Inside Terrorism Book Review

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

This article by Isabelle Duyvesteyn starts off by summarising the objectives that challenge the perspective of terrorism since the last decade of the twentieth century is fundamentally new. In this article certain questions have been debated regarding new aspects of terrorism and they are: “transnational nature of the perpetrators and their organizations, their religious inspiration, fanaticism, use of weapons of mass destruction and their indiscriminate targeting.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)In order to understand the depth of aspects of new terrorism the article talks about “national and territorial focus of the new terrorists, their political motivations, use of conventional weaponry and the symbolic targeting that is aimed in order to achieve a surprising effect.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Caleb Carr is stressing that terrorism is never the answer throughout this chapter and I presume, the rest of the book. This is clearly shown in him saying "for just as meeting the tactics of terror in kind will only perpetuate the cycle of terrorist violence.." As for whether or not the affect of Roman warfare can be applied to today's governments in training people that are not of their own, it can be. Carr begins to explain this when he says "There is an irony concerning most of those rebel leaders that also holds enormous implications for our present experience..." (p. 37).

The vice of gambling is not an addiction that I indulge in, luckily. That said I would venture a guess, or better yet place a bet that you have never read a book titled “Inside Terrorism” written by Bruce Hoffman. In his book Bruce Hoffman defines terrorism as “the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change.” The United States does not have the luxury of kicking back and watching from the sidelines the war against terrorism take place. Currently the USA is not only involved in but is one of the prime combatants against terrorism in the following wars: War in Afghanistan, War in North-West Pakistan, and the War on ISIL. The effects of war are not ones that US citizens should continue to live with and permit if technology can be implemented to reduce and effectively combat terrorism. Some of the more severe effects of war are first and foremost lives of American soldiers being cut short, soldiers acquiring Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and a monumental economic impact and drain of the hardworking American citizens’ tax dollars. What were once yester year’s dreams and subjects of science fiction novels has materialized into reality for the US and its arsenal to fight terrorism. Drones are an effective weapon against terrorism, and their use when justified save lives of American soldiers, reduce incidences of PTSD, and decrease the economic impact of war.

Research into terrorism is another challenge in defining terrorism. According to James Rinehart, “those who write about terrorism, tend to possess a preconceived bias of a ‘problem-solution’ orientation in which he or she is simply attempting to justify a set of counterterrorist prescriptive” (4). This research is unreliable at best because as mentioned previously, preconceived biases and stereotypes tend to become involved. Furthermore, there is little research into the why of terrorism, and also very little research into the psychology of terrorists by actual psychologists. The scarcity of primary, first-hand research and due to the private nature of data that is out there, the challenge to defining

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.

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.

can thus be seen as two sides of the same coin: their organizational structure (or lack thereof), attackers, and victims may differ, but they retain several key similarities.

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,

When one is coming to understand terrorism and all of its components, a generally accepted definition is hard to come by because it tends to be described through the “subjective outlook of the definer” (Ganor, 2002). This idea has best been described as saying that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Laqueur, 1987). For example, Osama Bin Laden, the man who is most known in the development of the plans for the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, was most likely seen as a freedom fighter in the eyes of those in support of Al-Qaeda, while Americans and people all around the world viewed his actions as one of a terrorist. Terrorism is not this tangible object that can be defined as one thing and is applied

In the current 21st century, Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO’s) have arisen in abundance throughout the world. These organizations do not only wreak havoc in their own region, but they proceed to terrorize the lives of civilians and political figures in foreign nations as well. An organization that the United States could consider a terroristic threat may not be considered a threat to another nation; this international dilemma generally correlates with the nation in questions definition of terrorism, based off of the social context and the social construct (the way people view reality) in that particular nations region at the time. A social context can be described as “the historical, political and criminological circumstances at a

Heightened attention is paid to terrorism since September 11, 2001 terror attacks on World Trade Center and the Pentagon by Al Qaeda terror network. The act of terror and terrorist groups however have existed for centuries. Terrorism as Ted Gur would explain is a tactic used by the weak to intimate the strong and by the strong to intimidate the weak (Gur in White, 2002, p.205). It is believed that when a group resorts to terror against its own citizens or another state, it is admittance that they do not have the power or strength to deal with the issue therefore results to use of violence, such as guerilla or unconventional warfare, to challenge the legitimacy or in Weber’s term legitimate, violence” (Couto 2010, P. 68). Irish Republican Army in the 1960s and 70s carried out various terrorist act in their demand for British withdrawal and unification of Ireland. They strategically attacked pubs, town centers and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They also was involved in international terrorism because they strategically carried out attacks in England. Likewise, Palestinian Liberation Organization whose aim was to liberate Palestinians through arm struggle carried out terrorist activities in Israel, and against Israelis in Munich Olympics (Cristie, 2011).

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.