Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Chapter 1 The trouble with terrorism An attempt upon a crowned head or a president is sensational enough in a way, but not

so much as it used to be. It has entered into the general conception of the existence of all chiefs of state . . . Now let us take an outrage upon say a church. Horrible enough at rst sight no doubt, and yet not so effective as a person of ordinary mind might think. No matter how revolutionary and anarchist in inception, there would be fools enough to give such an outrage the character of a religious manifestation. And that would detract from the especial alarming signicance we wish to give to the act. . . . You

cant count upon their emotions either of pity or fear for very long. A bomb outrage to have any inuence on public opinion must go beyond the intention of vengeance or terrorism. It must be purely destructive. Joseph Conrad, The Secret Agent (1907) Terrorism upsets people. It does so deliberately. That is its point, and that is why it has engrossed so much of our attention in the early years of the 21st century. Insecurity can take many forms, but nothing else plays quite so sharply on our sense of vulnerability. After September 11 we found ourselves in an apparently openended and permanent state of emergency, a war against terror,

whose ramications are as inscrutable as terrorism itself. Terrorism is never easy to understand, and least of all in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. When society feels under threat, attempts at 1rational analysis are often openly resisted as giving aid and comfort to, or even sympathizing with, the enemy. Yet without such analysis, combating terrorism seems a bafing contest against an indenite threat. Although terrorism can sometimes look rational, more often it seems to go straight off the chart of common sense to be not only unjustiable, but atrocious, mad, or mindless. Something about terrorism makes its threat inate, genie-like, way

beyond its actual physical scale. Images of terrorism, in newspaper cartoons or on the covers of the avalanche of books on the subject published over the last generation, typically set giant weapons against shrunken targets. Before September 11 at least, most writers on terrorism recognized that the physical threat posed by terrorism was dwarfed by other more quotidian dangers. But even then, ordinary people, or their political representatives, were less inclined to minimize the threat or put it in perspective. Often urged on by a mass media that magnied the public danger, politicians tried to answer the implicit or explicit call for protective action. That action

was, however, usually inconsistent and episodic. September 11 called for more than this. Terrorism shot to the top of the political agenda, and from then on it would be hard to contend that the damage it could cause was comparatively trivial, or even a familiar argument that its psychological effect was out of proportion to its physical effect. New York saw damage that looked like a wartime air raid. Although the casualty list mercifully shrank from a potential 50,000 to 5,000, and nally to less than 4,000, the vision of mass destruction, previously restricted to the kind of weapons possessed by only a

handful of major powers, had appeared. But unlike in war, the destruction however awesome was isolated. If this was war, it was far from the almost comforting conventions of traditional international conict. As the dust settled, literally and guratively, on Ground Zero, most of the questions that had always formed the puzzle of terrorism remained. If anything, the indenite reach of President Bushs war against terror underlined more sharply than Terrorism 2ever the need for some denition or compartmentalization of this manipulable term. ................................................... ........

TThe threat of terrorism has steadily increased over the last 30 years. With advances in technology, terrorist acts have become much more destructive and the perpetrators of those acts more elusive. Few parts of the world have remained untouched by the current wave of terrorism that began in the late 1960's. This site will explore aspects of both individual level and state terrorism. Individual level terrorism refers to acts of terrorism committed by a person or persons against a society or government to affect political change. State terrorism, or official terrorism, is a label applied to oppressive regimes which systematically commit acts of violence against their own people. Before a discussion of terrorism is possible, one must first understand the meaning of the word "terrorism." For instance, what separates a terrorist from a freedom-fighter or revolutionary? And what exactly constitutes a government-by-terror? Defining terrorism is difficult and controversial, since tactics often overlap those of conventional militaries. Consequently the line between terrorism and other forms of violence tends to blur. Here are a few official US Government definitions of terrorism: e threat of terrorism has steadily increased over the last 30 years. With advances in technology, terrorist acts have become much more destructive and the perpetrators of those acts more elusive. Few parts of the world have remained untouched by the current wave of terrorism that began in ng of the word "terrorism." For instance, what separates a terrorist from a freedom-fighter or revolutionary? And what exactly constitutes a government-by-terror? Defining terrorism is difficult and controversial, since tactics often overlap those of conventional militaries. Consequently the line between terrorism and other forms of violence tends to blur. Here are a few official US Government definitions of terrorism: "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." --Vice-President's Task Force, 1986 "The calculated use of violence or the threat of 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." --Department of Defense Definition "Terrorism 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 objectives." --FBI Definition "The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." --Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) ................................................... ... 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. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no

clear organization to defend against or to deter.

That is why preemption is being considered to be so important. In some cases, terrorism has been a means to carry on a conflict without the adversary realizing the nature of the threat, mistaking terrorism for criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism has become increasingly common among those pursuing extreme goals throughout the world. But despite its popularity, terrorism can be a nebulous concept. Even within the U.S. Government, agencies responsible for different functions in the ongoing fight against terrorism use different definitions. .............................................................................................. Terrorist acts or the threat of such action have been in existence for millennia. Despite having a history longer than the modern nation-state, the use of terror by governments and those that contest their power remains poorly understood. While the meaning of the word terror itself is clear, when it is applied to acts and actors in the real world it becomes confused. Part of this is due to the use of terror tactics by actors at all levels in the social and political environment. Is the Unabomber, with his solo campaign of terror, a criminal, terrorist, or revolutionary? Can he be compared to the French revolutionary governments who coined the word terrorism by instituting systematic state terror against the population of France in the 1790s, killing thousands? Are either the same as revolutionary terrorist groups such as the BaaderMienhof Gang of West Germany or the Weather Underground in the

United States? So we see that distinctions of size and political legitimacy of the actors using terror raise questions as to what is and is not terrorism. The concept of moral equivalency is frequently used as an argument to broaden and blur the definition of terrorism as well. This concept argues that the outcome of an action is what matters, not the intent. Collateral or unintended damage to civilians from an attack by uniformed military forces on a legitimate military target is the same as a terrorist bomb directed deliberately at the civilian target with the intent of creating that damage.

Simply put, a car bomb on a city street and a jet fighter dropping a bomb on a tank are both acts of violence that produce death and terror. Therefore (at the extreme end of this argument) any military action is simply terrorism by a different name. This is the reasoning behind the famous phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It is also a legacy of legitimizing the use of terror by successful revolutionary movements after the fact.

The very flexibility and adaptability of terror throughout the years has

contributed to the confusion. Those seeking to disrupt, reorder or destroy the status quo have continuously sought new and creative ways to achieve their goals. Changes in the tactics and techniques of terrorists have been significant, but even more significant are the growth in the number of causes and social contexts where terrorism is used.

Over the past 20 years, terrorists have committed extremely violent acts for alleged political or religious reasons. Political ideology ranges from the far left to the far right. For example, the far left can consist of groups such as Marxists and Leninists who propose a revolution of workers led by a revolutionary elite. On the far right, we find dictatorships that typically believe in a merging of state and business leadership.

Nationalism is the devotion to the interests or culture of a group of people or a nation. Typically, nationalists share a common ethnic background and wish to establish or regain a homeland.

Religious extremists often reject the authority of secular governments

and view legal systems that are not based on their religious beliefs as illegitimate. They often view modernization efforts as corrupting influences on traditional culture.

Special interest groups include people on the radical fringe of many legitimate causes; e.g., people who use terrorism to uphold antiabortion views, animal rights, radical environmentalism. These groups believe that violence is morally justifiable to achieve their goals. ...........................................................................................
Terrorism is the universally recognized crime. A crime, which at a moments notice can reach every facet of our lives, and at times it, can dominate our existence. Not too long ago

terrorism was an issue that did not concern the people of the United States or its businesses, or businessmen. It was something that happens someplace else, and to other people. In the past the first image that came to mind when one spoke about terrorism was that of the ongoing Arab, Israel conflict. Today its entirely different. From the boardroom of multinational corporations to the farmlands of Middle America, Americans are witnesses to and the subject of the violence and mayhem of terrorism. Every day we read, see or hear about

the death and destruction of terrorism. The media brings us pictures of American travelers held hostage at gunpoint, average Americans who are the unfortunate victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The news magazines write about businessmen, kidnapped

and held in captivity, for no reason other than their American businessmen, on any given night the six oclock news will bring into our living rooms pictures of buildings in rubble, and the heart breaking sight of flag draped coffins being carried from an airplane the results of one madman, driving a truck load of bombs, all this in the name of terrorism. With one incident

terrorists can control the media throughout the world. A hijacking or hostage situation can be presented to viewers around the world as it is happening. A small band of people can enter the living room of every American with relative ease and explain in detail their grievances. Literally hundreds of millions of people are able to watch the mayhem and destruction of terrorism. It is this ability to get the attention of the world that makes terrorism work. Most terrorist attacks are designed as media events. The bombings, hijackings and kidnappings are designed to get the attention of the electronic media, and the international press. They want the attention of those who watch the six oclock news. Terrorism is changing, terrorism is a theater, and as Americans we are becoming the actors. Terrorism is now wide spread and indiscriminate. Terrorists attack anything and anybody. Terrorists have hijacked airliners, trains and ocean liners. They kidnapped priests and nuns. They blow up nightclubs, department stores, churches, and computers. Nothing is spared. Eventually it strikes close

to home, someone from your hometown, someone who went to your school or works for your company is eventually the victim of terrorism. ........................................................................................

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen