Unity Of Targets As New Terrorism example essay topic

Partha rei - as it was stated by the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus of Ephesus (sixth and fifth centuries B.C.) - everything flows, everything changes. Change in the contemporary world is an extremely fast process. Nothing remains the same as it was in the past. In political science especially, some notions (e.g. sovereignty) demand redefinition. The changing nature of all things also includes the political concept of terrorism. The official approach to this changing terrorism is rather complicated.

The terrorist of yesterday is the hero of today, and the hero of yesterday becomes the terrorist of today. There is then a great need to know what contemporary terrorism is and what it is not. Terrorism is a calculated use of power to achieve a political change, thus violence - or equally important, the threat of violence - is used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of a political aim. Terrorism is an expression of political strategy, a willful choice made by an organization for political and strategic reasons (efficacy) rather than as the unintended outcome of psychological or social factors. However, terrorism is difficult to define because the meaning of the term has changed so frequently over the past 200 years. It has morphed from positive connotation during the French Revolution (closely associated with the ideals of virtue and democracy), through the revolutionary movement and finally to a religiously motivated act as it is mainly perceived today.

Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves whether "old" and "new" terrorism really exists, or maybe the phenomenon we are facing today reminds us an old wine in a new bottle. Two questions frame the discussed issue: 1. What is the nature of "new" terrorism? 2. What is the magnitude of threat of "new" terrorism?" Old" and "new" terrorism are distinguishable in five points, as the table below shows. Old Terrorism New Terrorism Ideological Vague or religious motivations Hierarchical Unorganized (lone wolf, ad how) therefore more difficult to penetrate Propaganda by deed (bringing issue to the table) More violent (killing for the sake of killing) Sub-national Transnational and International (global) State sponsored, learning by doing, conventional weapons Better financed, trained and in pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction The "old" or "traditional" terrorists used terrorism as a tool in pursuit of very traditional goals that could be understood within the arena of normal politics, even if their tactics had left this arena.

It was one tool attached to an overall strategy, and it was a tightly controlled tool. In the past, terrorism was ideological (and still is today, if we remember about political Islam). But under the old rules, "terrorists wanted a lot of people watching not a lot of people dead". They wanted to sit at the table.

"Today's terrorists are not particularly concerned about converts, and don't want to sit at the table, they want to destroy the table and everyone sitting at it". In the past, these were mainly sub - state actors implementing hit-and-run violence in order to attract attention to, and ensure publicity for themselves and their cause. The terrorism used to be the last in a sequence of choices. The most common tactics were diplomatic kidnappings, hijackings or hostage takings. They ensured efficiency since the other methods were not expected to work or were time consuming, given the urgency of the situation and government's superior resources. That is why terrorism was called "the shortcut to revolution".

Pursuing extreme interests in the political area, the phenomenon called "old" terrorism", was also state sponsored from complete control at the one end of the spectrum, through providing trainings, funds and safe haven for an autonomous group, to simple support at the other end. Essentially the state was always part of the equation. The "new" apocalyptical terrorism, (or what is also called 4th generation warfare), is inspired mainly by political extremism and ethnic separatist movement. But there is also the religion factor - it has long been a powerful trans-national force in international relations as it does not respect national boundaries. The terrorists do not perceive themselves as terrorists. They simultaneously refuse to be bound by rules of warfare and codes of conducting a conflict.

They are also a fundamental altruists who believe that they serve a "good" cause designed to achieve greater good for a wider constituency - whether real or imagined - which the terrorist and his organization purport to represent, This is true because "a terrorist without a cause is not a terrorist", as Konrad Kellen said. The terrorist is a fundamentally violent intellectual prepared to use, and indeed committed to using, force in the attainment of his goals. Like twentieth century totalitarians, today's Islamic fundamentalist fanatics are convinced that they posses absolute truth. This truth is immune from refutation or criticism. They believe that force and terror are necessary to establish a utopia in place of the current decadent and corrupt world. Unlike the followers from the past centuries, today's terrorists draw inspiration from religious radicalism.

Therefore religion marks the clearest difference from the "old" terrorism. Now the need to be heard is not only an expression of anger, feeling helpless, and alone, as we can observe jihad as an international violent phenomenon fulfilling the gap in absence of revolutionary ideology. Modern terrorists see violence as an end in itself. They do not care if the body count is high; in fact they are trying to pump it as high as they can for the nihilist pleasure of destruction. They think that violence pleases God ("innocent victims do not exist" - as one of the Palestinians leaders said once). Furthermore, new terrorism is global and does not answer to any government, operates globally across national borders, and has access to funding and advanced technology.

Being not bound by states, terrorists are not susceptible to traditional diplomacy or military deterrence. This leads to strategic innovations and deliberate selection of targets considered previously taboo and locales where violence is unexpected. New terrorists are less likely than many larger groups or states to be deterred by the consequences of their own escalating violence; They do not have constituent populations to abhor their methods or fixed assets to be a target of retaliation. In the last few years terrorism has been increasingly lethal. Now more than ever terrorist attacks are designed to inflict high casualties. Death from international terrorism more than doubled from the first half of the 1990's to the latter half of the decade, even though the number of the incidents declined by nineteen percent.

This trend is associated with the nature of the terrorists groups that have formed during this time, and there is no reason to expect a reversal of the pattern any time soon, especially if we remember about their pursuit for the WMD and trying to use cyder-terrorism. The great majority of terrorist attacks today involve terrorists going right out and killing people rather than making specific demands and putting themselves in a position to kill people if the demands are not met. The classic hostage-and-specific-demand incident is simply not as big a part of international terrorism as it used to be. It was once said that: "Without virtue terror is evil, and without terror virtue is helpless; terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe and inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue".

One could think that these are the words of the "enemy of people" number one - Osama bin Laden, surprisingly, it was Maximilian Robespierre who stated it. The unity of language is not the only distinguishable element between the two faces of the terrorism. There is also the unity of targets as new terrorism borrows Western technology in order to destroy the West. "New" terrorism focuses its rage on old familiar aims - it is still a frontal attack on the institutions and principles of liberal democracy. Old and new terrorists consider themselves as those who are in possession of absolute truth and have the right and obligation to kill those who disagree or stand in the way of attainment of a perfect world. It remains just as Piscine stated - ideas results from deeds.

It does not matter if "old" or "new" terrorism can put the issue of political change on the public agenda. While the government can reject it, it cannot ignore the materializing of ideas through actions. The analysis of the historical development of terrorism reveals similarities in the calculation of ends and means. This strategy has changed over time to adopt new circumstances that offer different possibilities for dissident action. But fundamental unity of purpose and conception remains.

Terrorism is still the impatience for action; a combination of optimism and urgency may occur when the enemy appears vulnerable to challenge. When there is no ability to respond effectively or to protect citizens / property, no capacity for efficient repression, or when there is a likelihood that the terrorist will attract popular support (provoking moral backslash). The following key characteristics prove the continuity of the phenomenon of terrorism, because it is: organized, deliberate and systematic; it has a goal of creation of new and better world; ineluctably political in aims and motives; violent - or equally important - threatens violence; designed to have far reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target; conducted by an organization with and identifiable chain of command or cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia); perpetrated by sub - national group or non - state entity. Premeditation and political motivation of terrorists draws attention to the fact that terrorism, (which is a method of achieving goals), is a problem of what people do, rather than who they are or what they are trying to achieve.

The majority of terrorists worldwide are still young adult males, unemployed or underemployed, with weak social and familial support, with poor prospects for economic improvement or advancement through legitimate work. Terrorists also still coalesce and form linkages to operate together. They share ideologies, enemies, or simply share trainings facilities (in the past Palestinians supporting Italian Red Brigades, and now Al Qaeda are examples of this custom). This consequent evolution, not rapid change of the terrorism is clearly visible in almost every aspect of terrorist activities. It also proves that the "new" terrorism should be considered more dangerous. The new rules of an old game make it more lethal and unpredictable.

Let us examine only one example: Nearly every terrorist group in Iraq has recently captured a foreigner but additionally, they have produced an accompanying video, where a list of demands is outlined, a deadline is set, hostages plea for their lives, and in several instances, they are killed by beheading. Then these kidnappings merge a technique of "old" terrorism in service of "new" style terrorism. Furthermore, now more than ever, the media are a tool of war. These dramas were broadcast ed by the media all over the world.

This is how the media helps to evolve terrorism - they send the terrorist a clear although unspoken message: to maintain access to the airwaves, you need to devise even more outrageous tactics. Thus, the new "global" terrorist, caught into the trap of globalization, will have to break more rules, cross more psychological borders, and crack more taboos in order to exist. This can be considered the most dangerous feature of the "new" terrorism - not only do we not know when the next attack will strike, we either have no idea what actually is going to happen..