Home Home  Article Index Article Index  
GuruPedia  
  

Terrorism

  1. Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population.
  2. "Terrorism" is also used as a pejorative characterisation of an enemy's attacks as conforming to an immoral philosophy of violence, in a manner outside of warfare, or prohibited in the laws of war.

The use of the term terrorism or terrorist is politically weighted, because of the universally negative connotation of harming civilians. A nation that supports terrorism may then tend to dissociate itself from the term, by using neutral or even positive terms to characterize its combatants—such as fighters or freedom fighters—both of which can be ambiguous terms for describing terrorist actors.

Terrorist is a label for one who personally is involved in an act of terrorism. Terrorist tactics may also be used by dissident groups or other non-state actors to achieve political ends or for purposes of extortion. The term "terrorism" originated from the French 18th century word terrorisme (under the Terror).

Table of contents
1 Definitions of terrorism
2 Politicization of the term
3 Examples of terrorism
4 History and causes
5 International conventions on terrorism
6 Types of terrorism

6.1 Nationalist terrorism
6.2 Religious terrorism
6.3 Ethnic or racial terrorism
6.4 Left-wing terrorism
6.5 Right-wing terrorism
6.6 Anarchist terrorism
6.7 State terrorism

7 Front organizations
8 Independent actors
9 Counter-terrorism
10 Related topics
11 External links

Definitions of terrorism

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. According to expert Walter Laqueur, "the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence."

This criterion alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism—war, organized crime, revolution, or even a simple riot. Asymmetric warfare and low-intensity operations are military terms for tactics that can include terrorism.

One 1988 study by the US Army [1] discovered that over 100 definitions have been used. Some examples:

  • U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "...the unlawful use of force and 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" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
  • Current U.S. national security strategy: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."
  • United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
  • British Terrorism Act 2000, defines terrorism so as to include not only attacks on military personnel, but also acts not usually considered violent, such as shutting down a website whose views one dislikes.
  • 1984 U.S. Army training manual says: "Terrorism is the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to produce goals that are political or ideological in nature."
  • Brian Jenkins: "Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change."
  • Walter Laqueur: "Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted."
  • 1986 Vice-President's Task Force: "Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics."
  • James M. Poland: "Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience."

The subjective nature of interpretation can be seen if such terminology had been used by Britain in the late 1700s. People that used violence in pursuit of the political goal of independence for the American colonies would have been defined as terrorists.

The following are some further criteria that are sometimes applied, and the acts they exclude from the definition of "terrorism". Note that many incidents often labelled as terrorist fail one or more criteria.

  • Target - It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as targets. Furthermore, an act is more likely to be considered terrorism if it targets a general populace than if it purposefully targets a specific individual or group. See also Noncombatant and Collateral damage.
This criterion excludes: assassination of a head of state or leader of comparable stature (such as that of United States President John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr.), conventional warfare in accordance with the laws of war, attacks on military targets (such as the bombing of the USS Cole), and guerilla warfare and revolution when limited to military targets.
  • Objective - As the name implies, terrorism is understood as an attempt to provoke fear and intimidation. Hence, terrorist acts are designed and intended to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, and/or fear. The intent may be to provoke disproportionate reactions from states.
This criterion excludes: the Holocaust and other cases of genocide, which are undertaken to exterminate, not to intimidate, and which are usually hidden rather than publicized. Also, any violence against targets unlikely to attract public notice and having little effect on the populace at large.
  • Motive - These acts are intended to achieve political or religious goals, not for personal gain. For example, a gang of bank robbers who kill the bank manager, blow up the vault and escape with the contents would normally not be classed as terrorists, because their motive was profit. However, if a gang were to execute the same assault with the intent of causing a crisis in public confidence in the banking system, followed by a run on the banks and a subsequent destabilization of the economy, then the gang would be classed as terrorists.
This criterion excludes: organized crime (the Mafia, etc.)
  • Legitimacy - Some hold that a legitimate government cannot, by definition, commit terrorism on its own territory. In this view, a state can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity, but these actions are distinct from terrorism. See state terrorism.
This criterion excludes: warfare between states, government repression, the Holocaust and other state-sponsored genocide or ethnic cleansing.
  • Dominance - Some, particularly political conservatives, claim that only acts of "revolutionary" violence should be considered terrorist in nature; in this context, only members of a disgruntled group seen (by both themselves and others) as having a subordinate position within the larger society in which they live are capable of "revolutionary" violence, and any similar acts committed on behalf of the dominant or majority segment of the populace are "reactionary" and hence do not qualify as terrorism (when the "have-nots" do it it's "terrorism," but when the "haves" do it they are defending "tradition," "order," etc.)
This criterion excludes: groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and those who commit racial hate crimes or gay-bashing

Politicization of the term

Because there is no single accepted definition of "terrorism," there is a tendency to use the term only when politically convenient. Hence, the term "terrorist" is heavily politicized, especially since the September 11th attacks. The actual definition of terrorism is not as much debated as which parties and which acts of violence are to be labeled "terrorist."

Noam Chomsky, a prominent leftist activist, polemicist, and linguist at MIT, states that "the term 'terrorism' is used, standardly, to refer to the terrorism that they carry out against us, whoever 'we' happen to be. Even the worst mass murderers—the Nazis for example—adopted this practice." [...] "Since the rich and powerful set the terms for discussion, the term 'terrorism' is restricted, in practice, to the terror that affects the US and its clients and allies." [2]

In his polemic 9-11, Chomsky says "[the] wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism." In reference to the violence by the United States, called "counter-terrorism" or the "War on Terrorism," he refers to the fact that state powers use the same methods—torture, bombings, etc—which are also "terrorism".

Chomsky and others argue that "terrorism" is used not to describe a type of behavior, but as a label to demonize a perceived enemy in terms that promote and moral repulsion and outrage. In post-9/11 Western society, the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" are used so frequently as to lose any distinction with other political terms. They may even be used (within contexts) as 'polite' or 'acceptible' racial or political euphemisms for "Arabs" or "Muslims," and any violence associated with them. Accurate or not, the label of 'terrorism' is a powerful political weapon for marginalizing or invalidating various political factions, even extending to non-violent groups, or related groups detached from violent factions. Because it is impossible to define the term "terrorism" in any neutral or objective way, the term "terrorism" is inherently and inescapably political in nature —always defined and used politically. Just as "history is written by the victors," it is the dominant society who dictates to history which particular acts of violence will or will not be labeled as "terrorism."

Examples of terrorism

Most people would agree that the following incidents are examples of domestic and international terrorism: the Oklahoma City bombing in the USA (April 19, 1995); the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland (August 15, 1998); the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, USA; the Munich Massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972; and the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. See List of terrorist incidents for more examples.

The deadliest terrorist attack ever committed was the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The deadliest terrorist attack ever planned was Operation Bojinka; the first phase, which called for the death of Pope John Paul II and the bombing of 11 airliners, had a prospective death toll of about 4,000 if it had succeeded. The plot was aborted after an apartment fire in Manila, Philippines on January 5, 1995, exposed the plot to police. The terrorists were slightly more than two weeks away from implementing their plot.

Since 1968, the U.S. State Department has tallied deaths due to terrorism. In 1985, it counted 816 deaths, the highest up to that time. The deaths decreased over the years, then rose to 3,295 in 2001, most as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2003, however, more than 1,000 people died because of terrorism, the highest toll for any year other than 2001. Many of these deaths occurred from suicide bombings in Chechnya, Iraq, and Israel. By April 2004, the toll from terrorism was set to again surpass 1,000.

Some famous terrorist organizations of the 20th century include:

History and causes

During the French Revolution (1789 - 1799), the most severe period of the rule of the Committee of Public Safety (1793 - 1795) was labelled "The Terror" (1793 - 1794). Some argue that this period is an example of state-sponsored terrorism. Certainly, it induced fear and outrage not only in the domestic population of France, but also throughout the European aristocracy.

Today, modern weapons technology has made it possible for a "super-empowered angry man" (Thomas Friedman) to cause a large amount of destruction by himself or with only a few conspirators. It can be, and has been, conducted by small as well as large organizations.

Some believe that individuals or groups resort to terrorism when other avenues for change, including economics, protest, public appeal, and organized warfare, hold no hope of success (also see rioting). Therefore some argue that one approach to reduce terrorism is to ensure that where there is a population feeling oppressed, some avenue of problem resolution is kept open, even if the population in question is in the minority.

Other causes of terrorism include attempts to gain or consolidate power either by instilling fear in the population to be controlled, or by stimulating another group into becoming a hardened foe, thereby setting up a polarizing us-versus-them paradigm (also see nationalism and fascism).

Terrorists often seek to demoralize and paralyze their enemy with fear. This sometimes works, but it can also stiffen the enemy's resolve.

In general, retribution against terrorists can result in escalating tit-for-tat violence. It is often felt that if the consequences of engaging in terrorism are not swift and punitive, the deterrent to other terrorist groups is diminished.

The existing order within countries or internationally depends on compromises and agreements between various groups and interests that were made to resolve past conflicts. Over time, these arrangements become less relevant to the current situation. Some terrorist acts seem calculated to disrupt the existing order and provoke conflicts in the expectation that it will lead to a new order more favorable to their interests.

Terrorism relies heavily on surprise. Terrorist attacks can trigger sudden transitions into conflict or war. Frequently, after a terrorist attack, a number of unassociated groups may claim responsibility for the action; this may be considered "free publicity" for the organization's aims or plans. Because of its anonymous and sometimes self-sacrificial nature, it is not uncommon for the reasons behind the terrorist action to remain unknown or murky for a considerable period.

International conventions on terrorism

There are eleven major multilateral conventions related to states' responsibilities for combating terrorism.

In addition to these conventions, other instruments may be relevant to particular circumstances, such as bilateral extradition treaties, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Moreover, there are now a number of important United Nations Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions on international terrorism, including UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and three important Security Council resolutions dealing with Libya's conduct in connection with the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988, which includes UN Security Council Resolutions 731 (January 21, 1992); 748 (March 31, 1992) and 883 (November 11, 1993).

The following list identifies the major terrorism conventions and provides a brief summary of some of the major terms of each instrument. In addition to the provisions summarized below, most of these conventions provide that parties must establish criminal jurisdiction over offenders (e.g., the state(s) where the offense takes place, or in some cases the state of nationality of the perpetrator or victim).

  1. Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft (Tokyo Convention, agreed 9/63—safety of aviation):
    • applies to acts affecting in-flight safety;
    • authorizes aircraft commanders to impose reasonable measures, including restraint, on any person they have reason to believe has committed or is about to commit such an act, when necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft and for related reasons; #* requires contracting states to take custody of offenders and to return control of the aircraft to the lawful commander.
  2. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Hague Convention, agreed 12/70—aircraft hijackings):
    • makes it an offense for any person on board an aircraft in flight [to] "unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or any other form of intimidation, [to] seize or exercise control of that aircraft" or to attempt to do so;
    • requires parties to the convention to make hijackings punishable by "severe penalties;"
    • requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution;
    • requires parties to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the convention.
  3. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal Convention, agreed 9/71—applies to acts of aviation sabotage such as bombings aboard aircraft in flight):
    • makes it an offense for any person unlawfully and intentionally to perform an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight, if that act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft; to place an explosive device on an aircraft; and to attempt such acts or be an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform such acts;
    • requires parties to the convention to make offenses punishable by "severe penalties;"
    • requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution;
    • requires parties to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the convention.
  4. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (agreed 12/73—protects senior government officials and diplomats):
    • defines internationally protected person as a Head of State, a Minister for Foreign Affairs, a representative or official of a state or of an international organization who is entitled to special protection from attack under international law;
    • requires each party to criminalize and make punishable "by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature," the intentional murder, kidnapping, or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person, a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodations, or the means of transport of such person; a threat or attempt to commit such an attack; and an act "constituting participation as an accomplice;"
    • requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution;
    • requires parties to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the convention.
  5. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (Nuclear Materials Convention, agreed 10/79—combats unlawful taking and use of nuclear material):
    • criminalizes the unlawful possession, use, transfer, etc., of nuclear material, the theft of nuclear material, and threats to use nuclear material to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial property damage;
    • requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution;
    • requires parties to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the convention.
  6. International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (Hostages Convention, agreed 12/79):
    • provides that "any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offense of taking of hostages within the meaning of this Convention;"
    • requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution;
    • requires parties to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the convention.
  7. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation (agreed 2/88—extends and supplements Montreal Convention):
    • extends the provisions of the Montreal Convention (see No. 3 above) to encompass terrorist acts at airports serving international civil aviation.
  8. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, (agreed 3/88—applies to terrorist activities on ships):
    • establishes a legal regime applicable to acts against international maritime navigation that is similar to the regimes established against international aviation;
    • makes it an offense for a person unlawfully and intentionally to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, threat, or intimidation; to perform an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship; to place a destructive device or substance aboard a ship; and other acts against the safety of ships;
    • requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution;
    • requires parties to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the convention.
    • Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (agreed 3/88—applies to terrorist activities on fixed offshore platforms):
    • establishes a legal regime applicable to acts against fixed platforms on the continental shelf that is similar to the regimes established against international aviation;
    • requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution;
    • requires parties to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the protocol.
  9. Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification (agreed 3/91—provides for chemical marking to facilitate detection of plastic explosives, e.g., to combat aircraft sabotage). Consists of two parts: the Convention itself, and a Technical Annex which is an integral part of the Convention.
    • designed to control and limit the used of unmarked and undetectable plastic explosives (negotiated in the aftermath of the Pan Am 103 bombing);
    • parties are obligated in their respective territories to ensure effective control over "unmarked" plastic explosive, i.e., those that do not contain one of the detection agents described in the Technical Annex;
    • generally speaking, each party must, among other things: take necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent the manufacture of unmarked plastic explosives; take necessary and effective measures to prevent the movement of unmarked plastic explosives into or out of its territory; take necessary measures to exercise strict and effective control over possession and transfer of unmarked explosives made or imported prior to the entry-into-force of the convention; take necessary measures to ensure that all stocks of such unmarked explosives not held by the military or police are destroyed or consumed, marked, or rendered permanently ineffective within three years; take necessary measures to ensure that unmarked plastic explosives held by the military or police, are destroyed or consumed, marked, or rendered permanently ineffective within fifteen years; and, take necessary measures to ensure the destruction, as soon as possible, of any unmarked explosives manufactured after the date-of-entry into force of the convention for that state.
    • does not itself create new offenses that would be subject to a prosecution or extradition regime, although all states are required to ensure that provisions are complied within their territories.
  10. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing (agreed 12/97—expands the legal framework for international cooperation in the investigation, prosecution, and extradition of persons who engage in terrorist bombings):
    • creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place;
    • like earlier conventions on protected persons and hostage taking, requires parties to criminalize, under their domestic laws, certain types of criminal offenses, and also requires parties to extradite or submit for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the commission of such offenses.

During the negotiations on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, many states supported adding terrorism to the list of crimes over which the court would have jurisdiction. This proposal was not adopted. However, the Statute provides for a review conference to be held seven years after the entry into force of the Statute. This review will consider (among other things) an extension of the court's jurisdiction to include terrorism.

Terrorists are generally not protected under the laws of war, although they are protected by the laws of the state in which they operate. For example, under the Third Geneva Convention, a person is eligible for prisoner of war status only if they "carry arms openly" and "respect the laws and customs of war". It also requires that members of militias and other irregular groups have "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." See unlawful combatant for further discussion.

However the 1979 Optional Additional Protocol 1 (Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) applies in "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination"(Article 1:3) and furthermore the following clause appears to give guerrilla fighters in such conflicts lawful combatant and POW status, even if not wearing uniform, as long as they carry weapons openly during attacks:

"In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate."(Article 44:3)

Optional Additional Protocol 2 (Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts) may also apply in many "insurgencies", "terrorist campaigns" or "civil wars". However this convention does not give non-government militants lawful combatant status or POW status, although Article 6(5) does recommend "broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict" after the end of hostilities. It does specify minimum standards for those detained or interned ("persons whose liberty has been restricted"). The covention prohibits war crimes, "acts of terrorism" and extra-judicial execution and sets standards for fair trials--although it does not prohibit internment.

Types of terrorism

Six broad categories of terrorist organizations can be identified, though the distinctions between them are not always precise. In addition to this classification, terrorism can also be classified by its range of operations into domestic terrorism and international terrorism.

Of course, some terrorist organisations fit into more than one classification, as can be seen in the examples listed below.

Nationalist terrorism

Main article: Nationalist terrorism

Nationalist terrorists seek to form a separate state for their own group, and try to draw attention to their fight for "national liberation".

Examples of Nationalist Terrorist Groups:

Some Nationalist groups' roles overlap significantly with Left-wing terrorism, such as:

Religious terrorism

Main article: Religious terrorism

Religious terrorists use violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purposes. (See also Religious intolerance).

Examples of Religious Terrorist Groups:

Ethnic or racial terrorism

These frequently attack foreign-born immigrants and may qualify as either or both racist or ethnist, xenophobic. Notable examples include Neo-Nazi groups, but most who engage in violence for ethnic or racial causes qualify.

Left-wing terrorism

Main article: Left-wing terrorism

Left-wing terrorists wish to undermine or destroy capitalism and replace it with a communist or socialist government.

Examples of left-wing terrorist groups:

Right-wing terrorism

Main article: Right-wing terrorism

Right-wing terrorists often seek to defend regimes currently in place. They are often called paramilitaries, and the Contras are an example.

During the 1980s, right-wing Latin American terrorist groups, known as death squads, often consisted of members of the armed forces who acted in an unofficial capacity to terrorize dissidents, generally with the implicit support or protection of high ranking officials. Many death squads were said to be supported by US President Reagan and the CIA. As private groups with overlapping memberships with the military, they were able to carry out a terror campaign on the government's behalf while giving the government a form of plausible deniability. The most famous victims of this campaign of death-squad terrorism in El Salvador were four American nuns in 1980, and Archbishop Oscar Romero also during that year. In a civil trial ending in July of 2002, a jury in Miami, Florida convicted two former Salvadoran defence officials of the torture of three Salvadoran dissidents, and ordered them to pay $54.6 million to the plaintiffs.

Other examples of Right-wing terrorism border on Religious terrorism, such as the shootings of abortion doctors, bombings of abortion clinics, and the Centennial Olympic Park bombing by Eric Rudolph

Anarchist terrorism

Main article: Anarchism and violence

The heyday of Anarchist terrorism was from the 1870s to the 1920s. Several heads of state were assassinated, including King Umberto I of Italy (July 29, 1900) and President of the United States William McKinley (September 14, 1901). The justification of Anarchist terrorism was that such acts would make anarchist ideas famous. This policy was known as "propaganda by the deed." However, there were also many terrorists and criminals who called themselves "anarchists" but had little in common with philosophical anarchists and often rejected any association with these individuals.

Today, some Anarchists are found participating with the more violent elements of demonstrations, such as the anti-globalism protests in the 1990s and 2000s. There are significant sections of the Anarchist movement that do not support terrorism or violence, including many organizations and individuals that advocate pacifism.

State terrorism

Main article: State terrorism

State terrorism is a term referring to acts which fit some definition of terrorism but are committed by an official state military or are sponsored by a sovereign government.

According to Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón, "State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance. State terrorism obstructs or annuls judicial activity and transforms the government into an active agent in the struggle for power."

A more narrow definition of state terrorism comes from the United States Department of State. It defines state-sponsors of terrorist activity to be those states which provide logistical and financial support for broadly-recognized terrorist groups. Using this definition, the U.S. State Department's 2002 Patterns of Global Terrorism report [3] identified two states, Syria and Iran as state-sponsors of terrorist activity. The report cites the following:

  • Syria
    • gives "limited financial support" to the DFLP;
    • gives "diplomatic, political, and logistic support" to Hizbullah;
    • gives "limited logistic support assistance" to Palestinian Islamic Jihad;
    • gives "safehaven and some logistic assistance" to the PFLP; and
    • gives "logistic and military support" to PFLP-GC.
  • Iran


States widely considered to be 'terrorist' include:

There are those, particularly in left-wing political circles, who have considered United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States to be terrorist states. They cite many examples of government-sponsored terrorist-like military and/or covert actions to support their claim.

Front organizations

Terrorist organizations sometimes create front organizations, sometimes legitimate, to conceal activities or provide logistical or financial support to the illegal activities. "Import-export" companies are favorite front organizations for terrorist groups.

Independent actors

Acts of terrorism are often outside of a command structure, and unaccountable to their claimed collective cause, making disconnected, hostile actors a virtual political island—separate from the common consensus. This was true in the case of Vietnam, where the US government undertook a large terrorist operation to exacerbate the pre-existing civil conflict in Vietnam, unbeknownst to the larger American public (the cause which the public was led to support was "anti-communism"). Also the Omagh bombing in Ireland, where the "Real IRA"—a splinter group from the more conciliatory IRA, killed 29 people in a bombing attack against Ulster Loyalist families—a completely radical action, according to the mainstream Republican view.

In the Palestinian territories, a similar (but more complex) situation exists where several distinct factions, under constant pressure by retaliatory actions from Israel, tend to be extremely divided about any immediate course of action—such that they can rarely or never act in a collective or controlled manner. Under stress, the choice between action and inaction tends to default to one between violence and protest. Violence, being far more decisive than moderation and discussion, tends to win out over discussion.

Counter-terrorism

See main article Counter-terrorism

Counter-terrorism is the organization of means and methods for the purpose of interdicting and preventing terrorist attacks.

Related topics

External links

Directories

News

Information

Essays

Video
Popular Topics
Business
Gardening
Cooking
Medicine
Travel and Tourism
Countries
U.S Cities
How-To Guides
This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.  For the live article, click here.
Privacy