Page |1

Introduction
Terrorism
Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves asvictimized by soome notable hi storical wrong. Although these groupshave no formal connection with governments, they usu ally have thefinancial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically,they stage u nexpected attacks on civilian targets, includingembassies and airliners, with the aim of sowin g fear and confusion. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The writer Heinrich Bll and scholars Raj Desai and Harry Eckstein have suggested that attempts to protect against terrorism may lead to a kind of social oppression. The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of terrorism. The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state). Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations to further their objectives. It has been practiced by right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism of terrorism can leverage human fear to help achieve these goals.

Origin of term
"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terre meaning I frighten. The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse. Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people by a non-

Page |2

government group in such a way as to create a media spectacle. This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist". Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" ( ) in 1869. In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".

Types of terrorism
In early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction of H.H.A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff. The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories. Civil disorder: A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community. Political terrorism: Violent criminal behavior designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes. Non-Political terrorism: Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective. Quasi-terrorism: The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasiterrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction. For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different. Limited political terrorism: Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state. Official or state terrorism: "Referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions. It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.

Page |3

History
The history of terrorism goes back to Sicarii Zealots Jewish extremist group active in Judaea Province at the beginning of the 1st century AD. After Zealotry rebellion in the 1st century AD, when some prominent collaborators with Roman rule were killed, according to contemporary historian Josephus, in 6 AD Judas of Galilee formed a small and more extreme offshoot of the Zealots, the Sicarii. Their terror also was directed against Jewish "collaborators", including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and other wealthy elites. The term "terrorism" itself was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible," said Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund Burke denounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell-hounds called Terrorists...loose on the people" of France. In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in an attempt to assassinate French Emperor Napoleon III. Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured. The incident played a crucial role as an inspiration for the development of the early Russian terrorist groups. Russian Sergey Nechayev, who founded People's Retribution in 1869, described himself as a "terrorist", an early example of the term being employed in its modern meaning. Nechayev's story is told in fictionalized form by Fyodor Dostoevsky in the novel The Possessed. German anarchist writer Johann Most dispensed "advice for terrorists" in the 1880s.

Objectives / Research questions

Literature review & conceptual framework

Research on terrorism and terrorism-related issues has increased dramatically in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. This is not surprising. 9/11witnessed the most destructive terrorist assaults in recorded history, and the attacks led to far bloodier conflicts as part of the subsequent war on terror. Terrorism has become the defining issue of international politics of the first decade of the 21st century. It would be remarkable if such prominence was not matched by a significant increase in research interest in this area. In 1988, Schmid and Jongman noted that 90 percent of the literature on terrorism had been written since 1969. If current trends continue, however, within two or three years we will certainly be able to say that over 90 percent of the entire literature on terrorism will have been written since 9/11. Indeed, we may

Page |4

already have passed that milestone. This is not to say that the literature before was sparse, but rather to emphasize the sheer volume of material now being produced in the area. One of the most notable findings in the previous reviews of the research literature was just how little research was focused on al-Qaeda in the ten years prior to 9/11. Al-Qaeda was an active and growing organization in this period and was responsible for several high profile terrorist attacks including the highly destructive bombings of US embassies in Africa in 1998 and the well publicised attack against the USS Cole in 2000. Yet despite what in hindsight seems quite a significant trajectory, the group attracted almost no research attention. in the twelve years prior to 9/11, al- Qaeda was the subject of only 0.5 percent of research articles. In the core journals this represented only two articles (al-Qaeda was mentioned briefly in other articles but in only two was the organisation a major focus for the research). Terrorism No consensus has been reached on a definition of terrorism despite decades of research being undertaken in the area of studies of terrorism (Drummond, 2002; Schmid & Jongman, 1988). This is partly political, partly ideological, and partly an effect of multiple disciplines contributing to the study of terrorism (Sinai, 2007). Since October 2001 the United Nations has been debating the need to adopt a universal definition of terrorism. By July 2005 the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged world leaders to agree to a universal definition. The proposed wording includes: Terrorism...constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. It adds: "The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance". The main sticking point that arose in previous discussions (1985 & 1996) and since have been linked to resistance; particularly resistance towards foreign occupation as a legitimate cause and therefore should not be considered as acts of terrorism, i.e. one side's terrorist is another side's freedom fighter. Often definitions of terrorism used by governments and security agencies are broadly defined to include all forms of subversion, violence and provide scope to counter and new forms of terrorism or terrorist activity. Thus, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to ones enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint. Hence the decision to callsomeone or label some organisation `terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathises with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism (Hoffman 1998, cited by Newman 2006). Extremeism

Page |5

There are several reasons given for adopting violent methods. Among them are: to create high profile impacts on the public with the goal of undermining public confidence in their own government; to make routine social activity difficult; to inflict as much damage as possible; to seek vengeance; and to create physical pain and paralysing psychological emotions such as panic, chaos, unrest, fear, paranoia, anxiety, anger, grief, and a sense of tragedy (Ardila, 2002; Furnish, 2005; Hudson, 1999; Lawal, 2002; McCauley, 2002; Reid, 2002; Thackrah, 2004). This brings us to the difference between violent extremism and terrorism. The purpose of violent extremism is to provoke the target into a disproportionate response, radicalise moderates and build support for its objectives in the long term, while the purpose of terrorism is to endogenise the capabilities of both the terrorists and the target (Lake, 2002:26). Mroz (2009b) explains the difference between violent extremism and terrorism in the following way. Violent extremism is violence in the absence of reason, or rather, the belief that committing an act of violence will produce benefits that outweigh the cost of human life. Violent extremism is homicide, genocide, fratricide, and, yes, it can also be terrorism. According to Mroz (2009b), whilst terrorism can be countered, violent extremism cannot, as most forms of violent extremism are undertaken as lone wolf attacks (whether as a one off operation or as an operation undertaken by one individual). Thus, an act that cannot be countered by governments and their security services are not terrorist attacks. This reflects the change in traditional conflicts state versus state or state versus non-state actor. Today we are dealing with a paradigm shift where intelligence and law enforcement agencies are dealing with asymmetric and transnational environments. Therefore, due to the difficulty in intercepting communications and strange behavioural patterns of individuals which might indicate a threat little can be done to prevent lone wolf attacks. This is the challenge that intelligence and law enforcement communities have acknowledged that counter terrorism policies cannot necessarily predict or reach (J Mroz, 2009b). As noted earlier the concept violent extremism is often interchanged with terrorism, political violence and extreme violence. The literature covering violent extremism employs the concept in a way that suggests it is self-evident and self-explanatory. Often enough the need to counter violent extremism is noted in the literature but no actual definition of what violent extremism constitutes, is provided. The fact is, the terms violent extremism, political violence, political terrorism and terrorism have been used interchangeably in the Australian and international literature examined. Thus no real distinction between violent extremism and terrorism has fully evolved, in fact, it remains an evolving concept.

Method

Page |6

Questionnaire

Page |7

Results

Page |8

Conclusion