in a letter to S. Nechayev: “You said that all men should be such, that a complete renunciation of self, of all personal wishes, pleasures, feelings affections and ties, should be a normal, natural, everyday condition to everybody without exception.

You wished and still with to make your own selfless cruelty, your own truly extreme fanaticism, into a rule of common life. You wish for an absurdity, an impossibility, a total negation of nature, man and society… no society however perfect its discipline and however powerful its organization can conquer nature(On Violence, 9). ” This is precisely what the terrorists seem intent on doing, enforcing by means of violence their way of life upon the world. The term ‘nature’ is used here to reference the progress and advancement of society, morals and behaviour.

The Scientific revolution occurred some 300 years ago and since then we have evolved, developing new systems of morality and using the social sciences to fill in the gaps left by religious dogma. These “science[s] of the future” like psychology and sociology are tools we use to fashion a new way of thinking and living(God ; the State, 61). Though they exist popular and normative definitions of good and evil, we have to a great extent outgrown them as new, more ethically complex situations arise and we approach them differently.

Observing moral gray areas that we face everyday like bioethics in legislation for instance gives us an idea as to how we have been forced to evolve our moral ideas to keep up with out lifestyles. Though significant, bioethics is representative of a much larger and more pervasive phenomenon due to which we approach virtually all situations differently. For one, we refrain from moralizing a lot of issues that we would have historically used an ethical framework to describe. Our collective moral psychology as a whole has become more imaginative and we have a much larger scope to use morality in out lives.

This broad, nonconservative approach has been interpreted as an empty, decadent and immoral (rather ironically) philosophy that is engendered by liberal Western culture and extends through its rather large sphere of influence. This perceived emptiness or moral vacuum is then filled by priests, zealots and a restrictive culture that is almost reactionary in its principles, formed so diametrically opposed to the ones it aims to eliminate. Bakunin explains to Nechayev that regardless of a particular society’s moral system, it is impossible to “conquer nature” or stop progress.

This evolving of moral systems is the progress we’ve made in a past few centuries and various terrorist movements are largely the backlash experienced as a result of it. The abandonment of traditional value systems is understandably frightening and this very fear has been molded into a consequential, aggressive and parochial movement that uses undiscerning violence to erase centuries of moral advancement and replace it with a very specific, scripture-based morality that is reassuring in its decisiveness.

Of note is the attempt made thereafter to brutally enforce this morality upon to world, to ensure that every woman, man and child follows the distinctive set of rules that govern radical Islamic morality. To see how truly regressive such a system is, we can examine the treatment of women in particular. The advance of feminism, especially at the turn of the century, led a revolution of ideas and social norms. The roles previously dictated by a predominantly patriarchal tradition changed and the restrictions placed on women were more or less eliminated.

All terrorist groups share a contempt for women’s rights and this can be explained by their aversion to change and the reversal of traditional roles. Though this discomfort with feminism also involves an element of insecurity as male roles in these societies are so dependent and inverse to female roles, it cannot possibly by itself cause men to go around in trucks shooting schoolgirls; that requires priestly or political influence. What the terrorists fail to account is the nature of advancement and how it cannot be prevented from happening by beating people into submission. Everyday there is resistance in the ranks.

Malala Yousafzai, an activist from Pakistan was shot on the 9th of October, 2012 while on a school-bus. This sort of advancement is likely to perpetuate itself amidst a large portion of the world and even killing everyone who noticeably advocates it will not prevent its growth. In Somalia, at the age of five, Ayaan Hirsi Ali underwent the torturous procedure of female circumcision (of genital mutilation as it is commonly and aptly called). This was one amongst several regressive traditions of her tribe and yet she emerged from the harshest of circumstances as an adamant feminist and atheist thinker. Man has emancipated himself; he has separated himself from animality and constituted himself a man; he has begun his distinctively human history and development by an act of disobedience and science-that is, by rebellion and by thought. (God & the State, 12)” Herein lies the key to our humanity, the very feature that is being suppressed by terrorists in favour of a more convenient, straightforward and primitive form of thinking. It is inherent in out nature to seek change, to ask questions and to doubt the dogmas we have been handed down.

The fact that this leads to a complete social overhaul and the creation of multiple cognitive vacuums does not deter us from repeatedly being skeptical and thinking. The quote mentioned above refers to the Creation story of Genesis which showcases the act of disobedience, questioning of rules and the disastrous results that follow. At the end of it however, as humans we wouldn’t have it any other way. Doubting the doctrines we were brought up with reduces the strangle-hold religion has upon out society and the amount of influence clergymen can exert.

This is an important motivation for the priests of the Middle East to carry on with their rabble-rousing diatribes. Doing so can maintain the last vestiges of power they have over people who no longer believe in their divine capacity anymore. By diverting attention from the actual tenets of Islam and bringing to the forefront firebrand phrases from other scriptures to spur people on, they engage in self-preservation rather than the progress of the human race. The key to our development has always been in thought and rebellion, by preventing it combatively, the terrorists hold back the world nd regress us to an age before we challenged conventions. In another section of the letter to S. Nechayev, Bakunin refers to what he observes as, “an enormous lack of critical sense without which it is impossible to evaluate people and situations, and to reconcile means with ends. (On Violence, 9)” These shortcomings of Russian nihilistic revolutionaries are now echoed by Islamic terrorists. Despite their explicable beliefs, what is truly terrifying about them is the raw violence and destruction jihadis seek to force upon the world.

Their defensiveness towards tradition and resentment over past wars has been channeled into a form of nondiscriminatory havoc ceases to differentiate between military personnel and innocent citizens. This method is what is somewhat irreconcilable with the, “ends” it seeks to achieve. Though a destruction of the current system is required for any meaningful change to occur, it does not have to be gruesome and violent. It is however much harder for priests and politicians to spur their populace on towards peaceful goals than it is to make them favour blind violence.

Speaking then about how to deal with an opposing civilization, Bakunin stats, “Societies which are inimical or positively harmful must be dissolved, and finally the government must be destroyed. All this cannot be achieved only by propagating the truth; cunning, diplomacy and deceit are necessary. (On Violence, 34)” Nowhere in the aforementioned advise does he mention violence as a useful way to achieve success. This is particularly important as there hasn’t as of yet been a noticeable conversion to the Islamic cause.

Efficacy is a factor that the terrorists seem not to have consider seeking only to assuage their manufactured rage. “Hate, the negative side alone, does not create anything, does not even create the power necessary for destruction and thus destroys nothing. (On Violence, 29)” When four homegrown terrorists from London attacked the underground system, their primary motive was to avenge their fellow Muslims who had previously suffered as a result of actions undertaken by the Western governments.

A large amount of bombings are becoming more about revenge and hatred than actually changing the status quo. This achieves nothing while a great deal is simultaneously sacrificed. Distinct from revenge, another cause for hatred is how the terrorists perceive the world. Bakunin refers to the source of our progress as, “Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge. God & the State, 10)” It is fair to assume that they see the West and people such as Malala as Satanic and a corruptive influence. Both of these try to upend traditional thought and how we think about morality. By objecting to blind deference to a book or set of purportedly divine rules, democracies seek to alter people’s moral psychology. This procedure has seen a backlash even in Western countries themselves in the form of radical Christianity. Ironically though this branch of religion despises Islam and the jihadis, it seeks to achieve incredibly similar goals.

Every time a pastor in some midwestern state pushes for the inscription of the Hebrew commandments in front of court-houses, as a species, we take a collective step backwards into the Middle Ages where people believed in a fixed set of dogmas that seemed more interested in who they worshipped than in how they behaved. Similarly with the feminist movements, with the objectives of terrorism being so inherently misogynistic, we risk living in a world where women don’t have the civil liberties we spent a good couple of centuries achieving.

Though things in the past were straightforward and idealistic, they were also horrendously underdeveloped in modern concepts of liberty, freedom, thought, science and society. Reverting back to those circumstances involves necessarily having to deal with all its downfalls as well as the clarity of ethics it provides. We do not get to cherry-pick which part of the Middle Ages we’d like to being with us into this century as the terrorists have made amply clear.

We will need to accept the oppression of women, religious minorities, homosexuals, transgenders and scientific thought as though we were actually living in the 16th century. This regression must be avoided at all costs. “Thus we come back to the essence of all religion–in other words, to the disparagement of humanity for the greater glory of divinity. (God & the State, 37)” With this statement Bakunin sums up the thrust of the religious terrorist movements around the world. They seek to avenge a perceived disrespect of a divine being and are willing to kill for it.

Though they wouldn’t do so spontaneously, this hatred ad murderous instinct has to be carefully cultivated from childhood by mullahs and other authoritative sources. These children then become people who are capable of leveling entire buildings for the glory of God whose existence they cannot be sure of and an afterlife they might never get to experience. Such is the power of, “collective insanity,” that drives a movement like this. (God & the State, 68) Since the 200,000 years we’ve existed, we’ve spent quite a lot of it questioning, developing and doubting.

Attempts to prevent this are shameful in that they send us hurtling back hundreds of years to less enlightened times of dogma and religious persecution. We’ve outgrown the juvenile need for extremely strict religious guidance and have as a society agreed upon a set of common sense laws that don’t vary significantly across national borders. We’ve developed social sciences to deal with the moral vacuum left after the removal of dogmas and are can deal with them without resorting to driving airplanes into skyscrapers.

The existence of terrorism proves that for every collective step forward we take, there are elements that will be rendered irrelevant and have thus felt the need to make the loudest clamor possible. Though we cannot obviously devise a straightforward solution to a complex and varying problem, we can however seek to understand it. Bibliography Bakunin, Mikhail, “God and the State. ” Dover Publications, Inc. , New York. 1970 Bakunin, Mikhail, “On Violence-letter to S Nechayev. ” New York: Unity Press, [19–]

Free Essays

The War Against Terrorism

Stan Mihaylov Dr. Reichert ENGL 1102 2/15/2011 The War against Terrorism Military actions are the greatest folly which mankind has ever created. Since the creation of the human race, there is a trend that the stronger nations impose their power and will over the weaker nations. If in ancient times wars were happening primarily to take on new territories and resources, it was sufficiently clear and justifiable for a whole nation to stand behind that idea. However, wars nowadays are provoked by vague and unjustifiable reasons.

The modern world as I see it is against fighting in wars, but at the same time it spends huge amounts of money for the creation of weapons and military supplies. Today every nation imposes peace, but with a big army behind its back. The scars of the past few wars have not been erased yet – wars which have been called World Wars for their scale. World War I broke out in consequence of the poverty of one otherwise strong nation – Serbia, World War II happened because of the ambition of one otherwise “normal” man who believed that the people with blonde hair and blue eyes are the dominant race.

Unfortunately, these two are the most significant events for the whole 20th century. The century in which we live right now, the 21st century, will not remain bloodless either. The war of our century is only one, and it is called “The War against Terrorism. ” What is actually terrorism? Terrorism is hatred to man and to mankind. Terrorism is a violent war against the civilians and its goal is to cause fear in the society and to attract the media’s attention. There is international terrorism as well as domestic terrorism.

Domestic terrorism is when a single person or a group of people go out and kill random civilians. A good example of domestic terrorism is the Anthrax attacks in 2001 and the Texas cyanide bomb attack. Terrorists have changed the means by which they achieve their goals. Until 9/11 even the best specialists on terrorism couldn’t have guessed that the terrorists will use planes full of civilian passengers as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers. I will always remember that day 10 years ago when the terrorists killed more than 3000 people.

I was back in Bulgaria, a year before me and my family moved to the United States. It was a beautiful afternoon around 5pm and I was watching TV when all of the sudden the show stopped and the World Trade Centers appeared on the screen. I was wondering what was going on and why they started showing the news, but soon enough I saw a plane hit a building. At first I thought it was an action movie but when the news journalist started talking about terrorist attacks on the United States, I understood what was happening.

I will also never forget the thumping sound of people jumping off the buildings and hitting the ground. This was the clearest and also the scariest thing I remember from that sad day. The most natural reaction after the impact on the World Trade Centers is the declaration of war. War against what, against who? Terrorism is not a single person or a nation. The U. S. Millitary attacked a remote and poor country like Afghanistan, but very soon it appeared that the capture of the perpetrators of the attack is impossible. The United States, however, saw an opportunity to capture their oil reserves.

Such a powerful country as the United States soon brought in the whole world into its own war but it calls it under a different name – “The War against Terrorism. ” This put the start of a massive production of weapons and supplies. Just the United States alone spend more than $1. 8 billion a week against the fight with terrorism (Msnbc. com). Just a month after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, President George Bush created the first institution against terrorism called the Office of Homeland Security whose main objective is to prevent terrorist attacks.

Can the war on terrorism ever be won? I think there is no way because “violence brings more violence. ” This cliche is true, and it also uncovers the truth about the war against terrorism. It’s like trying to extinguish a fire using gasoline. The more violent the attacks against the terrorists, the more violent their revenge will be. The terrorists have many followers around the world. In the developing countries of the Middle East, the children learn to shoot a gun from a very young age, learn about the various explosives, as well as the electronic mechanisms used to make detonators.

These abilities combined with the hatred for the west, and more specifically the United States, are a very dangerous combination for the making of a huge army of terrorists. They are willing to die for their cause. There are people who don’t appreciate their life. The death during a fight is their way to happiness. One of the many reasons for which terrorism exists is because the democratic, richer countries in the world try to push their views on the poorer Middle Eastern ones.

The people in those countries don’t really have a point in life because no matter what they do, they will still be poor and that’s why they decide to take revenge and join the terrorist groups. They think that it’s some other country’s fault that they are in this situation which is not necessarily true. And because they have been told from young age that when they die they will go to a happier place, they don’t even hesitate about doing it. Children on both sides of the world are brainwashed from very young age.

In the United States, children are told that the Middle Eastern countries are a bad and dangerous, whereas the children in the Middle East are told that the United States are the bad guys. The war against terrorism is a very harsh one because there are also countries which openly support the terrorist actions – Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. They supply the terrorists with shelter, weapons, and financial aid. Another incident that shaped the way I see this war is when I saw a video how an U. S. Army helicopter attacked civilians in Iraq.

The video caused a lot of chaos around the United States’ government because they wanted the world to think they were the good guys. The video basically showed how an American helicopter attacks civilians in Iraq, not terrorists. It was very graphic and when I watched it, I thought about how unforgiving war was. The terrorists killed a lot more civilians on 9/11 but is it right for the U. S. Army, which is supposedly on the “good side” to go and kill random people? I think this is where the mythic reality comes into play.

The United States wants the world to think they are the good guys, and because of the attacks on 9/11 they accomplished that position. This gives the United States a reason to do whatever it wants with the civilians from the countries of the Middle East. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that what the United States does is bad or wrong. If somebody attacks, and there is no way to solve things peacefully, war comes into play, but it wouldn’t it be a lot better if the U. S. Army was to seek the ones who arranged the attacks on 9/11, not some random civilians who have no idea what is going on?

Terrorism is not just going on in the United States, it is a global thing in which involves almost every nation. After the attacks on 9/11, most of the airports around the world created stricter security rules. The recent attack on the airport in Moscow, Russia also killed more than 30 innocent people. It is not for sure if it was one of the Middle Eastern terrorist groups, but it was a terrorist act nonetheless. Schoen, John W. “How Much Is the War in Iraq Costing Us? ” Msnbc. com. Web. 15 Feb. 2011. <http://www. msnbc. msn. com/id/15377059/ns/business-answer_desk/>.

Free Essays

The Anthropology of Terrorism

Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, “terrorism” has been a word that every American has used daily. It has been eleven years since these attacks, and our country is still at war, and we use terms like “acts of terror” to justify our invasion of their civilian space. Personally, I do not care much for conspiracy theories, but I was interested to know a little bit more about the Islamic culture that these “terrorists” stem from. While the majority of the population of Iraq and Afghanistan are practicing Muslims, they can not all be defined as “terrorists. In all actuality, a lot of them may define Americans and other westernized countries with seemingly unlimited war powers as “terrorist” groups. There are many differences from the American view of acts of terror, the Iraqi view of acts of terror, and the view of how those who commit crimes of terror see their own actions. I think it very important that American civilians, especially those who are not well educated on our foreign policies and the current war situation, take time to see how Iraqi civilians and the Muslim population view the September 11 acts of terror, and the subsequent war compared to those who chose to commit these acts.

I think that most would be surprised when they find that the Islamic religion does not actually promote those extensive “acts of terror” that they do not support the extremist groups like Al Quaeda, and that our presence in their civilian areas, like market places may not be necessary or productive for their day-to-day routines. In order for many people to understand these differing viewpoints on terrorism, I think it is important to focus on how different people may define an act of terror.

In December of 1994, the Unite Nations General Assembly Resolution 49/60, “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism,” describes terrorism as: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. Later, in 2004 at UN Security Council Resolution 1566 a definition is given, stating acts of terror are: Criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

The United Nations adds to the definition again in 2005 at a panel, stating the definition of 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. (“Various Definitions of Terrorism”) The United Nations has no official definition of terrorism, because some would argue that there is no real distinction between a “terrorist” and a “freedom fighter. Therefore, the United Nation’s descriptions of the term are vague and always include that terrorism is “intimidating” or that it “provokes terror” on a group of people. The first description listed comments on the justification of these acts, which most others do not. Now, I would like to point out the differences in he definitions that are released by the Arabic Community and the united States. In 1998, the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism was implemented by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice in Cairo, Egypt.

They defined terrorism at this convention as: Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize national resources. “Various Definitions of Terrorism”) The United States has many different definitions of terrorism in almost every government organization’s code. In Federal Criminal Code Title 18 of the United States defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism.

In Section 2331 of Chapter 113(B), defines terrorism as: …activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…” FBI definition of terrorism:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. The definition of terrorism used in the United States Army Field Manual FM 3-0, form 2001 is: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies … [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals.

The Dictionary of Military Terms used by the Department of Defense defines terrorism as: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. (“Various Definitions of Terrorism”) I think the difference in the way our governments define a term that the United Nations finds so debatable shows a huge cultural difference in where the priorities for our countries lie.

Obviously, since the September 11 attacks, the United States has spent an extensive amount of time coming up with more and more to add to the definition of terrorism and have worked to almost make ourselves seem like more of the victim. Our Federal Code includes mass destruction and assassination, but states that it primarily occurs within the United Stated jurisdiction. This is open to interpretation, as is all code, but it basically means that we are always the victim of acts of terror and can hardly ever be accused of committing the crime.

However, in the FBI definition, it says that terrorism is using violence and force to coerce a government and its civilians of political and social objectives. Are we not using force and asserting ourselves on the Iraqi government, and every other government that we have been at war with? Has it not all been for a political gain? Then the military definitions add that actions can only be defined in that way if they are being committed for political, religious, or ideological reasons. However, I think that most Americans, if asked would only include religion in the definition.

We have been trained to think that way, to only see terrorism as acts of Jihad, extremist Muslims. Americans, since I can remember have always been extremely proud. We are all truly blessed to come from a country that has a strong military backbone, free, accessible education, a comparably thriving economy, and the opportunity for social mobility. That being said, the majority of Americans are very ignorant and one-sided on a lot of political issues. Most are content with obtaining the easily accessible information from the news or internet and word of mouth.

Most do not take the time to educate themselves on social issues that they comment on daily. This is why people are so opposed to those who practice Islam using their first amendment right to freedom of religion, especially in the south where most are extremely prejudiced. The news and the coverage of the September 11 attacks and the war are to blame for this phenomenon of fearing those who are different. In Packaging Terrorism: Co-opting the News for Politics and Profit, Susan Miller criticizes the way the media chooses which stories to run. “Threats, danger, fear.

These words grab the attention of the readers and that’s what the media want. Your attention. Be afraid. Be very afraid. ” She shows that there are many more options of global stories that our local news stations could run, but those that involve Americans or anything involving conflict in the Middle East, or even stories of al-Qaeda action in other countries, will get higher ratings as “Big Stories” over stories like the huge crisis of bombings in Mumbai in 2006, which is a place and event that Americans, in general, have no solid connection to.

However, our society is also very vain, and there are even international events that are very important to us and the action in the Middle East that constantly get trumped by “larger” domestic stories. A 2006 suicide bombing of the Golden Mosque, which was close to triggering an Iraqi civil war was overshadowed by the Winter Olympics that year. A 2005 bombing was completely overshadowed by the kidnapping of Natalee Holloway in Aruba. The American people are more likely to be interested in our domestic actions than the stories of foreign events, especially when these events seem to run together and are so similar every time they are covered.

One thing that is extremely controversial in covering those true acts of terror is the fact that most terrorists really want the attention on them. If someone is taken hostage and taped, or there is a huge event, like the 9/11 attacks, those who commit these actions are doing so for the attention, and for the media to show these events to the public, some can argue that those who share the news are just giving them what they most desire: to have all eyes on them.

There is also an opinion, however, that if this footage is shown, it will show Americans the true brutality of the people who our military is fighting against, and that it will show that there truly is a threat, encouraging Americans to further support our military and create a unifying experience that promotes patriotism. This was shown in the case of the kidnapping of reporter, Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002 by al-Qaeda operative Khalid Shiekh Mohammad. The video of his execution was made available to news networks, and a portion of Pearl speaking was shown on CBS.

The full video shows his throat being slit and his severed head held up with a voiceover speaking out against the “enemies of Islam. ” After much debate of whether or not the video should be seen by the public, whether it would violate the rights of Pearl’s grieving family, and whether the American people should be allowed to be exposed to witnessing a person’s murder, Peter Kadizis and Stephen Mindich of the Boston Phoenix posted a link to the video with a note above stating, “This is the single most gruesome, horrible, despicable, and horrifying thing I’ve ever seen. . That our government and others throughout the world, who have had this tape for some time have remained silent is nothing less than an act of shame”( Moeller). While our media is the largest source of information for Americans and is the largest reason that Americans have an instilled fear of anyone of the Islamic religion, the USA Patriot Act passed in 2001 as a response to the terrorist attacks is one of the triggers that set off this fear, and is a constant reminder of the attack.

This Act was instated based on the theory that if there is a threat to national security, the public is more willing to allow for harsher policies and increased restrictions of civil liberties. The Act includes reduced restrictions in law enforcement agencies’ gathering of intelligence within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.

Even though support for the Patriot Act has decreased, though not dramatically (from 60% classifying it as “necessary” in 2001, to a 39% in 2006), President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of the act to include, searches of business records that would assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism, and surveillance of “lone wolves,” individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups. (Borgeson, Valeri). This, eleven years later is an act that is still perfectly in tact, and is still restricting our rights.

It isn’t the most invasive law, but it does hang over the heads of those who do business internationally and those who immigrated form other countries, because they are constantly under the threat of being watched and studied by the government. Since Americans have media coverage and restrictions that help to shape the idea of terrorism and the way we perceive terrorism and acts of violence, it is only logical to realize that the Iraqi people, have their own way of defining Terrorism in their country.

It is important to realize, when analyzing their views, that the United States have been seen as a threatening force to them for the past eleven years by imposing on their land and declaring warfare on their former leader and having our military staying within their civilian quarters. Though Iraq has been liberated for the past five years, American troops were just recently sent home, and they are suffering from terrorist attacks against them from other outside forces as well.

Most of those who practice the Islamic religion believe that warfare should only be used to suppress rebellion or to defend against imposing armies. They do not believe in starting wars, because the punishment is not in their hands, violence should only be used for protection. Yousuf Baadarani, a popular writer defending the Islamic culture, states in an interview with Asia Times states, “Since Islam forbids terrorism, than no terrorist could be labeled Islamic. He would have had to abandon the Islamic path to become a terrorist” (Abedin).

Jihad is only supposed to be used to protect the Islamic religion against those who attack it, not to create terror in those who do not practice Islam. This counters a popular theory Americans have that all Muslims are destined to commit acts of terror and that they are instilling values that promote suicide bombings and murder of those who do not practice Islam. Al-Qaeda was born out of Osama Bin Laden’s leftover defense force he gathered together for the Saudi Kingdom, but it was rejected after they allowed US troops to use Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Al-Qaeda means “the basis” or “the base. ” It is extremely difficult to find out the members of this organization and to figure out who is behind certain attacks. The chain of command is extremely difficult to follow. It has one goal: “to hit the West wherever and whenever it can, in order to further polarize the Muslim and Western worlds and effect an eventual victory of the Islamists, who claim leadership over the Muslim world”(Reuter).

This terrorist group- and there is no debate from anyone as to whether or not they are a terrorist group- has committed too many suicide bombings and killings of innocent westerners to name. They are the group behind the infamous September 11 attacks, and are the ones who created all of the fear of terrorism in the United States. This group of people is founded on a basic principle: hate for all Westerners, and the desire to completely sever ties between those who practice Islam and Westerners.

This is not a group based on jihad; the exception to the Islamic law against violence, which should only be allowed when defending the Islamic religion. It is simply a hate group against Westerners that wears a mask of religion. In conclusion, there is a lot that is not perceived correctly when it comes to the idea of terrorism. Every citizen of Iraq is not a terrorist, and neither is every member of the Muslim community. A select few extremists have ruined the reputation of a religion in the United States, with the help of the media and politics.

I hope that every American citizen at some point realizes the difference between the terrorist attacks of September 11, and the Iraqi family that walks down the street. It is important to me and our country that people see that most Muslims do not support al-Qaeda and that the group of extremists is not practicing their religion properly. I hope that people will start to realize the importance of getting information from other sources than the popular media and that some will start to look up more information on important domestic and international events.

Most of all, I hope that I have been able to properly compare viewpoints on terrorism in different parts of the world accurately. Bibliography Abedin, Mahan. “Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs. ” Asia Times Online :: Asian news hub providing the latest news and analysis from Asia. N. p. , 29 Dec. 2009. Web. 5 Dec. 2012. Arena, Michael P. , and Bruce A. Arrigo. The terrorist identity: explaining the terrorist threat. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Print. Baudrillard, Jean. The spirit of terrorism and requiem for the Twin Towers.

London: Verso, 2002. Print. Borgeson, Kevin , and Robin Valeri. Terrorism In America. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2009. Print. Moeller, Susan D.. Packaging terrorism: co-opting the news for politics and profit. Chichester, U. K. : Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print. Reuter, Christoph. My life is a weapon: a modern history of suicide bombing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Print. Various Definitions of Terrorism. ” Department of Emergency & Military Affairs (DEMA). DEMA, n. d. Web. 5 Dec. 2012.

Free Essays

Terrorism Case Study

Caless (2012) defines terrorism as ” the threat or use of violence to further a political agenda for change by inducing widespread fear”. However, experts have been debating over a clear definition for terrorism for over 100 years. Although the word was first used over 200 years ago when discussing the Reign of Terror (Whitaker, 2001). Consequently, there have been over 100 definitions offered for terrorism (Laqueur, 1977, cited in Martin, 2013). Alex Schmid’s (2004) research also illustrates the lack of clarity surrounding the definition.

And most experts believe that an impartial and universal recognised definition will never be agreed upon (Ganor, 2002). With the lack of clarity surrounding the definition, a further question arises; who is classed as a terrorist? This is reflected in the well known phrase “one man’s freedom fighter, is another man’s terrorist. ” (Gerald Seymour, 1975, cited in Ganor, 2002). Overall, it is agreed, that this depends on the subjective viewpoint of the individual (Ganor, 2002; Jackson, 2008; Corte, 2007).

The Just War doctrine is an “ideal and moralistic philosophy” (Martin, 2013). It asks questions such as “what types of force are morally acceptable? ” and “who can morally be defined as an enemy? ” This notion is usually used by ideological and religious extremists, in order to justify their own acts of extreme violence. A prime example of religious extremists is the ‘jihadi Islamic fundamentalists’, the term jihad means a sacred “struggle” but is manifested by some radical Muslim clerics as a holy war and therefore perceived that their war is a “just war” (Martin, 2013).

This paper will endeavour to answer the question; Did University College London (UCL) further radicalise Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? There have been many debates, theories and investigations surrounding this question, many of which will be analysed throughout. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (born 22 December 1986) is a Nigerian Islamist who attempted to detonate plastic explosives in his underwear whilst travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit, on Christmas Day 2009, on the Northwest Airlines Flight 253. In January 2005 Abdulmutallab joined an Islamic forum under the pseudonym “Farouk1986” (Now Public, 2009).

He frequently contributed to the forum. His postings normally gave advice to other forum members, although on occasion he expressed more personal views. These included his “jihad fantasies”, describing how “Muslims will win and rule the world” and prays to Allah to “unite us all Muslims and give us victory over those who do not believe”. The majority of his postings illustrate his loneliness and his struggle to contain his “sexual drive”, and he goes on to urge fellow forum users to limit their activities to “Islamically good” and to only “hang around with good Muslims who enjoy studying”.

Throughout his postings in the forum he maintains that he is memorising the Quran (Islamic Forum, 2005). These postings illustrate that Abdulmutallab’s views on the Islamic religion, are very similar to Salafism or Olivier Roy’s neo-fundamentalism (see: Social Science Research Council). This is shown with his fixation on personal faith, and is also portrayed when he praises Shaykhs Saud as-Shuraim and Abdul Rahman as Sudais (Islamic Forum, 2005). Another radical Muslim he mentions is Abdullah el-Faisal, who is currently in prison in the UK for influencing his supporters to murder Jews, Hindus and Americans (Forest, 2012).

Some of the media (Gardham, 2009) focused on Abdulmutallab’s love for football and this is clearly seen within his postings online. However, by November 15th 2005, he had turned against it stating “Let’s save our honor and religion and try to stay away from football and do sporting activities that are more Islamically beneficial… running, paintball, archery (or any other sport of the like that teaches [how to] target and aim). ” (Islamic Forum, 2005). There are many different theories as to where Abdulmutallab was further radicalised, the one that will be discussed in this paper is the possibility hat University College London (UCL) and it’s Islamic Society were the perpetrators. During the investigation of the attempted attack of Flight 253, the University College of London (UCL) had held their own investigation of their Islamic Society and although the evidence holds strongly against them, as will be seen throughout this paper, they came to their own conclusion that  there was “no evidence to suggest either that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was radicalised while a student at UCL, or that conditions at UCL during that time or subsequently were conducive to the radicalisation of students. (UCL, 2010). Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab began university, in September 2005, during a peak of Islamist activity in the UK, there were events organised by Ikhwan (Ikhwan Web, 2005) and Jamaat-e-Islami inspired groups that were being held weekly and their influence over British Islam was steadily increasing (Hitchens, 2010). This year is an important one, as the emergence of the first Islamic militant groups in Bangladesh (Kabir, 2005) were seen and Islam became the official religion of Iraq (Islamopedia Online).

British Islamists were exploiting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and implicating the Western governments with the “war on Islam and Muslims,” (Hitchens, 2010). According to Islamist’s, Western Muslims, had a duty to stand up for their religion and fight back using peaceful methods (O’Connor, 2012). The “Stop Police Terror” lecture was given by Awlaki at the East London Mosque in 2003 (YouTube, 2011). The listed supporters of this group could be found on the Stop Political Terror website, and interestingly UCL was among this list (Stop Political Terror, 2003-2005).

The aims of this campaign was to urge Muslims to fight against the “anti-terrorist police” and to alert them of “the deteriorating situation in the UK and the scale of arrests, raids and abuse meted out [against Muslims] by Anti-Terrorist Police. ” The campaign statement also included a clear warning: “Britain’s Muslims, as a community, will refuse to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities if this abuse continues. ” (Stop Political Terror, 2003-2005). During this time, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) ran another campaign alongside “Stop Political Terror. , issuing further explicit statements -“previously, it was Muslims themselves under attack, now the agenda [is] to attack Islam, its principles … New laws making it an offence … aim to divide and weaken the Muslim community. ” And “The relative concept of ‘extremism’ is being used to condemn Muslims from very diverse political viewpoints. ” (Hitchens, 2010). The perception of a Western “war on Islam” is one of the key recruitment tools of global jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (Home Office, 2011).

Therefore, it is clear that Abdulmutallab was absorbed in an protesting setting, and this appeared to him to give value and objective, to his already pre-existing neo-fundamentalist attitude and personal discontent (loneliness). It is also apparent from his previous online statements, that he was vulnerable to the indoctrination; “I hope to get over my loneliness when I go to university… where there are usually Islamic groups [and] clubs with good Muslims” (Islamic Forum, 2005).

His obsession with Islam is clearly illustrated with the amount of time he devoted to the group, and after a year of starting university he was already president of UCL’s Islamic Society (Irvine, 2009). Terrorist groups are also known to use the media to their advantage. As terrorism is “not limited to specific locales or regions” and the media has allowed everybody to witness some form of terror. Knowing this terrorist groups can therefore understand the power of the images and manipulate them to their advantage (Martin, 2013).

Gus Martin (2013) explains the media frenzy surrounding terrorism, and describes the 21st century as being “an era of globalized terrorism”. Another key recruitment tool that jihad groups use is the internet (US Department of Defense, 2007). Sites such as Facebook, (Torok, 2011) and the creation of websites that can be regionalised. Although governments monitor the websites and, if necessary shut them down, another website can be made and the process can start again (McNeal, 2008). It is clear that Abdulmutallab was a fan of internet use, with his frequent postings on the Islamic Forum.

Awlaki could also be an key element in the “jihad internet recruitment” process. The media present him as the “Bin Laden of the internet” (Madhani 2010; CNN, 2011). He was a Muslim lecturer and spiritual leader who had been accused of being a senior al-Qaeda “effective global recruiter” (Telegraph, 2012) and motivator. He is thought to have given a series of video link lectures at the East London Mosque (Gilligan, 2010). They however, categorically deny this ever took place, and deny that Abdulmutallab even attended the Mosque (East London Mosque, 2010). The University of Westminster Islamic Society are alleged to have ties with Awlaki.

Another Islamic Forum announced him as a guest at University of Westminster Islamic Society Annual Dinner in 2006 (Ummah Forum, 2006). Along with these connections Awlaki is also suspected to have had “recruited” Abdulmutallab before the attack. According to Fox News, an FBI bulletin states that Awlaki showed Abdulmutallab “how to detonate the bomb” (Catherine Herridge, 2011). Research carried out by the University of Cambridge suggest that “the majority of young British Muslims are opposed to political Islam, and are more likely to join Amnesty International” (Cambridge University, 2008).

This was criticised, when Anthony Glees accused Cambridge of trying to prove that British universities are not “hotbeds of Islamic radicalism” and called the research “flimsy and uncompelling” (Lipsett, 2008). Their research was argued against by the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), who stated that “Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was radicalised at University College London”, and goes on to describe British universities as the “breeding grounds of Islamic extremism”(Centre for Social Cohesion, 2010).

They describe themselves as the “Centre [that] has been at the forefront of the debate on what role Universities should play in ensuring that British students do not fall victim to the ideology of violent Islamism. ” (Centre for Social Cohesion, 2010). They went on to completely contradict Cambridge Universities report, and suggested within the report that Islamic extremism will “flourish”. This statement was further supported when Abdulmutallab became the fifth president of a UK Islamic society to face terrorist charges (Weiss, 2011).

The vulnerability of Abdulmutallab along with the recruitment tools of jihadist groups illustrate how easily individuals can slip beyond this porous boundary rapidly and very often unnoticed. Since the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center, it has become apparent that Al-Qaeda are focusing on mobilising Western Muslims to commit “lone-wolf” terror (RUSI, 2012). This evidence is supported by the ICSR (2011) who describe Awlaki’s role as “ideological rather than operational” and explain that the greatest threat he poses is the mobilisation of Western Muslims through his sermons and therefore expanding the jihadi movement.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s extremist views are apparent very early on. Although, as his loneliness grew, so did his radical views. It appears that he was trying to fight his urges to act upon these views time after time. Abdulmutallab was quite clearly an “extremist” turned “terrorist”, as it is clearly defined by Martin (2013); “extremists” who violently act out their extremist beliefs are “terrorists”. It is clear that his time at UCL and within the Islamic Society unquestionably played a part in Abdulmutallab’s further radicalisation when examining the evidence discussed.

It is also remarkable to see that UCL was among the list of supporters of the Stop Police Terror campaigns, almost condemning themselves of the radicalisation. They contradicted themselves when they released their findings that “no evidence to suggest … that conditions at UCL … [are] conducive to the radicalisation of students. ” (UCL, 2010). It is noted that Cambridge University’s ‘flimsy’ research could support the UCL’s outcome, but then could this research, with their ‘bad press’, also diminish their findings.

Overall, there are many factors that led to the radicalisation of Abdulmutallab, his state of mind, his vulnerability, and the people that he was associated with within the Islamic Society. Therefore, the UCL was not completely at fault, it was also the fundamentalists, that infiltrated the system and took advantage of a vulnerable, young Muslim. References Caless, B (2012) ‘Terrorism and Political Violence: Introduction, Overview and the Problem with Definitions. (Accessed: 5 December 2012). Cambridge University (2008) ‘Campus radicalism fears too extreme? ‘ Available at: http://www. cam. ac. k/research/news/campus-radicalism-fears-too-extreme/ (Accessed: 5 December 2012). CNN Online (2011) ‘ Al-Awlaki: Who was he? ‘, CNN Online, Available at: http://security. blogs. cnn. com/2011/09/30/al-awlaki-who-was-he/ (Accessed: 5 December, 2012). De La Corte, L (2007) ‘Explaining Terrorism: A Psychosocial Approach’ Perspectives on Terrorism, North America, Vol. No. 2 [Online] Available at: <http://www. terrorismanalysts. com/pt/index. php/pot/article/view/8>. (Accessed: 5 Dec. 2012). East London Mosque (2010) ‘ East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre   Statement on Anwar Awlaki’ [Online] Available at: http://www. astlondonmosque. org. uk/uploadedImage/pdf/2010_11_07_15_44_46_Awlaki%20Statement%206%20Nov10%20-%20Full%20Statement. pdf (Accessed: 5 December, 2012) East London Mosque (2010) ‘ Sunday Mirror publish ELM letter’ [Online] Available at: http://www. eastlondonmosque. org. uk/archive/news/243 (Acccessed: 5 December, 2012). Forest, J (2012) ‘Perception Challenges Faced by Al-Qaeda on the Battlefield of Influence Warfare. ‘ Perspectives on Terrorism, North America, Vol. 6, No. 2. [Online] Available at: <http://www. terrorismanalysts. com/pt/index. hp/pot/article/view/forest-perception-challenges>. (Accessed: 05 Dec. 2012). Ganor, B. (2002) ‘Defining Terrorism- Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter? ‘. International Institute for Counter-Terrorism [Online]. Available at: http://www. ict. org. il/ResearchPublications/tabid/64/Articlsid/432/Default. aspx#Defining_Terrorism:_The_Present_Situation (Accessed: 1 December 2012). Gardham, D. (2009) ‘ Detroit bomber: internet forum traces journey from lonely schoolboy to Islamic fundamentalist’, The Telegraph, 30 December 2009 [Online]. Available at: http://www. telegraph. o. uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6910776/Detroit-bo mber-internet-forum-traces-journey-from-lonely-schoolboy-to-Islamic-fundamentalist. html. (Accessed: 5 December 2012). Gilligan, A (2010) “East London Mosque: the terrorist question and the lies”, The Telegraph, 2 November 2010 [Online]. Available at: http://blogs. telegraph. co. uk/news/andrewgilligan/100061920/east-london-mosque-the-terrorist-connection-and-the-lies/ (Accessed: 5 December 2012). Gregory S. McNeal (2008). “Cyber Embargo: Countering the Internet Jihad” , Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 9, pp. 789-826. [Online] Available at: http://works. bepress. com/gregorymcneal/15 (Accessed 1 December 2012) Herridge, C (2011). ‘ Awlaki Trained Suspected Christmas Jet Bomber How to Detonate Underwear, Document Reveals’. Fox News, 4 October 2011 [Online] Available at: http://www. foxnews. com/us/2011/10/04/al-awlaki-trained-suspected-christmas-day-jet-bomber-how-to-detonate-underwear/#ixzz2ECpGaSXS (Accessed:5 December 2012). Hitchens, A (2010) ‘The Making of the Christmas Day Bomber’, Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, Vol. 10 [Online]. Available at: http://currenttrends. rg/research/detail/the-making-of-the-christmas-day-bomber (Accesed: 29 November 2012). Home Office (2011) Contest: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering terrorism. London: The Stationery Office. (Cm. 8123). [Online] Available at: http://www. homeoffice. gov. uk/publications/counter-terrorism/counter-terrorism-strategy/strategy-contest? view=Binary (Accessed: 2 December 2012). ICSR (The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation)(2011) ‘ICSR Insight: How Anwar al-Awlaki Became the Face of Western Jihad’. [Online] Available at: http://icsr. nfo/2011/09/icsr-insight-how-anwar-al-awlaki-became-the-face-of-western-jihad/ (Accessed: 5 December, 2012). Irvine, C (2009) ‘ Detroit terror attack: suspect president of university Islamic society’, The Telegraph, 29 December 2009 [Online]. Available at: http://www. telegraph. co. uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6902785/Detroit-terror-attack-suspect-president-of-university-Islamic-society. html (Accessed: 5 December, 2012) Ikhwan Web (2005) International Religious Freedom Report 2005. Available at: http://www. ikhwanweb. com/article. php? id=13543&ref=search. php