Rapoport's Four Waves Of International Terrorism

attempts to outline unique patterns of political violence and terrorism strategies systematically grouped as "the wave system" (TWS). The research explores over a 135-year period of rebel terror activities where TWS is systematically divided by "The four waves of Modern Terrorism", with each wave lasting 40 years. Extensive research on past events over a long timeline, and wide-ranging research references allows the reader to credit the reliability of the publication. The objective is to illustrate the relationship between international terrorist factions within certain time frames in history. TWS as a model attempts to link contemporary rebel terrorist groups

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)

International terrorism aspires to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government and transcend national

Transnational terrorism points toward an ideological globalism ignoring a world divided by national frontiers. by acknowledging the nature of transnational terrorism, policymakers may come to realize that the structure of terrorism has changed. At least two major international terrorist groups embrace a transcendent ideology-al Qaeda and Hezbollah-and both groups are motivated by religion. In addition, several smaller groups want to follow in their path. Second, at first glance, because many of these groups are Islamic, it would seem to suggest the beginning of religious conflicts beyond nationalistic

“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

There are many differing definitions of terrorism. What is terrorism? How do we define it? Why is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? These are just a few of the questions that face the world on a daily basis. There are many challenges that face the international community when it comes to how to define terrorism and what it constitutes. This paper will explore the challenges facing scholars when it comes to labeling terror and discuss potential ways to properly define it.

Terrorism has been an important part of social behavior for over 2,000 years. Between the years of 1980 and 1995, terroristic groups motivated by religious beliefs had increased by 43% (Hoffman). Religious beliefs and culture are a main reason groups and individuals resort to terrorism. Groups resort to terrorism as a consequence of seeing their culture demolished, as well as religious motives. Terrorist groups have many intentions when it comes to acts of terrorism. They main ones are they want to create fear globally, weaken the government, and obtain universal recognition for what they have done. Religiously motivated terrorist groups usually have high authority targets. These targets include government offices, banks, and national airlines. From the group’s perspective, terrorism is the only practical option. Groups are formed centered on certain factors like culture and religion. Many terrorists will receive support from their followers

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 French Revolution’s aftermath during the 18th century sparked a vicious campaign against nobles who were seen as enemies of the newly formed state. The post-revolutionary government because of their series of mass executions was referred to as terror. The terror concept differs from the modern use of “terrorism” because the perpetrators are not usually governments and are instead nonstate actors (Lacquer, 2001). The word terrorism can be like the word globalism because it can be difficult to define because of the diversity of its meanings among different individuals and different groups. The continual transformation of the contexts in which the term is used causes difficulty in forming a distinctive meaning, but does not make it impossible to study the phenomenon as a distinctive form of political violence. Terrorism may differ from media outlets, governments, cultures, scholars, and readers. Examining the usage of the term thorough-out history will be a useful way to come to a conclusion as to the true meaning and definition of the term. Even though examples of terrorism can go back several millennia, studying the history of it will make it seem considerably new at this time and

The study of terrorism is a growing field, primarily due to the world’s interest in the subject matter. Although death by terrorist attack is rare in the United States, as common as death by asteroid or comet (Jackson 2011: 132-133), many citizens view it as a primary concern that threatens the nation. Because of the world’s fear of terrorism, it has gained a huge budget of its own and has become a primary topic/focus. Terrorism: A Critical Introduction, written by Richard Jackson, Lee Jarvis, Jereon Gunning, and Marie Breen-Smyth, examines the orthodox study of terrorism. While analyzing the orthodox scholarship they find and discuss a few key issues. Their critique includes methods/research, emphasis on non-state actors, Western

Throughout the course of history, particularly over the last century, the Middle East has been identified as a growing source of hostility and violence due to its extensive involvement in religious conflict, ethnic rivalry, territorial dispute, and war. Poor governance, as well as the absence of an effective civil society and the lack of the rule of law, has led to the demise of several states within the region. Such instability has fostered the growth of religious extremism and brutality while insurgent groups and established terrorist organizations have converted these territories into safe havens to facilitate their radical operations. As a result, almost every country in the Middle East

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.

For example, some groups that have been herald as a terrorist organisation, such as Hamas, are mainly secular and driven by non-religious objectives (Schulzke NA). Furthermore, Rapoport (2004) argues that ethno-religious conflicts are generally more violent than other forms of terrorism, however he fails to clearly elaborate what kind of behaviours would constitute as an ethno-religious conflict. Rapoprt’s claim is not consistent since so many religious individuals do not engage in any kind of violence. Furthermore, Rapoport (2004) focuses on non-state terrorist organisations that engage in organized religious violence, it turns the attention away from several forms of other religious violence that occurred informally or at the order of elites or political leaders. However this argument is not within Rapoport‘s scope of interest in terrorism. Nonetheless, this narrow theory consequently portrays religious violence as less common then it actually is since it does not take into consideration all types of religiously driven attacks. By analysing Rapoport’s (2004) theory on modern terrorism, it is evident that there are some critical flaws. Rapoport’s (2004) theory on the Four Waves of Terrorism is fixed whereas