An analytical paper on “Terrorism’’

Ezzat ali abdelsalam safyelden

200057

Under the supervision of:

Dr Safaa Saber

Alexandria
2023
Introduction:
 Terrorism is a tactic employed by individuals, groups, or organizations
to use violence, fear, or intimidation as a means to achieve political,
ideological, or religious objectives. It is typically carried out by non-state
actors, although there have been instances of state-sponsored terrorism as
well.

It’s a complex and multifaceted issue that has plagued societies throughout
history. Its origins can be traced back to ancient times, but the modern
concept of terrorism emerged in the late 18th century during the French
Revolution. The term "terrorism" itself derives from the French word
"terrorisme," which was used to describe the state's use of violence and
intimidation to suppress opposition.
In the 20th century, terrorism evolved significantly, with various ideological,
religious, and political movements adopting it as a means to achieve their
goals. The early 1900s saw the rise of nationalist movements employing
terrorist tactics to challenge colonial rule. The assassination of Archduke
Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914 by a Serbian nationalist is often
considered the catalyst for World War I.
In the latter half of the 20th century, terrorism gained global attention with
the emergence of numerous extremist groups and high-profile attacks. The
1960s and 1970s witnessed a surge in left-wing and nationalist terrorism,
with organizations like the Red Army Faction in Germany and the Irish
Republican Army (IRA) in Ireland carrying out bombings, hijackings, and
assassinations.
The 21st century has been marked by a significant shift in the landscape of
terrorism, largely influenced by the rise of religious extremism and the
global reach of jihadist organizations. The September 11, 2001, attacks in
the United States, orchestrated by the extremist group Al-Qaeda, brought
terrorism to the forefront of international consciousness and led to a
paradigm shift in global security strategies.
In response to the growing threat of terrorism, nations and international
organizations have implemented various measures to counter and prevent
acts of terror. This includes strengthening security and intelligence
capabilities, increasing international cooperation in sharing information and
resources, and enacting legislation to combat terrorist financing and
recruitment.

The fight against terrorism requires a delicate balance between preserving

security and safeguarding individual liberties, while also addressing the
underlying grievances that can fuel extremism. International cooperation
and a comprehensive approach encompassing political, social, and
economic dimensions are crucial in effectively tackling this complex global
issue.

Definition of terrorism

Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and,

because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its
popular usage has developed an intense stigma. It was first coined in the
1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the
revolutionaries against their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien
Robespierre carried out a Reign of Terror involving mass executions by the
guillotine. Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a
state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has
been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly,
at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime.

Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist,
however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the
use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct
victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear
distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare.
Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological
warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of
arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other
forms of propaganda, aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g.,
the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism
proper is thus the calculated use of violence to generate fear, and thereby
to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This
has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of
the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”

In order to attract and maintain the publicity necessary to generate

widespread fear, terrorists must engage in increasingly dramatic, violent,
and high-profile attacks. These have included hijackings, hostage takings,
kidnappings, mass shootings, car bombings, and, frequently, suicide
bombings. Although apparently random, the victims and locations of
terrorist attacks often are carefully selected for their shock value. Schools,
shopping centres, bus and train stations, and restaurants and nightclubs
have been targeted both because they attract large crowds and because
they are places with which members of the civilian population are familiar
and in which they feel at ease. The goal of terrorism generally is to destroy
the public’s sense of security in the places most familiar to them. Major
targets sometimes also include buildings or other locations that are
important economic or political symbols, such as embassies or military
installations. The hope of the terrorist is that the sense of terror these acts
engender will induce the population to pressure political leaders toward a
specific political end.
Some definitions treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political
motivations, as simple criminal activity. For example, the U.S. Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines both international and domestic
terrorism as involving “violent, criminal acts.” The element of criminality,
however, is problematic, because it does not distinguish among different
political and legal systems and thus cannot account for cases in which
violent attacks against a government may be legitimate. A frequently
mentioned example is the African National Congress (ANC) of South
Africa, which committed violent actions against that country’s apartheid
government but commanded broad sympathy throughout the world.
Another example is the Resistance movement against the Nazi occupation
of France during World War II.
Historical context of Terrorism: Terrorism Since World War II
By contrast, the preponderance of non-state groups in the terrorism that
emerged in the wake of World War II is less debatable. The immediate
focus for such activity mainly shifted from Europe itself to that continent’s
various colonies. Across the Middle East Asia and Africa, nascent
nationalist movements resisted European attempts to resume colonial
business as usual after the defeat of the Axis powers. That the colonialists
had been so recently expelled from or subjugated in their overseas empires
by the Japanese provided psychological succor to such indigenous
uprisings by dispelling the myth of European invincibility.
Often, these nationalist and anti-colonial groups conducted guerilla warfare,
which differed from terrorism mainly in that it tended towards larger bodies
of ‘irregulars’ operating along more military lines than their terrorist cousins,
and often in the open from a defined geographical area over which they
held sway. Such was the case in China and Indochina, where such forces
conducted insurgencies against the Kuomintang regime and the French
colonial government respectively. Elsewhere, such as with the fight against
French rule in Algeria, these campaigns were fought in both rural and
urban areas and by terrorist and guerilla means.
Still other such struggles like those in Kenya, Malaysia, Cyprus and
Palestine (all involving the British who, along with the French, bore the
brunt of this new wave of terrorism – a corollary of their large pre-war
empires) were fought by groups who can more readily be described as
terrorist. These groups quickly learned to exploit the burgeoning
globalization of the world’s media. As Hoffman puts it: “They were the first
to recognize the publicity value inherent in terrorism and to choreograph
their violence for an audience far beyond the immediate geographical loci
of their respective struggles.Moreover, in some cases (such as in Algeria,
Cyprus, Kenya and Israel) terrorism arguably helped such organizations in
the successful realization of their goals. As such these nationalist and anti-
colonial groups are of note in any wider understanding of terrorism.
Through the 1960s and 1970s, the numbers of those groups that might be
described as terrorist swelled to include not only nationalists, but those
motivated by ethnic and ideological considerations. The former included
groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (and its many
affiliates), the Basque ETA, and the Provisional Irish Republican Army,
while the latter comprised organizations such as the Red Army Faction (in
what was then West Germany) and the Italian Red Brigades. As with the
emergence of modern terrorism almost a century earlier, the United States
was not immune from this latest wave, although there the identity-crisis-
driven motivations of the white middle-class Weathermen starkly contrasted
with the ghetto-bred malcontent of the Black Panther movement.
Like their anti-colonialist predecessors of the immediate post-war era,
many of the terrorist groups of this period readily appreciated and adopted
methods that would allow them to publicize their goals and
accomplishments internationally. Forerunners in this were the Palestinian
groups who pioneered the hijacking of a chief symbol and means of the
new age of globalization – the jet airliner – as a mode of operation and
publicity. One such group, Black September, staged what was (until the
attacks on America of Sept. 11, 2001) perhaps the greatest terrorist
publicity coup then seen, with the seizure and murder of 11 Israeli athletes
at the 1972 Olympic Games. Such incidents resulted in the Palestinian
groups providing the inspiration (and in some cases mentorship and
training) for many of the new generation of terrorists organizations.

Many of these organizations have today declined or ceased to exist

altogether, while others, such as the Palestinian, Northern Irish and
Spanish Basque groups, motivated by more enduring causes, remain
active today – although some now have made moves towards political
rather than terrorist methods. Meanwhile, by the mid-1980s, state-
sponsored terrorism reemerged - the catalyst for the series of attacks
against American and other Western targets in the Middle East. Countries
such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria came to the fore as the principle such
sponsors of terrorism. Falling into a related category were those countries,
such as North Korea, who directly participated in coverts acts of what could
be described as terrorism.
Such state-sponsored terrorism remains a concern of the international
community today (especially its Western constituents), although it has been
somewhat overshadowed in recent times by the reemergence of the
religiously inspired terrorist. The latest manifestation of this trend began in
1979, when the revolution that transformed Iran into an Islamic republic led
it to use and support terrorism as a means of propagating its ideals beyond
its own border.Before long, the trend had spread beyond Iran to places as
far a field as Japan and the United States, and beyond Islam to ever major
world religion as well as many minor cults. From the Sarin attack on the
Tokyo subway by the Aum Shinrikyo in 1995 to the Oklahoma bombing the
same year, religion was again added to the complex mix of motivations that
led to acts of terrorism. The al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, brought
home to the world, and most particularly the United States, just how
dangerous this latest mutation of terrorism is.

Contemporary Terrorism

Today, terrorism influences events on the international stage to a degree

hitherto unachieved. Largely, this is due to the attacks of September 2001.
Since then, in the United States at least, terrorism has largely been
equated to the threat posed by al Qaeda - a threat inflamed not only by the
spectacular and deadly nature of the Sept. 11 attacks themselves, but by
the fear that future strikes might be even more deadly and employ weapons
of mass destruction.
Whatever global threat may be posed by al Qaeda and its franchisees, the
U.S. view of terrorism nonetheless remains, to a degree, largely ego-centric
– despite the current administration’s rhetoric concerning a so-called
“Global War Against Terrorism.” This is far from unique. Despite the
implications that al Qaeda actually intends to wage a global insurgency, the
citizens of countries such as Colombia or Northern Ireland (to name but two
of those long faced with terrorism) are likely more preoccupied with when
and where the next FARC or Real Irish Republican Army attack will occur
rather than where the next al Qaeda strike will fall.
As such considerations indicate, terrorism goes beyond al Qaeda, which it
not only predates but will also outlive. Given this, if terrorism is to be
countered most effectively, any understanding of it must go beyond the
threat currently posed by that particular organization. Without such a broad-
based approach, not only be will terrorism be unsolvable but it also risks
becoming unmanageable.

Types of terrorism

According to the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice

Standards and Goals, there are six distinct types of terrorism. All of
them share the common traits of being violent acts that destroy property,
invoke fear and attempt to harm the lives of civilians.

1.Civil disorder : is a sometimes violent form of protest held by a group

of individuals, usually in opposition to a political policy or action. They are
intended to send a message to a political group that “the people” are
unhappy and demand change. The protests are intended to be non-violent,
but they do sometimes result in large riots in which private property is
destroyed and civilians are injured or killed.

2. Political terrorism : is used by one political faction to intimidate

another. Although government leaders are the ones who are intended to
receive the ultimate message, it is the citizens who are targeted with violent
attacks.
3. Non political terrorism :is a terrorist act perpetrated by a group for
any other purpose, most often of a religious nature. The desired goal is
something other than a political objective, but the tactics involved are the
same.
4. Quasi terrorism : is a violent act that utilizes the same methods
terrorists employ, but does not have the same motivating factors. Cases
like this usually involve an armed criminal who is trying to escape from law
enforcement utilizing civilians as hostages to help them escape. The law
breaker is acting in a similar manner to a terrorist, but terrorism is not the
goal.
5. Limited political terrorism :acts are generally one time only plots
to make a political or ideological statement. The goal is not to overthrow the
government, but to protest a governmental policy or action.
6.State terrorism : defines any violent action initiated by an existing
government to achieve a particular goal. Most often this goal involves a
conflict with another country.

Every type of terrorism utilizes distinct methods of violence to get their

message across. They can be anything from assault weapons or explosive
devices to toxic chemicals that are released into the air. These attacks may
occur at any time or place, which makes them an extremely effective
method of instilling terror and uncertainty into the general public

The Roots of Terrorism: Applications of Social Psychology

References to terrorism are rare or practically nonexistent in the social psychol-
ogy literature and a social psychological explanation of terrorism has yet to be
developed. As a preliminary step, this chapter examines social psycholocigal
theories and propositions as resources from which such an explanation might draw.

Attempts to explain terrorism in social psychological or any other terms can be

hindered by the heterogeneity of the phenomenon. Terrorist groups range in size
from a handful of active members to thousands. Their national composi- tion is
highly varied. According to one source, terrorist incidents in 1982 were perpetrated
by members of no less than 75 different nations (US Department of State, 1983).
Terrorists' stated motivations are diverse: nationalist, separatist, ideological. The
ideological spectrum contains neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism, on the one hand, and
Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, and anarchism, on the other hand. Some terrorist
groups are religious (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Shi'ite Moslem, and Sunnite
Moslem) while others have a racial motivation. To further complicate matters,
many terrorist groups adhere to a composite social/ political ideology, with most
present-day separatist groups having a leftist ori- entation. And there are some
groups that are known to have replaced their original ideology with a radically
different one (e.g., the Colombian M-19, which turned from right-wing populism
to Marxism).

Despite the heterogeneity of terrorist groups and the diversity of their moti-
vations, some generalizations are possible. First, terrorism is essentially a group
phenomenon. Although the history of terrorism contains examples of loners who
committed terrorist acts, most terrorist action is perpetrated by organized groups.
Moreover, group processes are also evident in the targeting of terrorist activity.
Schmid (1983) stressed this aspect in his definition of terrorism: "Ter- rorism is a
method of combat in which random or symbolic victims serve as in- strumental
targets of violence. These instrumental victims share group or dass characteristics
which form the basis for their selection for victimization"
Political Terrorism: A Social Psychological Perspective
What Constitutes Terrorism?
The discourse on political terrorism is often clouded by definitional ambiguity and
a lack of consensus as to what terrorism is Much of the ambiguity arguably sterns
from the tendency to use defini- tions of what is "terrorist" to label actors rather
than acts. When defining the former, value judgment is almost inevitable. The
aphorism, "one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter," underscores the difficulty
of dissociating the pejor- ative labeling of persons and groups as "terrorist" from
one's sympathy or op- position to the political ends they pursue.

The difficulty may be alleviated by drawing a distinction between the actors and
the act. Criteria whereby a violent act may be labeled "terrorist" can be found,
quite easily, by searching for commonalities among various definitions ofterrorism.
For example, Brian Jenkins maintained that "the threat of violence, individual acts
of violence, or a campaign of violence designed pri- marily to instill fear - to
terrorize - may be called terrorism .... Terrorism is aimed at the people watching.
Fear is the intended effect, not the by product of terrorism." Freedman suggested:
"Violence may result in death, in-

jury or destruction of property, or deprivation of liberty. It becomes terror when the

significant aim is not to attain these ends but, through these, to terror- ize people
other than those directly assaulted."

These definitions suggest, first, that terrorism is not the mere use of violence for
political ends but rather its use as an instrument of intimidation; second, that
terrorist acts are almost invariably aimed at affecting others than the direct victims.
Thus, the bombing of a railway station in Bologna, Italy, or of a crowd celebrating
the Munich Oktoberfest were typical terrorist acts. The killing of 83 in the first
incident and of 13 in the second served no immediate purpose other than the
sowing of fear among those who were not physically hurt by the ex- plosions.

The minimal set of two criteria makes possible the distinction between ter- rorism
and other forms of politically motivated violence. For example, the clashing of
armies in war cannot be construed as terrorism, as each army pri- marily seeks to
physically incapacitate the enemy. Fear, to the extent that it is aroused, is a by-
product. By this argument, not all acts perpetrated by groups that are commonly
referred to as "terrorist" are necessarily terrorist acts. Such a group may, for
instance, rob a bank in order to gain needed funds rather than in order to
intimidate. Lastly, consider the actions of oppressive regimes. Tor- ture is the main
method they employ (cf. De Swaan, 1977). Yet torture per se, abhorrent as it is,
does not necessarily constitute terrorism. For example, tor- ture is not a terrorist act
when used to extract vital information from a prisoner. It turns into terrorism when
employed to frighten into submission the popula- tion at large. Terrorist acts, then,
are not the exclusive domain of groups that are customarily designated "terrorist."
Nevertheless, the remainder of this chapter will refer to such groups, or, in other
words, to insurgent terrorism practiced by nonstate groups. This is not to suggest
that regime terrorism is in- significant. The focus on insurgent terrorism is only
due to the availability of more data on this than on other types of terrorism.
Social impacts of Terrorism
Terrorism has a significant social impact, affecting individuals, communities, and
societies as a whole. Here are some of the key social impacts of terrorism:

1. Loss of Life and Injury: The most immediate and devastating impact of
terrorism is the loss of life and physical injuries caused by terrorist attacks. These
attacks can result in the deaths of innocent people, including civilians, children,
and law enforcement personnel. The survivors may also suffer from long-term
physical and psychological trauma.

2. Fear and Anxiety: Terrorism creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety

within society. The threat of future attacks, random targeting, and the constant
media coverage of terrorist incidents can lead to increased stress levels, anxiety
disorders, and a general sense of insecurity among individuals. People may feel
reluctant to engage in routine activities and may alter their behavior to avoid
potential targets.

3. Polarization and Divisiveness: Terrorist acts often lead to

polarization and divisions within society. Different groups may become suspicious
of one another, leading to increased discrimination, stereotyping, and even hate
crimes. This can strain social cohesion and lead to tensions between communities,
ethnic or religious groups, and even between citizens and the government.

4. Disruption of Daily Life: Terrorism disrupts the normal functioning of

society. Attacks can lead to the closure of businesses, schools, and public spaces,
causing economic losses and hindering social activities. Increased security
measures, such as increased surveillance and restrictions on movement, can also
impact individual freedoms and privacy.

5. Trauma and Psychological Impact: Terrorism inflicts severe

psychological trauma on survivors, witnesses, and the wider community. Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety disorders, and other
psychological conditions may develop as a result of experiencing or witnessing a
terrorist attack. These conditions can have long-lasting effects on the mental well-
being of individuals and communities.

6. Stigmatization and Marginalization: Certain communities,

particularly those associated with the perpetrators or sharing a similar background,
may face stigmatization and marginalization in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
This can lead to prejudice, discrimination, and social exclusion, further
exacerbating divisions within society and hindering efforts towards social
integration.

7. Impact on Education and Development: Terrorism can have a

profound impact on education and development. Attacks on schools and
educational institutions disrupt learning and may lead to increased dropout rates.
Furthermore, economic development and foreign investment may be hindered in
areas affected by terrorism, leading to decreased opportunities for employment and
growth.

8. Impact on Social Trust and Solidarity: Terrorism erodes social

trust and solidarity. When individuals feel threatened, they may become more
suspicious of others, leading to a breakdown in interpersonal relationships and a
decline in trust within communities. This can hinder collective action and
cooperation, making it more difficult to address other social issues effectively.

Conclusion:
Some points to conclude the topic of terrorism:

1. Global Efforts: Terrorism is a global issue that requires collective action.

International cooperation, information sharing, and coordinated efforts among
nations are essential to effectively combat terrorism. Collaboration between
governments, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement bodies is crucial in
identifying and disrupting terrorist networks.

2. Prevention through Addressing Root Causes: While security

measures are important, addressing the root causes of terrorism is equally vital.
This includes promoting social and economic development, addressing political
grievances, reducing inequality, and fostering inclusive societies. By addressing
these underlying factors, societies can help prevent the emergence of conditions
that breed terrorism.

3. Long-Term Perspective: Countering terrorism is a long-term endeavor

that requires sustained efforts. It involves not only immediate security responses
but also long-term strategies to build resilient societies that are less susceptible to
radicalization and violence. Investment in education, community engagement, and
promoting dialogue can play a crucial role in preventing and countering terrorism.

4. Importance of Multidimensional Approaches: Countering

terrorism requires a multidimensional approach that encompasses not only security
measures but also diplomatic, economic, social, and educational initiatives. By
employing a comprehensive strategy, societies can tackle the complex web of
factors that contribute to terrorism effectively.

5. Role of Civil Society: Civil society plays a vital role in countering

terrorism. NGOs, community organizations, religious leaders, and grassroots
initiatives can contribute to preventing radicalization, promoting tolerance, and
fostering peacebuilding efforts. The active involvement and participation of
communities are crucial in creating an environment hostile to terrorism.

6. Resilience and Adaptability: Terrorism tactics and strategies evolve

over time, necessitating adaptive responses. Building resilience within societies,
enhancing intelligence capabilities, and investing in research and innovation can
enable more effective responses to emerging threats.

In conclusion, addressing terrorism requires a comprehensive, long-

term, and multidimensional approach that involves international
cooperation, prevention through addressing root causes, sustained
efforts, involvement of civil society, and adaptability to changing
dynamics. By adopting such strategies, societies can work towards
minimizing the threat of terrorism and creating a more secure and
peaceful world.
References:
1. Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, Columbia University
Press: New York, 1988, p 65
2. Walter Laqueur, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the
Arms of Mass Destruction, Oxford University Press: New
York, 1999, p. 29.30
3. Adrian Guelke, The Age of Terrorism and the International
Political System, I. B. Tauris: New York, 1998, p. 148
4. Hoffman, p. 87 The opposing arguments in such an
approach shall be discussed in a forthcoming article in CDI’s
Explaining Terrorism on defining terrorism.
5. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict book
6. https://www.pogo.org/investigations/brief-history-of-terrorism
7. https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/terrorism/types-
of-terrorism/
8. https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism