How New Is The New Terrorism By Isabelle Duyvesteyn

Modern terrorism, as deduced from this literature, is acts to violence strategically used by secular groups spanning international borders with the aim of achieving a desired outcome. Further, it can be seen as organized activity whose genesis can be traced back to the 1880’s. From then to now there are identifiable traits and patterns observed from different (terrorist) groups which have allowed for the conceptualization of the term modern terrorism. This concept therefore, can be best explained in the context of being a wave or having a life cycle. That means it is a cycle of activity demarked by phases from inception and expands along the way then eventually it declines. The world, thus far, has experienced four waves of modern

“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para

The overwhelming majority of the world’s nations, including United States are signatories to at least one international agreement that condemns terrorism. The question comes to mind as why terrorism is growing and not coming to an end, and what are the intentions of the terrorist groups. There are many factors in the development of domestic terrorisms, however, there are several causes on the growing terrorism and there is a need to find the principal factors responsible for causing this growing threat. In addition, it is important to save the world and to save our next generation from being victims in the hands of terrorism. Many are the risk factors involved in the development of domestic terrorism. Additionally, it is important to remember that terrorism is a tactic practiced by people from a wide array of ethnic and religious backgrounds who follow various ideologies extending from anarchism to

Acts of terrorism are typically political oriented and ideologically motivated, ranging from specific goals expressed in terms of the might of political nation-states to more general purposes connected to the dilemma of certain people and groups. Therefore, terrorism can result from demands made by ethnic groups to receive representation in an existing political community or have its own state be formed, while terrorism can also be part of ideological fights for the acknowledgment of diminished expressions of ideas and ways of life. Because of the essentially political ideological objectives of terrorism, the fundamental ideas of terrorism are important to consider as the inspiring forces that fuel terrorist groups and individuals.

Throughout the article Mullins convinces the reader that while the number of jihadist-inspired attacks is on the rise, the attacks lethality of these attacks is decreasing. This being his main argument, using the deadliest attack since 9/11 is not a good supporting point. In addition to using pathos, Mullins makes a large generalization, and leads the readers to believe that the average Islamic extremist is an unemployed male, aged early 20s, that also has psychological problems, with little to no affiliation with FTOs. While the average Islamic extremist is a male aged in his mid-20s, a majority of terrorist attacks are committed by people directly affiliated with FTOs such as the Taliban, ISIL, and Boko Haram (Department of Homeland Security). As evidenced by the attempted attack of the “Underwear Bomber,” Hoffman’s stereotype is incorrect. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was the son of “one of the richest men in Africa.” (Kennedy), Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, and prior to his attempted bombing, had graduated from University College

As we move past defining terrorism we are now looking to give it an identity. Terrorism is an act that is acted out by groups and individuals. There are always some command grounds in differences when you evalute one terrorist to another. Person or group. Some command areas might be methods of employement and desired end result. One of the biggest difference between terrorists (group or person) is politics or motivatoin behind the act and a countinuing agenda. In order to obtain data and provide comparisons to such items as mentioned two executors of terrorism were selected. One individual Timothy McVeigh(domestic) and one group al-Shabaab (international). The intent of this paper will be to compare the key similarities and differences between Timothy McVeigh and al-Shabaab, reference one terrorist activity and the motives of the attacks for each and provide an assessment of which is a greater threat to the United States (threat should be interpreted as threat to the national security of the United States).

Terrorism can be defined and viewed in many different ways. As discussed in “Terrorism and Political Violence,” by Alex Schmid, there are multiple frameworks in which terrorism can be defined (Schmid 2010, 197). In Schmid’s article, he discusses the five ways he feels terrorism can be looked at, terrorism as/and politics, terrorism as/and crime, terrorism as/and warfare, terrorism as/and communication and terrorism as/and religious fundamentalism (Schmid 2010, 197). This is interesting because it explores the concept of terrorism in different lenses, where each has its own motives, its own background and its own participants. This is important to understand because not every act of terrorism is done in the same light and for the same purposes. Just as any other crime, there are reasons behind the act. When studying terrorism, understanding motives makes all the difference, and understanding what is at stake for the attacker or the attacked helps fully conceptualize the matter.

The term has expanded immensely during the twentieth century to include any type of political violence that an observer does not agree with; thus contributing to the confusion and the murkiness of the meaning of the word. The media and Politicians are quick to label any violent enemy as terrorist. Deeming any act of violence that one disagrees with as terrorism cause the term to lose its meaning and become a highly contextual and highly subjective. Some acts of violence are portrayed as terrorism by certain media outlets and this notion of legitimate is resisted by others. Confusion further depends by the fact that researchers and governments have more than one hundred working different definitions for the term terrorism. Critics believe that another contribution to the media’s confusion is the need to get the news first which can lead to inaccurate reporting and misrepresentations (Tuggle, & Huffman, 2007) or “blatantly false pretenses” (Greenwald,

An imminent critique in the hegemonic disclosure of war against terror is intensifying rapidly against grain of an overwhelming silence on the impact of the war on terror on the non-western, especially in the Muslim world. The new trend is based in the three ontological and Occidentalism assumption on terrorism studies challenging orthodox studies on terrorism. These assumptions include pre-eminence and dominance of state-centric perspective and historical accounts of terrorism. The value of critical terrorism studies is rooted in the notion of multi-causality and the complication of political violence and terrorism from a comprehensive historical and sociological perspective. The new approach call for asymmetrical questions power structure

Congress: "International terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and difficult threat to America... Today's terrorists seek to inflict mass casualties, and they are attempting to do so both overseas and on American soil. They are less dependent on state sponsorship and are, instead, forming loose, transnational affiliations based on religious or ideological affinity and a common hatred of the United States. This makes terrorist attacks more difficult to detect and prevent."

The physical and symbolic attacks on the United States and its political and cultural powers that occurred on September 11, 2001 opened a new academic debate on the issue of terrorism. The abundant literature on the topic, which predominates in the West, reflects an unfaltering focus on Islam and the Muslims, attributing to them the adjective ‘terroristic’.

The definition of terrorism has forever been a topic of debate. One thing agreed upon however, is that there are different types of terrorism. For instance, there is religious terrorism, and there is political terrorism. This paper will discuss the question: How do religious and political terrorism differ in terms of their roots, their motivations, and their methods – and it will also briefly discuss how their traits coincide.

Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.

Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.