# Individual terror

Part of a series on :
Terrorism and political violence :
Definitions
History
Incidents :
By ideology
Anarchist
Communist
Left-wing/Far-left
Narcotics-driven
Nationalist
Zionist
Palestinian
Right-wing/Far-right
Religious
Buddhist
Christian
Mormon
Hindu
Islamic
Salafi-Wahhabi
Deobandi
Jewish
Sikh
Special-interest / Single-issue
Suffragette
Anti-abortion
Green/Ecological
Misogynist
Related topics
Violent extremism
Ethnic violence
Militia movement
Resistance movement :
Organizational structures
Financing
Fronting
Radicalization (online)
Training camp
Death squad
Clandestine cell system
Leaderless resistance
Lone wolf
Domestic :
MethodsTactics
Agro-terrorism
Aircraft hijacking (list)
Beheading
Bombing
Animal-borne
Car (list)
Improvised
Letter
Threat
Proxy
Bioterrorism
Cyberterrorism
Dry run
Environmental
Hostage-taking
Individual terror
Insurgency
Kidnapping
Nuclear
Paper
Piracy
Propaganda of the deed
Shooting
School
Spree
Stabbing
Suicide attack (list)
Rockets and mortars
Urban terrorism
Vehicle-ramming :
Terrorist groups
Designated terrorist groups
Charities accused of ties to terrorism :
Relationship to states
Violent non-state actors
Islamic State
State terrorism
Kazakhstan
Soviet Union
United States
Uzbekistan
State-sponsored terrorism
Iran
Israel
Kuwait
Libya
Pakistan
Qatar
Russia (Soviet Union)
Saudi Arabia
Syria
United States
Venezuela :
Response to terrorism
Counter-terrorism
International conventions
Anti-terrorism legislation
Terrorism insurance
War on Terror :
vte :
In leftist terminology, individual terror, a form of revolutionary terror, is the murder of isolated individuals with the goal of promotion of a political movement, of provoking political changes, up to political revolution. As such, it differs from other forms of targeted killing, in particular, the close type of individual murder, the ancient practice of political assassination.

## Individual terror vs. political assassination

Many authors do not draw distinction between types of political assassinations and furthermore, and there is no full consensus on the issue.
Ze'ev Iviansky attempted to draw a distinction as follows. While revolutionary individual terror and traditional political assassination share the common goal, a major political change, they differ in various aspects: tactics, methods, role, view on the society, and significance of an individual act. Most of the differences stem from the immediate purpose of an individual act.
In traditional political assassination the target of the killing is a central political figure, such as the king or dictator, whose removal would give way to political changes, and as such the choice of the target is of primary importance. The ultimate goal is to hit the regime represented by the target. Whereas in individual terror, the choice of the target, while important, is secondary to the primary goal, which is to bring the attention of the public to a political movement and to promote the political movement.
This key distinction explains differences in tactics. While traditional political assassination may well be clandestine, the efficiency of revolutionary individual terror in a greater extent depends on the publicity of the act.
The target of a political assassination is usually a very specific individual, while the target of an act of terrorism is not.
David C. Rapoport (1971) drew the difference as follows: "...the assassin destroys men who are corrupting the system, while the terrorist destroys a system which has already corrupted everyone it touches..."

## History

The roots of individual terror as revolutionary tactics lie in the second half of the 19th century in Europe. Part of its theoretical base was "propaganda by deed" put forth by the ideologists of anarchism. Different revolutionary parties had different attitude to individual terror, for political, tactical, moral, and other reasons.