Question: What is the purpose of terrorism?

Terrorism











Terrorism
Definitions

History
Incidents

By ideology





Anarchist
Communist
Conservative
Left-wing/Far-left
Narcotics-driven
Nationalist
Right-wing/Far-right

Religious

Buddhist
Christian (Mormon)
Hindu
Islamic
Jewish
Sikh

Special-interest/Single-issue
Anti-abortion

Environmental

Related topics

Violent extremism
Ethnic violence
Militia movement
Resistance movement

Structure
Financing
Fronting
Radicalization (Online)
Training camp
Death squad
Clandestine cell system
Leaderless resistance
Lone wolf

MethodsTactics
Agro-terrorism
Aircraft hijacking(list)
Animal-borne bomb attacks
Beheading
Bioterrorism
Car bombing(list)
Cyberterrorism
Dirty bomb
Dry run
Explosive
Hostage-taking
Improvised explosive device (IED)
Vehicle-ramming
Spree shooting
Individual terror
Insurgency
Kidnapping
Letter bomb
Lone wolf
Mass shooting
Nuclear
Paper terrorism
Piracy
Propaganda of the deed
Proxy bomb
School shooting
Stabbing
Suicide attack(list)
Rockets and mortars

Terrorist groups
Designated terrorist groups
Charities accused of ties to terrorism
Adherents



Violent non-state actors
State terrorism

Kazakhstan
Soviet Union
Sri Lanka
United States
Uzbekistan

State-sponsored terrorism

Iran
Israel
Pakistan
Qatar
Russia (Soviet Union)
Saudi Arabia
Syria
United Arab Emirates
United States

Response to terrorism
Counter-terrorism
International conventions
Anti-terrorism legislation
Terrorism insurancevt












Part of a series onWar
History
Prehistoric
Ancient
Post-classical
Early modern
Late modern
industrial
fourth-gen
Battlespace
Air
Cyber
Information
Space
Land

Cold-region
Desert
Jungle
Mountain
Urban
Sea

Amphibious
Blue
Brown
Green
Surface
Underwater
Weapons
Armor
Artillery
Biological
Cavalry
Chemical
Conventional
Cyber
Denial
Electronic
Infantry
Lawfare
Music
Nuclear
Psychological
Unconventional
Refugees as weapons
Tactics
Aerial
Battle
Cavalry
Charge
Counterattack
Counter-insurgency
Cover
Defeat in detail
Foxhole
Guerrilla
Morale
Siege
Swarming
Tactical objective
Target saturation
Trench
Operational
Blitzkrieg
Deep operation
Maneuver
Operational manoeuvre group
Strategy
Attrition
Counter-offensive
Fabian
Deception
Defensive
Goal
Naval
Offensive
Grand strategy
Containment
Economic
Limited
Science
Philosophy
Political
Religious
Strategic
Technology
Theater
Theory
Total war
Organization
Command and control
Doctrine
Engineers
Intelligence
Ranks
Technology and equipment
Personnel
Military recruitment
Conscription
Recruit training
Military specialism
Women in the military
Children in the military
Transgender people and military service
Sexual harassment in the military
Conscientious objection
Counter recruitment
Logistics
Arms industry
Materiel
Supply chain management
Related
Asymmetric warfare
Broken-Backed War Theory
Court-martial
Cold war
Deterrence theory
Horses in warfare
Irregular warfare
Law of war
Mercenary
Military campaign
Military operation
Network-centric warfare
Operations research
Principles of war
Proxy war
Security dilemma
Tripwire force
War crime
War film
War game
War novel
Wartime sexual violence
Women in war
World war
Colonial war
Endemic warfare
Lanchester's laws
Lists
Battles
Military occupations
Military tactics
Operations
Sieges
War crimes
Wars
Weapons
Writersvt
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim.[1] It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in war against non-combatants.[2] The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" originated during the French Revolution of the late 18th century[3] but gained mainstream popularity during the U.S. presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981–89) after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings[4] and again after the 2001 September 11 attacks[5][4][6] and the 2002 Bali bombings.[4]
There is no commonly accepted definition of "terrorism".[7][8] Being a charged term, with the connotation of something "morally wrong", it is often used, both by governments and non-state groups, to abuse or denounce opposing groups.[9][10][4][11][8] Broad categories of political organisations have been claimed to have been involved in terrorism to further their objectives, including right-wing and left-wing political organisations, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[12] Terrorism-related legislation has been adopted in various states, regarding "terrorism" as a crime.[13][14] There is no universal agreement as to whether or not "terrorism", in some definition, should be regarded as a war crime.[14][15]
According to the Global Terrorism Database maintained by the University of Maryland, College Park, more than 61,000 incidents of non-state terrorism, resulting in at least 140,000 deaths, were recorded between 2000 and 2014.[16]
Etymology
Etmologically, the word terror is derived from the Latin verb Tersere, which later becomes Terrere. The latter form appears in European languages as early as the 12th century; its first known use in French is the word terrible in 1160. By 1356 the word terreur is in use. Terreur is the origin of the Middle English term terrour, which later becomes the modern word "terror".[17]
Historical background


The term terroriste, meaning "terrorist", is first used in 1794 by the French philosopher François-Noël Babeuf, who denounces Maximilien Robespierre's Jacobin regime as a dictatorship.[18][19] In the years leading up to the Reign of Terror, the Brunswick Manifesto threatened Paris with an "exemplary, never to be forgotten vengeance: the city would be subjected to military punishment and total destruction" if the royal family was harmed, but this only increased the Revolution's will to abolish the monarchy.[20] Some writers attitudes about French Revolution grew less favorable after the French monarchy was abolished in 1792. During the Reign of Terror, which began in July 1793 and lasted thirteen months, Paris was governed by the Committee of Public safety who oversaw a regime of mass executions and public purges.[21]
Prior to the French Revolution, ancient philosophers wrote about tyrannicide, as tyranny was seen as the greatest political threat to Greco-Roman civilization. Medieval philosophers were similarly occupied with the concept of tyranny, though the analysis of some theologians like Thomas Aquinas drew a distinction between usurpers, who could be killed by anyone, and legitimate rulers who abused their power– the latter, in Aquinas' view, could only be punished by a public authority. John of Salisbury was the first medieval Christian scholar to defend tyrannicide.[17]

Most scholars today trace the origins of the modern tactic of terrorism to the Jewish Sicarii Zealots who attacked Romans and Jews in 1st century Palestine. They follow its development from the Persian Order of Assassins through to 19th-century anarchists. The "Reign of Terror" is usually regarded as an issue of etymology. The term terrorism has generally been used to describe violence by non-state actors rather than government violence since the 19th-century Anarchist Movement.[20][22][23]
In December 1795, Edmund Burke used the word "Terrorists" in a description of the new French government called 'Directory':[24]
At length, after a terrible struggle, the [Directory] Troops prevailed over the Citizens (…) To secure them further, they have a strong corps of irregulars, ready armed. Thousands of those Hell-hounds called Terrorists, whom they had shut up in Prison on their last Revolution, as the Satellites of Tyranny, are let loose on the people.(emphasis added)
Modern definitions

There are over 109 different definitions of terrorism.[25] American political philosopher Michael Walzer in 2002 wrote: "Terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent people, at random, to spread fear through a whole population and force the hand of its political leaders".[8] Bruce Hoffman, an American scholar, has noted that

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus.[26]
C.A.J. Coady has written that the question of how to define terrorism is "irresolvable" because "its natural home is in polemical, ideological and propagandist contexts".[27]
French historian Sophie Wahnich distinguishes between the revolutionary terror of the French Revolution and the terrorists of the September 11 attacks:
Revolutionary terror is not terrorism. To make a moral equivalence between the Revolution's year II and September 2001 is historical and philosophical nonsense ... The violence exercised on 11 September 2001 aimed neither at equality nor liberty. Nor did the preventive war announced by the president of the United States.[28][29] 
Experts disagree about "whether terrorism is wrong by definition or just wrong as a matter of fact; they disagree about whether terrorism should be defined in terms of its aims, or its methods, or both, or neither; they disagree about whether or not states can perpetrate terrorism; they even disagree about the importance or otherwise of terror for a definition of terrorism."[27]
State terrorism
Alternatively, responding to developments in modern warfare, Paul James and Jonathan Friedman distinguish between state terrorism against non-combatants and state terrorism against combatants, including 'Shock and Awe' tactics:
Shock and Awe" as a subcategory of "rapid dominance" is the name given to massive intervention designed to strike terror into the minds of the enemy. It is a form of state-terrorism. The concept was however developed long before the Second Gulf War by Harlan Ullman as chair of a forum of retired military personnel.[30]
United Nations
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".[31] 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.[32][33] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian parliament, stated,
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.[34]
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.[35] 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.[36]
U.S. law
Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation.
U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as:
"Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".[37]
18 U.S.C. §2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism":
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
Media spectacle
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:
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.[38]

Terrorists also attack national symbols, which may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist group or its ideology.[39]
Political violence

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[41] Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[42] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. For example, carrying out a strategic bombing on an enemy city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism.[43] An associated term is violent non-state actor.[44]
According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimately in a political judgment.[45]
Pejorative use

Having the moral charge in our vocabulary of 'something morally wrong', the term 'terrorism' is often used to abuse or denounce opposite parties, either governments or non-state-groups.[9][10][4][11][8]
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, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words that have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.[46]
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: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of 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".[47] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer 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".[47][48]
In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:
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,' Brian Jenkins has written, '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.[49][50][51]


The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".[46] 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.[52][53] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the mujaheddin "freedom fighters" during the Soviet–Afghan War[54] 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" by George W. Bush.[55][56][57] Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.[58][59][60] Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as unlawful attacks for political or other ideological goals, and said:
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.[61]

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. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.[62][63][64][65][66][67] WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has been called a "terrorist" by Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.[68][69]
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. For instance, for many years, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was using methods against one of the United States' closest allies (the United Kingdom) that the UK branded as terrorism. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.[70][71]
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.[72][73]
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.[74] 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,[75][76] Judas of Galilee formed a small and more extreme offshoot of the Zealots, the Sicarii, in 6 AD.[77] Their terror was also directed against Jewish "collaborators", including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and other wealthy elites.[78]
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.[79] Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured.[79] The incident played a crucial role as an inspiration for the development of the early terrorist groups.[79]
Arguably the first organization to utilize modern terrorist techniques was the Irish Republican Brotherhood,[80] founded in 1858 as a revolutionary Irish nationalist group[81] that carried out attacks in England.[82] The group initiated the Fenian dynamite campaign in 1881, one of the first modern terror campaigns.[83] 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.[84]
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 Carlo Pisacane.[74][85][86] 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[87]– enabled them to strike directly and with discrimination.[88]
Scholars of terrorism refer to four major waves of global terrorism: "the Anarchist, the Anti-Colonial, the New Left, and the Religious. The first three have been completed and lasted around 40 years; the fourth is now in its third decade."[89]
Infographics


Terrorist incidents, 1970–2015. A total of 157,520 incidents are plotted. Orange: 1970–1999, Red: 2000–2015
Top 10 Countries (2000–2014)
Worldwide non-state terrorist incidents 1970–2017

Types

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




In early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was titled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction of H. H. A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.
The Task Force defines 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:[93]
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.[94][95][96] 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.[97] One way the typology of terrorism may be defined:[98][99]
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
Communist terrorism
State-sponsored terrorism
Regime or state terrorism
Criminal terrorism
Pathological terrorism
Motivations of terrorists
As well as there being no one agreed definition of terrorism, there is a similar lack of consensus regarding the causes – or motivations behind – terrorism. Numerous studies have identified certain behavioural and situational characteristics that are common, and perhaps causal, to the consequence of terrorism, specific analysis of case studies have led to suggested motivations to individual historical acts.
A report conducted by Paul Gill, John Horgan and Paige Deckert on behalf of The Department of security of UK highlights the vast discrepencies between individual cases of terrorism recorded. To begin with, 43% of lone wolf terrorism is motivated by religious beliefs. The same report indicates that just less than a third (32%) have pre-existing mental health disorders, while many more are found to have these problems upon arrest. At least 37% lived alone at the time of their event planning and/or execution, a further 26% lived with others, and no data were available for the remaining cases. 40% were unemployed at the time of their arrest or terrorist event. 19% subjectively experienced being disrespected by others, while 14% experienced being the victim of verbal or physical assault.[100]
Intimidation
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. 
International Attention
This strategy was used by Al-Qaeda in its attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the United States on September 11, 2001. These attacks are also used to draw international attention to struggles that are otherwise unreported, such as the Palestinian airplane hijackings in 1970 and the 1975 Dutch train hostage crisis.
Local/internal social standing
Abrahm suggests that terrorist organizations do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[101] 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.[101]
Cultural tolerance of violence
Additionally, Michael Mousseau shows possible relationships between the type of economy within a country and ideology associated with terrorism.[102] Many terrorists have a history of domestic violence.[103]
Perceived illegitimacy of the State
Some terrorists like Timothy McVeigh were motivated by revenge against a state for its actions against its citizens.
Religious beliefs/zealotry
According to Paul Gill, John Horgan and Paige Deckert on behalf of The Department of security of UK, 43% of lone wolf terrorism is motivated by religious beliefs. The same report indicates that Just less than a third (32%) have pre-existing mental health disorders, while many are found to have these problems upon arrest. At least 37% lived alone at the time of their event planning and/or execution, a further 26% lived with others, and no data were available for the remaining cases. 40% were unemployed at the time of their arrest or terrorist event. Many were chronically unemployed and consistently struggled to hold any form of employment for a significant amount of time. 19% subjectively experienced being disrespected by others, while 14.3% experienced being the victim of verbal or physical assault.[100]
Mental Health
Ariel Merari, a psychologist who has studied the psychological profiles of suicide terrorists since 1983 through media reports that contained biographical details, interviews with the suicides’ families, and interviews with jailed would-be suicide attackers, concluded that they were unlikely to be psychologically abnormal.[104]
In comparison to economic theories of criminal behaviour, Scott Atran found that suicide terrorists exhibit none of the socially dysfunctional attributes – such as fatherless, friendless, jobless situations – or suicidal symptoms. By which he means, they do not kill themselves simply out of hopelessness or a sense of 'having nothing to lose'.[105]
Nationalism
Although a common factor in terrorism is a strong religious belief there are other factors such as cultural, social and
political that wholly preclude religion. For example, the drive behind these Chechen terrorists are quite distinct and unique from others. Many of the Chechens considered themselves secular freedom fighters, nationalist insurgents seeking to establish an independent secular state of Chechnya. Although a distinction should be made between national Chechen terrorists and non-Chechen fighters who have adopted the idea from abroad. Few Chechen fighters fought for the jihads whereas most of the non-Chechen fighters did (Janeczko, 2014).[106]
Financial support for family
Another factor are perceived assurances of financial stability for the actor's families, that they are given when they join a terrorist organization or complete an attempt of terror. An extra grant is provided for the families of suicide bombers.[25]
Democracy and domestic terrorism


Terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and it is least common in the most democratic nations.[107][108][109][110]
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.[111] The study suggests that concessions awarded to terrorists during the 1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks increased their frequency.[112] There is a connection between the existence of civil liberties, democratic participation and terrorism. According to Young and Dugan, these things encourage terrorist groups to organize and generate terror.[113]
Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democratic nations include ETA in Spain under Francisco Franco (although the group's terrorist activities increased sharply after Franco's death),[114] the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in pre-war Poland,[115] the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto Fujimori,[116] the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders and the ANC in South Africa.[117] Democracies, such as Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, Indonesia, India, Spain, Germany, Italy and the Philippines, have also experienced domestic terrorism.
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.[118] For this reason, homegrown terrorism has started to be seen as a greater threat, as stated by former CIA Director Michael Hayden.[119] 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.[120]
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.[122] The validity and scope of religious terrorism is limited to an individual's view or a group's view or interpretation of that belief system's teachings.
According to the Global Terrorism Index by the University of Maryland, College Park, religious extremism has overtaken national separatism and become the main driver of terrorist attacks around the world. Since 9/11 there has been a five-fold increase in deaths from terrorist attacks. The majority of incidents over the past several years can be tied to groups with a religious agenda. Before 2000, it was nationalist separatist terrorist organizations such as the IRA and Chechen rebels who were behind the most attacks. The number of incidents from nationalist separatist groups has remained relatively stable in the years since while religious extremism has grown. The prevalence of Islamist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria is the main driver behind these trends.[123]
Four of the terrorist groups that have been most active since 2001 are Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIL. These groups have been most active in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria. 80% of all deaths from terrorism occurred in one of these five countries.[123]
Terrorism in Pakistan has become a great problem. From the summer of 2007 until late 2009, more than 1,500 people were killed in suicide and other attacks on civilians[124] for reasons attributed to a number of causes – sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims; easy availability of guns and explosives; the existence of a "Kalashnikov culture"; an influx of ideologically driven Muslims based in or near Pakistan, who originated from various nations around the world and the subsequent war against the pro-Soviet Afghans in the 1980s which blew back into Pakistan; the presence of Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Pakistan is the 10th most dangerous country by criminality index.[125] On July 2, 2013 in Lahore, 50 Muslim scholars of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) issued a collective fatwa against suicide bombings, the killing of innocent people, bomb attacks, and targeted killings declaring them as Haraam or forbidden.[126]
In 2015, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report on terrorism in the United States. The report (titled The Age of the Wolf) found that during that period, "more people have been killed in America by non-Islamic domestic terrorists than jihadists."[127] The "virulent racist and anti-semitic" ideology of the ultra-right wing Christian Identity movement is usually accompanied by anti-government sentiments.[128] Adherents of Christian Identity believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the "Lost Tribes of Israel" and many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent.[128] This group has committed hate crimes, bombings and other acts of terrorism. Its influence ranges from the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups to the anti-government militia and sovereign citizen movements.[128] Christian Identity's origins can be traced back to Anglo-Israelism. Anglo-Israelism held the view that Jews were descendants of ancient Israelites who had never been lost. By the 1930s, the movement had been infected with anti-Semitism, and eventually Christian Identity theology diverged from traditional Anglo-Israelism, and developed what is known as the "two seed" theory.[128] According to the two-seed theory, the Jewish people are descended from Cain and the serpent (not from Shem).[128] The white European seedline is descended from the "lost tribes" of Israel. They hold themselves to "God's laws", not to "man's laws", and they do not feel bound to a government that they consider run by Jews and the New World Order.[128]

Israel has also had problems with Jewish religious terrorism. Yigal Amir assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. For Amir, killing Rabin was an exemplary act that symbolized the fight against an illegitimate government that was prepared to cede Jewish Holy Land to the Palestinians. [129]
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.[130]
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.[131] Others, like Roderick Hindery, have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by terrorists. Some security organizations designate these groups as violent non-state actors. A 2007 study by economist Alan B. Krueger 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.A study into the poverty-stricken conditions and whether or not,terrorists are more likely to come from here,show that people who grew up in these situations tend to show aggression and frustration towards others. This theory is largely debated for the simple fact that just because one is frustrated,does not make them a potential terrorist.[25][132]
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.[133] The physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.[134] However, the majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by military age men, aged 16–40.[134]
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.
According to the Global Terrorism Database, the most active terrorist group in the period 1970 to 2010 was Shining Path (with 4,517 attacks), followed by Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), Irish Republican Army (IRA), Basque Fatherland and Freedom (ETA), Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Taliban, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, New People's Army, National Liberation Army of Colombia (ELN), and Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).[135]
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.[136]
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 it is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.—Derrick Jensen[137]


As with "terrorism" the concept of "state terrorism" is controversial.[138] 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.[139] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that 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".[140] However, he also made clear that, "regardless of the differences between governments on the question of the definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is that any deliberate attack on innocent civilians [or non-combatants], regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."[141]

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. Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl cites the examples that include the German bombing of London, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the British and American firebombing of Dresden, and the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. He argues that "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 he argues 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 the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this behavior by the state.[142][143][144]
 Charles Stewart Parnell described William Ewart Gladstone's Irish Coercion Act as terrorism in his "no-Rent manifesto" in 1881, during the Irish Land War.[145] The concept is also used to describe political repressions by governments against their own civilian populations with the purpose of inciting fear. For example, taking and executing civilian hostages or extrajudicial elimination campaigns are commonly considered "terror" or terrorism, for example during the Red Terror or the Great Terror.[146] Such actions are also often described as democide or genocide, which have been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism.[147] Empirical studies on this have found that democracies have little democide.[148][149] Western democracies, including the United States, have supported state terrorism[150] and mass killings,[151] with some examples being the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 and Operation Condor.[152][153][154]
Connection with tourism
The connection between terrorism and tourism has been widely studied since the Luxor massacre in Egypt.[155][156] In the 1970s, the targets of terrorists were politicians and chiefs of police while now, international tourists and visitors are selected as the 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.[157] From this event onwards, the spaces of leisure that characterized the pride of West, were conceived as dangerous and frightful.[158][159]
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.[160][161] The Stern Gang received funding from Italian Fascist officers in Beirut to undermine the British Mandate for Palestine.[162] Pakistan has created and nurtured terrorist groups as policy for achieving tactical objectives against its neighbours, especially India.[163]
"Revolutionary tax" is another major form of funding, and essentially a euphemism for "protection money".[160] Revolutionary taxes "play a secondary role as one other means of intimidating the target population".[160]
Other major sources of funding include kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling (including wildlife smuggling),[164] fraud, and robbery.[160] The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has reportedly received funding "via private donations from the Gulf states".[165]
The Financial Action Task Force is an inter-governmental body whose mandate, since October 2001, has included combating terrorist financing.[166]
Tactics


Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity, usually using explosives or poison.[168]
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.[169]
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.
Response in the United States


According to a report by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin in The Washington Post, "Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States."[170]
America's thinking on how to defeat radical Islamists is split along two very different schools of thought. Republicans, typically follow what is known as the Bush Doctrine, advocate the military model of taking the fight to the enemy and seeking to democratize the Middle East. Democrats, by contrast, generally propose the law enforcement model of better cooperation with nations and more security at home.[171] In the introduction of the U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Sarah Sewall states the need for "U.S. forces to make securing the civilian, rather than destroying the enemy, their top priority. The civilian population is the center of gravity– the deciding factor in the struggle.... Civilian deaths create an extended family of enemies– new insurgent recruits or informants – and erode support of the host nation." Sewall sums up the book's key points on how to win this battle: "Sometimes, the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.... Sometimes, the more force is used, the less effective it is.... The more successful the counterinsurgency is, the less force can be used and the more risk must be accepted.... Sometimes, doing nothing is the best reaction."[172] This strategy, often termed "courageous restraint", has certainly led to some success on the Middle East battlefield, yet it fails to address the central truth: the terrorists we face are mostly homegrown.[171]
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.[173]
International agreements
One of the agreements that promote the international legal anti-terror framework is the Code of Conduct Towards Achieving a World Free of Terrorism that was adopted at the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2018. The Code of Conduct was initiated by Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Its main goal is to implement a wide range of international commitments to counter terrorism and establish a broad global coalition towards achieving a world free of terrorism by 2045. The Code was signed by more than 70 countries.[174]
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.[175]
The Internet has created a new channel for groups to spread their messages.[176] 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.[177]
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. Conversely James F. Pastor explains the significant relationship between terrorism and the media, and the underlying benefit each receives from the other.[178]
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.—Novelist William Gibson[179]
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also famously spoke of the close connection between terrorism and the media, calling publicity 'the oxygen of terrorism'.[180]
Outcome of terrorist groups

Jones and Libicki (2008) created a list of all the terrorist groups they could find that were active between 1968 and 2006.  They found 648.  of those, 136 splintered and 244 were still active in 2006.[182] Of the ones that ended, 43 percent converted to nonviolent political actions, like the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland.  Law enforcement took out 40 percent.  Ten percent won.  Only 20 groups, 7 percent, were taken out by military force.
Forty-two groups became large enough to be labeled an insurgency; 38 of those had ended by 2006.  Of those, 47 percent converted to nonviolent political actors.  Only 5 percent were taken out by law enforcement.   26 percent won.  21 percent succumbed to military force.[183] Jones and Libicki concluded that military force may be necessary to deal with large insurgencies but are only occasionally decisive, because the military is too often seen as a bigger threat to civilians than the terrorists.  To avoid that, the rules of engagement must be conscious of collateral damage and work to minimize it.
Another researcher, Audrey Cronin, lists six primary ways that terrorist groups end:[184]
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).
Databases
The following terrorism databases are or were made publicly available for research purposes, and track specific acts of terrorism:
Global Terrorism Database, an open-source database by the University of Maryland, College Park on terrorist events around the world from 1970 through 2017 with more than 150,000 cases.
MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base
Worldwide Incidents Tracking System
Tocsearch (dynamic database)
The following public report and index provides a summary of key global trends and patterns in terrorism around the world
Global Terrorism Index, produced annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace
The following publicly available resources index electronic and bibliographic resources on the subject of terrorism
Human Security Gateway
The following terrorism databases are maintained in secrecy by the United States Government for intelligence and counter-terrorism purposes:
Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment
Terrorist Screening Database
Jones and Libicki (2008) includes a table of 268 terrorist groups active between 1968 and 2006 with their status as of 2006:  still active, splintered, converted to nonviolence, removed by law enforcement or military, or won.  (These data are not in a convenient machine-readable format but are available.)
See also


Archives of Terror
Christian terrorism
Crimes against humanity
Cyberterrorism
Definitions of terrorism
Domestic terrorism in the United States
Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
Global Terrorism Index
House of Terror
Islamic extremism
Islamic terrorism
List of Islamist terrorist attacks
Jewish religious terrorism
Jihadi tourism
Khalistan movement
List of causes of death by rate
List of designated terrorist groups
List of terrorist incidents
Lynching in the United States
Narcoterrorism
National Counter Terrorism Security Office
Saffron terror
State terrorism
Iran and state-sponsored terrorism
Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism
Police state
State-sponsored terrorism
United States and state-sponsored terrorism
Suicide attack
Terrorism in Russia
Terrorism and tourism in Egypt
Terrorism in the European Union
Victims of Acts of Terror Memorial
War on Terror
Violent extremism


Notes



Further reading

Bakker, Edwin. 
Burleigh, Michael. Blood and rage: a cultural history of terrorism. Harper, 2009.
Chaliand, Gérard and Arnaud Blin, eds. The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda. University of California Press, 2007.
Coates, Susan W., Rosenthal, Jane, and  Schechter, Daniel S. September 11: Trauma and Human Bonds. New York: Taylor and Francis, Inc., 2003.
Crenshaw, Martha, ed. Terrorism in context. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.

Hennigfeld, Ursula/ Packard, Stephan, ed., Abschied von 9/11? Distanznahme zur Katastrophe. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2013.
Hennigfeld, Ursula, ed., Poetiken des Terrors. Narrative des 11. September 2001 im interkulturellen Vergleich. Heidelberg: Winter, 2014.
Land, Isaac, ed., Enemies of humanity: the nineteenth-century war on terrorism. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Lee, Newton. Counterterrorism and Cybersecurity: Total Information Awareness (2nd Edition). New York: Springer, 2015. ISBN978-3-319-17243-9
Lutz, James and Brenda Lutz. Terrorism: origins and evolution. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005
Miller, Martin A. The foundations of modern terrorism: state, society and the dynamics of political violence. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Neria, Yuval, Gross, Raz, Marshall, Randall D., and Susser, Ezra. September 11, 2001: Treatment, Research and Public Mental Health in the Wake of a Terrorist Attack. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Stern, Jessica. The Ultimate Terrorists. First Harvard University Press Pbk. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000, cop. 1995. 214 p. ISBN0-674-00394-2
Tausch, Arno, Estimates on the Global Threat of Islamic State Terrorism in the Face of the 2015 Paris and Copenhagen Attacks (December 11, 2015). Middle East Review of International Affairs, Rubin Center, Research in International Affairs, Idc Herzliya, Israel, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring 2015). Available at SSRN: 
, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice. ISBN978-2-9809728-7-4.
Jones, Sidney. . Jakarta: International Crisis Group, 2013.




Library resources about 
 Main Page 
United Nations: 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:  

, International Committee of the Red Cross
UK Counter Terrorism Policing: