New Versus Traditional Terrorism: Similarities and Differences

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

The word ‘terrorism’ can be traced back to the French Revolution and the reign of terror committed against the population of France in the 1790s. During this time, thousands of people were killed and the general population was severely oppressed. Also, some of the first instances of terrorist tactics, such as assassination and intimidation, were witnessed in the killing of prominent officials and other opponents of the Revolution. In general, terrorists aim to incite fear in the population through pre-meditated violent acts and gain publicity as a medium in achieving their goals. Such acts include taking hostages, bombings and assassinations, all of which create fear and compliance in a victim or audience. Terrorism can be distinguished from other types of political violence through its disregard for and intentional harming of innocent civilians. Also, terrorists usually adopt a state of mind where one side is always good and any opposition is bad and deserves to be punished. As a result, terrorists will always have some supporters who share the same radical thoughts as them and thus terrorism, as a whole, will always be accepted as a legitimate use of violence. This is the reasoning behind the famous phrase by Gerald Seymour, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”(QUOTE

A rational approach method can explain terrorism by identifying responsiveness to incentives, narrow self-interest, and rational expectations underlying the motivations of terrorists as individuals. We know that Mohammed, for instance, promises paradise to all who fall in “a holy war”. (Caplan) Once we identify what these cultures value and believe, we can begin to understand the rational thought process behind these acts of terror. The independent variable would be ‘the general degree of radicalism’ and the dependent would be ‘terrorism incidents’.

“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 character of types of terrorists is important to look at in order to understand possible causes for them to continue

inflict a heavy cost. The authors continue by positing a dilemma that sounds nearly identical to Adler’. They assert that terrorists use a strategy of provocation that is designed to induce a violent response, which will in turn radicalize population and lead to them supporting the terrorists.

Terrorism is a big threat people in the world face today. Terrorism is defined by Cindy Combs as “a synthesis of war and theater, a dramatization of the most proscribed kind of violence - that which is perpetuated on innocent victims - played before an audience in the hope of creating a mood of fear; for political purposes.” In other words an act of terrorism is not for mass casualties but rather for attention. Terrorist seek an audience. They would rather kill one person and have the whole world see it than kill a whole city and no one knew about it. Through attention they believe they can create a fear in us the people. If the people are scared the government

Although terrorist can be labeled into different categories, it is important to remember that even though a group of terrorist may fall under different labels that they have distinct similarities. In McEntire, there are five similarities that are noted. The first similarity is that terrorists see the world simply in the terms of right and wrong. The second similarity is that terrorists are disturbed by their current situation. What this means is that terrorists are saddened with current problems in the society and know what they would like to see differently. The third similarity is that terrorists have a unique image of themselves. McEntire elaborates further on this by stating that terrorist consider themselves to be more entitled than others,

There are several different reasons why terrorists attack; so broad, that many people debate about the official definition of terrorism. However, terrorists are defined in typologies to help sort some of this definition conflict. Typologies focus on the social meanings behind terrorist tactics and violence.

Terrorism is well known and historically significant. Not many of the terrorists describe themselves as terrorist. Terrorism continued to be called anarchist, socialist, fascist, and nationalists, and killers. many of them engaged

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.

You have probably heard and may have used the word terrorism. When we did, it had an image in our mind. When other people used the word (terrorism) they had their own images or meanings for this term. As a result, terrorism means different things to different people. The nature of terrorism has changed over the course of history. Violent activity called terrorism at one point in time was called war. Liberation or crime in another period of history. The media has come to play an important part in some forms of terrorism. Religion has come to play and important part in some forms of terrorism. (Terrorism & Homeland Security pg. 3)

What is a terrorist? Who are terrorists? In a noun perspective, terrorist is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. In other words meaning, the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion. The terms 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' have been used since the late 18th century. While several definitions agree that terrorism can or does consist in deliberately killing or trying to kill civilians, they disagree as to whether that violence should also aim at some political effect in order to qualify as 'terrorism'. The term terrorism, like globalism, is difficult to define and has a

Terrorism is “usually characterized by a variety of tactics, such as assassination, hijacking, kidnapping, sabotage, and the use of innocent victims to affect a third party. Terrorism, in short, is the creation of fear in a population in order to force the existing system to respond to the terrorists’ demands and objectives” (Staples, 2008).