What is Terrorism?

What does terrorism mean? Terrorism is performing an act meant to terrorize a population
into submission through violence and destruction to achieve various goals, including religious,
political, and social goals. Acts of terror can be related to wars between nations; however, a bit
different because terrorist attacks are generally not declared or provoked. Geographically,
there are two types of terrorism, which will be reviewed in this lesson: international and
domestic.

What is the Definition of Terrorism?

Terrorism has different meanings to different governments and groups. The following
definition of terrorism is adapted from the official one used by the United States government:

"Premeditated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by groups or clandestine

agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Other definitions of the term are careful to note that this violence is considered unlawful.

The first use of the term terrorism comes from the time of the Reign of Terror when the
revolutionary government of Maximilian Robespierre killed over 1,400 French aristocrats and
others who were sympathetic to them. His regime also imprisoned around 300,000 others.
Edmund Burke, a politician in England at the time, wrote a treatise entitled Reflections on the
Revolution in France. He stated that the members of this government were "Hell hounds called
Terrorists ... set loose on the people."

What is a Terrorist?

A terrorist is someone who engages in terrorist acts to achieve their goals. There are many
examples of terrorism from various backgrounds. The proposed four primary motivators, or
causes, for people to commit terrorist acts are:

 Individual
 Rational
 Societal
 Ideological

Whatever their motivation, they all share the same characteristics. Viewing themselves as
being threatened by individuals or groups, terrorists have strong-enough beliefs that they feel
justified in taking decisive action. They view violence as a necessary means to achieve their
goals, carrying out their attacks to "secure gain or prevent loss." Individuals with similar goals
and views often create groups to carry out terrorist acts; this is especially true if their
perceived enemy is a group. A few well-known terrorist individuals include:

 Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda

 Timothy McVeigh, who carried out a bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995
 Catherine Marie Kerkow, who hijacked Western Airlines Flight 701
 Several well-known terrorist groups include the following:
 Black Hand, who claimed responsibility for the assassination of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand
 Red Army Faction, who terrorized various parts of the financial sector of West
Germany in the 1960s
  al-Qaeda, who has claimed responsibility for various terrorist attacks around the
world, including the September 11, 2011 attacks
 ISIS or ISIL, the self-proclaimed theological and political successor to al-Qaeda, whose
leaders have stated that they intend to create a pure Islamic state that will one day
encompass the entire world.

The dynamics of modern terrorism

 6. Modern terrorism is media terrorism. The media are attracted by extreme

terrorist acts not only because it is their duty to report on any major event but also
because, at the same time, the dramaturgy of terrorism attracts large scale attention.
Today’s terrorists have picked up this dynamic and take action not only to make their
victims suffer but also to create maximum attention around the world. Terrorists have
become “media competent” by knowing and applying the principles of attracting
media attention in most of their activities. Not only do they now own the necessary
technical equipment such as video cameras and Internet facilities, they also usually
know how to time and create those images which can guarantee a maximum impact
through the media. This dynamic could lead to the conclusion that a major option for
the prevention of terrorism would be not to allow journalists and the media to report
on terrorist activities or events or at least to inhibit coverage as much as possible.
Several countries indeed have chosen this option and it is difficult in those countries to
have access to information or events that are related to terrorist activities.

 7. Modern democracy is however characterised to a high extent by its freedom of

expression and the possibility to access relevant political or societal information. As
soon as information related to terrorism is blocked by governments or other political
or societal institutions, terrorists may have gained one of their goals, namely to
compromise the values of modern democracy. Thus, political institutions, as well as
the media, are faced with the basic dilemma that on the one hand media coverage
may be instrumentalised by terrorists in order to get maximum attention while, on the
other hand, if such information is inhibited, the basic principle and value of freedom of
expression and information is under threat.

 8. There is a general consensus among European parliamentarians, politicians,

journalists and experts that the European political system is strong enough to tolerate
the distribution of information related to terrorism. In fact, a major conclusion is that it
would mean a real victory for the terrorists if political institutions were to compromise
the European values of freedom, including the freedom of expression and information,
in order to prevent any terrorist activity.

 9. Although this major principle may be generally accepted, many details need to
be considered when addressing media and terrorism. One of the major questions
when dealing with terrorism is its definition. Two “schools” compete here. One defines
terrorism in terms of the actors of terrorist attacks; the other defines terrorism in
 terms of the actual attacks themselves. Over the years this question has always been
central to the analysis and treatment of terrorism. For the media the labelling and
determination of precise motives is important even if this is not the same as a criminal
justice procedure. It may therefore be more suitable to deal primarily with individual
events and if necessary describe the actors involved as criminals. Not everyone who
may be sympathetic with terrorist activities, but has not been involved himself or
herself, is a terrorist per definition. The terrorist attacks themselves may easily be
described by comparison. They usually involve extreme violence against individuals or
larger groups where mostly innocent people are hurt or killed. Any situation outside a
“normal” war which includes extreme violence and may be motivated by whatever
simple or sophisticated or ideological political goals may be called terrorism, especially
across Europe in countries with an emerging or already established democracy. All in
all, for Europe, the notion, which has been used in some debates, that “one man’s
terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” probably does not apply. Yet it is also a fact
that in a few cases terrorist activities may have increased the success of non-violent
but same-goal oriented groups such as IRA and SIN-FEIN. There is indeed a preference
among journalists and European politicians to limit the word “terrorism” to events and
not to apply it to a whole, e. g. ethnic, group or even to a major part of a certain group
which has not directly been involved in violent attacks against society and its citizens.

 10. Concentrating on the terrorist events themselves and not on the motives when
reporting on terrorism may of course limit the number of people who may be called
terrorists. Journalists can cover any aspect of political violence including supporters
and groups which may be sympathetic with terrorist goals. But it can be dangerous to
“over-generalise” the label “terrorist” to include a larger number of people and who
may be drawn deeper into terrorist tendencies exactly because they are already
labelled as such. In fact, political integration into the democratic system with
convincing means of trust and education may be a more efficient way of preventing a
terrorist “periphery” from growing into violence than creation, at an early stage, of a
whole out-group of “enemies” by classifying every member of a certain grouping as
terrorists without distinguishing between actual attackers and others only loosely
linked with these attackers.

 11. One should also consider that terrorism may also actually be supported by the
fact that “normal” criminal activities when labelled “”terrorism” receive a certain, if
negative glorification and attraction for those who appreciate being (anti-) heroes.
Many so-called terrorist activities are more based on normal criminal behaviour than
on political motives. That does not make them better or worse for the victims or the
political system but it may create a different context or connotation for them in the
media and limit the probability that their actions are perceived as being rewarding for
a higher, ideological goal. Many, if not most attacks in the context of “terrorism” serve
goals other than to reach or realise political objectives. They are about money,
attention, status, other advantages, or just about keeping a group alive and intact. An
early-1980s study on German terrorism demonstrated that most terrorist events
occurred when the group cohesion and group structure of the violent gangs was
threatened to collapse and disintegrate. Planning and realizing an assault
strengthened the group and put it back into a stable, if clandestine structure.