The first rule of war is to know your enemy. Terrorists are not a simple enemy to know.

They have a myriad of complex motivations as individuals and as groups. In fact, few people can even agree on a definition of terrorism. Many people agree that terrorism is a despicable crime, but others argue that one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Until recently, terrorism has been most closely associated by ethnic and minority group struggles for independence and self-determination. The primary area of conflict could usually be defined, as could the adversaries and their various aspirations. During the 1990s a new form of international terrorism emerged that appears less rational, less focused, more international and more deadly Islamist Terrorism. In fact, many of the causes and motivations remain strikingly similar to what could be called traditional modern terrorism. What is different is the religious ideological foundation, the broad definition of adversaries, the evolution in terrorist tactics and the desire and potential for devastating levels of destruction. Islamist extremists appear willing to ignore taboos against killing innocents and able to rationalize their actions by distorting Islamic teachings. The potential to use chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons of mass destruction has created a new level of terror that demands effective solutions Karl von Clausewitz described war as politics by other means. One might describe terrorism in the same way, or as war by other means. There are two types of terrorism: rational and irrational. Rational terrorism has a political goal and a purpose. Irrational terror might be described as mindless violence that serves some dark psychological imbalance and is as difficult to understand as the motives of serial killers. As such this is the realm of psychologists and psychiatrists, not political scientists, politicians, statesmen, and security specialists. This briefing deals only with rational terrorism.

Cultural This motivation is most common in situations where an ethnic or religious group fears extermination, or loss of their common identity, language or culture. It may also be combined with political motives, where the rulers discriminate against the ethnic group in terms of jobs, economic opportunity or access to the political process. In the case of oppressed minorities, opposed by a strong, entrenched regime, terrorism may be seen as the only available option. This is especially true where demands for political reform are ignored, where there are few, if any, external allies, and where the regime resorts to collective punishment for what are seen as reasonable and justified demands. Psychological A surprising number of pro-government analysts favor this explanation, which asserts that some terrorists are unbalanced, violent individuals suffering some form of psychosis. Others may be egomaniacs driven to achieve recognition through violence, and who attract a following of other dysfunctional

individuals. This characterization may be accurate in cases where terrorist appear to have no logical goal, or motivation, or a purpose that makes little sense to normal people. This can include cases where the goal is the psychological benefit achieved by vengeance (Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing). Psychologically motivated terrorism is simply a criminal act, like serial killing, and doesnt qualify for analysis as political violence.

The purpose of terrorism is to produce terror, W.I. Lenin, the leader of the Russian revolution responsible for the Red Terror once noted dryly. The terrorist aims to produce terror - extreme fear among his (or her) opponents

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[42] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI, 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. The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations.[47] These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.[48] Those labeled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante,militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, andfedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".[49]This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally.

Civil disorder A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community. Political terrorism Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fearin the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes.

Limited political terrorism Genuine political terrorism is characterized by arevolutionary 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 andoppression 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.

Abrahm suggests that terrorist organizations do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[84] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined. RELIGIOUS TERRORISM

Religious terrorism is terrorism performed by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in faith-based tenets. Terrorist acts throughout the centuries have been performed on religious grounds with the hope to either spread or enforce a system of belief, viewpoint or opinion.[98] Religious terrorism does not in itself necessarily define a specific religious standpoint or view, but instead usually defines an individual or a group view or interpretation of that belief system's teachings The perpetrators of acts of terrorism can be individuals, groups, or states However, the most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause and many of the most deadly operations in recent times, such as the September 11 attacks, the London underground bombing, and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a close clique, composed of close friends, family members and other strong social networks. These groups benefited from the free flow of information and efficienttelecommunications to succeed where others had failed
Typical expressions of terrorist violence such as indiscriminate bombings, armed assaults on civilians, focused assassinations, kidnappings, hostage taking, and hijacking are considered criminal offences in national or international law Terrorism is sometimes the only tool of an extremist group. In other cases, it is one of several instruments of a political strategy. While there are non-political forms of terrorism (such a criminal or crazy terrorism), the political motivation of terrorism is one that is often present and stressed by both analystsi and by terrorists themselves. Since terrorists generally challenge the monopoly of violence of the state, terrorist acts obtain political significance even when the motivation for them is not political but religious, criminal or psychopathological

Terrorist violence is, in an important sense, symbolic violence, although real enough in its consequences. As a public display of power over life and death it is, in fact, addressing in a dramatic statement, a spiritual level of the human existence. This is especially true when it comes to religious terrorism Karl Marx once called terrorists dangerous dreamers of the absolute. Religious groups often claim to be in possession of absolute truth, while those outside the group have not yet seen the light or are part of the forces of darkness. Many acts of violence, which we consider immoral as a means to achieve an end, are, in the view of the religious or ideologically motivated terrorist, justified by the absolute end for which the terrorist purports to fight.

perpetrating acts of terrorism is one of several ways to symbolically express power over oppressive forces and regain some nobility in the perpetrators personal life.ii
This brings us back to the secular formula of terrorism being a weapon of the weak. In view that some terrorists are attempting to obtain weapons of mass destruction, and keeping in mind the historical record of state terrorism under authoritarian and totalitarian regimes we again must be aware that this religious framework - like the other ones discussed here - provides only a partial truth about the nature of terrorism