September 11 attacks

June 5, 2017 973

“9/11” redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or November 9. For other uses, see 911 (disambiguation)

September 11 attacks
From top to bottom: the World Trade Center burning; a section of The Pentagon collapses; Flight 175 crashes into 2 WTC; a fireman requests help at Ground Zero; an engine from Flight 93 is recovered; Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon.
Location	New York City; Arlington County, Virginia; and near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Date	Tuesday, September 11, 2001 8:46 a.m. – 10:28 a.m. (UTC-04:00)
Attack type	Aircraft hijacking, mass murder, suicide attack, terrorism
Deaths	2,996 (2,977 victims + 19 hijackers)
Injured	More than 6,000
Perpetrator(s)	Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden^[1] (see also Responsibility and Hijackers)

The September 11, 2001 attacks (or September 11th, or 9/11), were four terrorist attacks. They all happened at the same time. They were done by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda. They attacked the United States in New York City. The attacks took place on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Four groups of terrorists, each with a trained pilot, captured airplanes and flew them into US landmarks. These landmarks were the World Trade Center‘s twin towers in New York City, and the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed in an empty field in Pennsylvania before it could reach its target in Washington, D.C. After the event, the US government said the people who had done the attacks were close to the terrorist group al-Qaeda. During the events, almost 3000 people died. Most of them were from the United States, but over 300 were from other places, such as the United Kingdom, India, and Canada.

View of the World Trade Center and the Statue of Liberty at the moment of 9/11 attack.

Airplanes involved

The first of the four planes to depart was American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200ER. It was 159 feet and two inches long, with a sixteen-foot-six-inch-wide body that allowed for two aisles. The plane made daily flights between Boston and Los Angeles, and when it took off at 7:59 a.m. on the morning of the eleventh, it carried only 81 passengers in its 158 seats. Forty-seven minutes later, it crashed into the North Tower at 440 mph, carrying 9,717 gallons of jet fuel, 14,000 gallons under capacity.

United Flight 175, also a Boeing 767-200ER, was the second. Like American Airlines 11, it was scheduled to fly between Boston and Los Angeles. When United 175 took off at 8:14 a.m., it was even lighter than the American flight: Only 56 of 168 seats were occupied. When it crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., traveling 540 mph, it had 9,118 gallons of fuel in its tanks.

American Airlines Flight 77 was the third plane to take off, a Boeing 757-200. AA77 left Washington, D.C., at 8:20 a.m. bound for Los Angeles. It was two-thirds empty, with 58 passengers in its 176 seats, and its tanks were 4,000 gallons under its 11,500-gallon capacity. It crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., flying 530 mph.

The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was also a 757-200. It was delayed for 42 minutes past its scheduled 8 a.m. departure from Newark, New Jersey bound for San Francisco. When it finally took off, it carried only 37 passengers—its capacity was 182—and it was loaded with a little over 7,000 gallons of fuel. It crashed at 560 mph into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m.

Outcome

Ground zero: The remains of the World Trade Center after the attacks.

All of the 246 people on the four planes died in the crashes. 19 terrorists were also killed in the attacks. Both towers of the World Trade Center caught on fire after the crashes. The South Tower (2 WTC) burned for 56 minutes before it fell and was destroyed. The North Tower (1 WTC) burned for 102 minutes before it also fell. As the towers fell, parts of the towers hit other buildings around them. It is believed that because of this damage, a third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), fell at 5:20 p.m., but this is a debated subject. Many other buildings in the area were damaged badly and had to bedemolished later. 2,602 people died at the World Trade Center.

United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the south tower, with the north tower already burning

The plane that hit the Pentagon hit the ground just as it hit the western side of the building. It then crashed through three of the five “rings” that make up the Pentagon. The crash killed 125 people in the Pentagon.

The United States government paid an average of $1.8 million to the families of the victims of the attacks.^[2]

2,996 people died in the attacks, including people such as firemen and policemen trying to save the lives of other people.

This was the first big attack by non-Americans on the United States. In 1941, when Japanese war planes attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was not yet part of the United States. There had been some big terrorist acts against American targets before but most of them have been outside the U.S. (such as the Marine camp in Lebanon).

Many conspiracy theories have appeared which say that certain people in the United States government knew about the attacks beforehand, or even made them happen.

The World Trade Center before 9/11.

War on Terror

Main page: War on Terrorism

After the attack, the United States blamed Al-Qaeda, which the U.S. thought was a terrorist group. President George W. Bush said he would start a “War on Terror“. He meant that the United States would do more things to try to stop terrorism in the future. Bush said this was meant to protect Americans and their property from terrorists. For example, the American government would be reorganized. Security and control in public places was made stronger, especially at airports. Americans were told every day whether there was a serious threat of terrorism. (This was done by giving a color for the day. Red meant there was a high risk, green meant a low risk, and there were many levels in between.)

The War on Terror also led to real wars. The leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, lived in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The United States told the government of Afghanistan, called the Taliban, to turn bin Laden over to them. The Taliban would not do this. The leader of the Taliban, Mullah Muhammad Omar, demanded to see proof from the United States government. If proof was not given, Mullah Omar said that he would not hand over bin Laden. President George W. Bush said that he did not need to provide proof.^[3] The United States then went to war against Afghanistan. The Taliban was removed from power, a new government was put in power, and a new president was chosen by the people of Afghanistan.

While this was happening, the United States government changed in a few ways. The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Before 9/11, security at American airports was provided by the airlines. The TSA made it the government’s job to provide airport security. New officers were hired by TSA to work at airports and to fly on planes as air marshals. The TSA also provides security on American trains and subways. A new Department of Homeland Security was also created. It became their job to protect Americans and their property inside the United States. When this department was created, the TSA moved from the DOT to Homeland Security.

After defeating the Taliban, President George W. Bush thought the US should invade Iraq. He believed that Iraq helped terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda. He said he had evidence that Iraq was also making weapons of mass destruction. He sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations to show them some of the evidence. In March, 2003, the United States began its invasion of Iraq. (Four other countries also took part, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark.)

Bhai please insert this in Stop Terrorism

About Terrorism

“Terrorism” comes from the French word terrorisme, and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the 1793–1794 Reign of Terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terrere (e, terreo) meaning “to frighten”. The Jacobins, coming to power in France in 1792, are said to have initiated the Reign of Terror (French: La Terreur). After the Jacobins lost power, the word “terrorist” became a term of abuse.

In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act”. It is distinguish between state terrorism against non-combatants and state terrorism against combatants, including ‘Shock and Awe’ tactics:

Definition

The definition of terrorism has proven controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged.

The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. The international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is:

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 either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders; and perpetrated by a subnational group or nonstate entity.

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.

Types

Depending on the country, the political system, and the time in history, the types of terrorism are varying.

Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to affect many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist group and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose. This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or “cosmic” struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site their suffering accomplishes the terrorists’ goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.

The terrorism as “a tactic or technique by means of which a violent act or the threat thereof is used for the prime purpose of creating overwhelming fear for coercive purposes.” It classified disorders and terrorism into six categories.

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 fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes.
Non-Political terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective.”
Quasi-terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction. For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.
Limited political terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary 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 and oppression 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.

Other sources have defined the typology of terrorism in different ways, for example, broadly classifying it into domestic terrorism and international terrorism, or using categories such as vigilante terrorism or insurgent terrorism. One way the typology of terrorism may be defined:

Political terrorism
- Sub-state terrorism
  - Social revolutionary terrorism
  - Nationalist-separatist terrorism
  - Religious extremist terrorism
    - Religious fundamentalist Terrorism
    - New religions terrorism
  - Right-wing terrorism
  - Left-wing terrorism
- State-sponsored terrorism
- Regime or state terrorism
Criminal terrorism
Pathological terrorism

Pejorative Use

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, mujahdin, and fededayeen are similar Arabic words. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.

On whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing non-combatants, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good that could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the “harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism”. others argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when “a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so”.

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. ‘What is called terrorism, thus seems to depend on one’s point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.’ Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.

The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. 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. During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded “terrorists” by the British. More recently, the American administration frequently called the mujaheddin “freedom fighters” during the Soviet–Afghan War yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men were fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks were labelled “terrorism” Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.

There is the famous statement: ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless.

Some groups, when involved in a “liberation” struggle, have been called “terrorists” by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called “statesmen” by similar organizations. Sometimes, states that are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether or not members of a certain organization are terrorists. Media outlets who wish to convey impartiality may limit their usage of “terrorist” and “terrorism” because they are loosely defined, potentially controversial in nature, and subjective terms.

Motivations of terrorists

Attacks on ‘collaborators’ are used to intimidate people from cooperating with the state in order to undermine state control. This strategy was used in Ireland, in Kenya, in Algeria and in Cyprus during their independence struggles.

Attacks on high-profile symbolic targets are used to incite counter-terrorism by the state to polarize the population. These attacks are also used to draw international attention to struggles that are otherwise unreported, the terrorist organizations do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness. 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. Additionally, shows possible relationships between the type of economy within a country and ideology associated with terrorism.

Some terrorists were motivated by revenge against a state for its actions against its citizens.

Democracy and domestic terrorism

The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is very complex. Terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and it is least common in the most democratic nations. However, one study suggests that suicide attacks may be an exception to this general rule] Evidence regarding this particular method of terrorism reveals that every modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracy–a state with a considerable degree of political freedom The study suggests that concessions awarded to terrorists during the 1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks increased their frequency There is a connection between the existence of civil liberties, democratic participation and terrorism these things encourage terrorist groups to organize and generate terror.

While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an act of terrorism within such a state may cause a dilemma: whether to maintain its civil liberties and thus risk being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem; or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk delegitimizing its claim of supporting civil liberties. For this reason, homegrown terrorism has started to be seen as a greater threat This dilemma, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state and cause a systematic shift towards anarchy via the accumulation of negative sentiments towards the state system.

Religious terrorism

Terrorist acts throughout history have been performed on religious grounds with the goal to either spread or enforce a system of belief, viewpoint or opinion. The validity and scope of religious terrorism is limited to the individual or a group view or interpretation of that belief system’s teachings

According to the Global Terrorism Index, religious extremism has overtaken national separatism to become the main driver of terrorist attacks around the world. There has been a five-fold increase in deaths from terrorist attacks. The majority of incidents over the past years can be tied to groups with a religious agenda.

Perpetrators

The perpetrators of acts of terrorism can be individuals, groups, or states. According to some definitions, clandestine or semi-clandestine state actors may also carry out terrorist acts outside the framework of a state of war. 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, 2008 Mumbai attacks 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 efficient telecommunications to succeed where others had failed.

Over the years, much research has been conducted to distill a terrorist profile to explain these individuals’ actions through their psychology and socio-economic circumstances. Others have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by terrorists. Some security organizations designate these groups as violent non-state actors A study found that terrorists were less likely to come from an impoverished background (28% vs. 33%) and more likely to have at least a high-school education (47% vs. 38%). Another analysis found only 16% of terrorists came from impoverished families, vs. 30% of male Palestinians, and over 60% had gone beyond high school, vs. 15% of the populace.

To avoid detection, a terrorist will look, dress, and behave normally until executing the assigned mission. Some claim that attempts to profile terrorists based on personality, physical, or sociological traits are not useful. The physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.

Non-state groups

Groups not part of the state apparatus of in opposition to the state are most commonly referred to as a “terrorist” in the media.

State sponsors

A state can sponsor terrorism by funding or harboring a terrorist group. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such.

State terrorism

Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

As with “terrorism” the concept of “state terrorism” is controversial.[126] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law. It is “time to set aside debates on so-called ‘state terrorism’. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law” However, it is clear that, “regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians [or non-combatants], regardless of one’s cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism.”

State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts committed by governmental agents or forces. This involves the use of state resources employed by a state’s foreign policies, such as using its military to directly perform acts of terrorism. “the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents.” He also cites the first strike option as an example of the “terror of coercive diplomacy” as a form of this, which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in “crisis management” and argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War II. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this state behavior.

Connection with tourism

The connection between terrorism and tourism has been widely studied since the Luxor massacre in Egypt In the 1970s, the targets of terrorists were politicians and chiefs of police while now international tourists and visitors are selected as main targets of attacks. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were the symbolic epicenter, which marked a new epoch in the use of civil transport against the main power of the planet. From this event onwards, the spaces of leisure that characterized the pride of West, were conceived as dangerous and frightful. The terrorism represents dialectic of hate, between a group of insurgents whose interests have been placed outside the electoral system and the state which is unable to anticipate the next blow. Historically, tourism and terrorism have inextricably intertwined. As enrooted in the capitalist ethos, terrorism rests on the logic of violence and extortion, where outsiders are used to achieve the in-group’s goals. Terrorists are usually psychologically insensitive to the suffering of others. Using extortion as a main tactic, the media lays a fertile ground which amplifies the effects of terrorism on the society. Likely, one of the main problems of terrorism seems to be the need to capture the attention of an audience. To some extent, terrorists appear to jolt the society, however, the western audience experiences a gradual process of desensitization. This result leads these groups to innovate more cruel and violent strategies.

Funding

State sponsors have constituted a major form of funding; for example, Palestine Liberation Organization, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and other groups considered to be terrorist organizations, were funded by the Soviet Union. The Stern Gang received funding from Italian Fascist officers in Beirut to undermine the British Mandate for Palestine. Pakistan has created and nurtured terrorist groups as policy for achieving tactical objectives against its neighbors, especially India.

“Revolutionary tax” is another major form of funding, and essentially a euphemism for “money”. Revolutionary taxes “play a secondary role as one other means of intimidating the target population”.

Other major sources of funding include kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling (including wildlife smuggling), fraud, and robbery. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has reportedly received funding “via private donations from the Gulf states”.

The Financial Action Task Force is an inter-governmental body whose mandate, since October 2001, has included combating terrorist financing.

Tactics

Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity, usually using explosives or poison. Terrorist groups usually methodically plan attacks in advance, and may train participants, plant undercover agents, and raise money from supporters or through organized crime. Communications occur through modern telecommunications, or through old-fashioned methods such as couriers. There is also concern about terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction.

Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare will not be effective because forces vary greatly in power. The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict. The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include:

Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state or become part of a different state
Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups
Imposition of a particular form of government
Economic deprivation of a population
Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army
Religious fanaticism

Responses

Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values.

Specific types of responses include:

Targeted laws, criminal procedures, deportations, and enhanced police powers
Target hardening, such as locking doors or adding traffic barriers
Preemptive or reactive military action
Increased intelligence and surveillance activities
Preemptive humanitarian activities
More permissive interrogation and detention policies

The term “counter-terrorism” has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors.

Terrorism research

Terrorism research, also called terrorism and counter-terrorism research, is an interdisciplinary academic field which seeks to understand the causes of terrorism, how to prevent it as well as its impact in the broadest sense. Terrorism research can be carried out in both military and civilian contexts, for example by research centres such as the British Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, and the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT). There are several academic journals devoted to the field.

Mass media

Mass media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise be ignored by the media. Some consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media.

The Internet has created a new channel for groups to spread their messages. This has created a cycle of measures and counter measures by groups in support of and in opposition to terrorist movements. The United Nations has created its own online counter-terrorism resource.

The mass media will, on occasion, censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further terrorism. However, this may encourage organizations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media.

There is always a point at which the terrorist ceases to manipulate the media gestalt. A point at which the violence may well escalate, but beyond which the terrorist has become symptomatic of the media gestalt itself. Terrorism as we ordinarily understand it is innately media-related.

Outcome of terrorist groups

How terrorist groups end. The most common ending for a terrorist group is to convert to nonviolence via negotiations with most of the rest terminated by routine policing. Groups that were ended by military force constituted only .

Capture or killing of a group’s leader. (Decapitation).

Entry of the group into a legitimate political process. (Negotiation).

Achievement of group aims. (Success).

Group implosion or loss of public support. (Failure).

Defeat and elimination through brute force. (Repression).

Transition from terrorism into other forms of violence. (Reorientation).

History

Depending on how broadly the term is defined, the roots and practice of terrorism can be traced at least to the 1st-century AD Sicarii Zealots, though some dispute whether the group, a radical offshoot of the Zealots which was active in Judaea Province at the beginning of the 1st century AD, was in fact terrorist. According to the contemporary Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, after the Zealotry rebellion against Roman rule in Judea, when some prominent Jewish collaborators with Roman rule were killed, Judas of Galilee formed a small and more extreme offshoot of the Zealots, the Sicarii, in 6 AD. Their terror was also directed against Jewish “collaborators”, including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and other wealthy elites.

The term “terrorism” itself was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during the “Reign of Terror” in the French Revolution. “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible,” said Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund Burke denounced the Jacobins for letting “thousands of those hell-hounds called Terrorists … loose on the people” of France.

In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in an attempt to assassinate French Emperor Napoleon III. Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured. The incident played a crucial role as an inspiration for the development of the early terrorist groups.

Arguably the first organization to utilize modern terrorist techniques was the Irish Republican Brotherhood, founded in 1858 as a revolutionary Irish nationalist group that carried out attacks in England. The group initiated the Fenian dynamite campaign in 1881, one of the first modern terror campaigns Instead of earlier forms of terrorism based on political assassination, this campaign used modern, timed explosives with the express aim of sowing fear in the very heart of metropolitan Britain, in order to achieve political gains.

Another early terrorist group was Narodnaya Volya, founded in Russia in 1878 as a revolutionary anarchist group inspired by Sergei Nechayev and “propaganda by the deed” theorist Pisacane. The group developed ideas—such as targeted killing of the ‘leaders of oppression’—that were to become the hallmark of subsequent violence by small non-state groups, and they were convinced that the developing technologies of the age—such as the invention of dynamite, which they were the first anarchist group to make widespread use of[85]—enabled them to strike directly and with discrimination. Modern terrorism had largely taken shape by the turn of the 20th century.

Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.[1] It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime In modern times, terrorism is considered a major threat to society and therefore illegal under anti-terrorism laws in most jurisdictions It is also considered a war crime under the laws of war when used to target non-combatants, such as civilians, neutral military personnel, or enemy prisoners of war

A broad array of political organizations have practiced terrorism to further their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political organizations, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. It has been argued that terrorism is particularly effective against democracies because the electorate typically is highly sensitive to civilian casualties from terrorist acts, which induces its leaders to grant concessions to terrorist factions. Authoritarian regimes, in contrast, are responsive only to the prefaces of the ruling elite, and therefore are less likely to accede to terrorist demands in response to civilian casualties. The symbolism of terrorism can exploit human fear to help achieve these goals. There is no universally agreed upon definition of the term, and many definitions exist.

According to data from the Global Terrorism Database, more than 61,000 incidents of non-state terrorism, claiming over 140,000 lives, have been recorded from 2000 to 2014.

Categories: General