Origin of term

See also: State terrorism

"Terror" comes from the Latin verb terrere meaning "to frighten".[12] The terror
cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of
warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing
a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.[13][14] After the Jacobins lost power, the
word "terrorist" became a term of abuse.[8] Although the Reign of Terror was imposed by
a government, in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of innocent
people[15] by a private group in such a way as to create a media spectacle.[16] This meaning
can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".[17]
Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная
расправа) in 1869.

In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General 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".[18]

Definition
Main article: Definition of terrorism

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and
government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation.
Moreover, 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.[19] In this regard, Angus Martyn,
briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "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."[20]

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 terrorism.[21] Nonetheless, the
international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and
criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, 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 general 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 .
Types of terrorism
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 entitled 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.[70] The Task Force classified terrorism into six
categories.

• 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.[71] 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.

Several sources[72][73] [74] have further defined the typology of terrorism:

• Political terrorism
o Sub-state terrorism
 Social revolutionary terrorism
 Nationalist-separatist terrorism
 Religious extremist terrorism
 Religious fundamentalist Terrorism
 New religions terrorism
 Right-wing terrorism
 Left-wing terrorism
  Single-issue terrorism
o State-sponsored terrorism
o Regime or state terrorism
• Criminal terrorism
• Pathological terrorism

Democracy and domestic terrorism

The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is very complex. Terrorism
is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and is least common in
the most democratic nations.[75][76][77][78] However, one study suggests that suicide
terrorism 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.[79] The study suggests
that concessions awarded to terrorists during the 1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks
increased their frequency.[80]

Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democracies include ETA in Spain under Francisco

Franco,[81] the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto Fujimori,[82] the Kurdistan Workers
Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders and the ANC in South Africa.[83]
Democracies, such as the United Kingdom, United States, Israel, Indonesia, India, Spain
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.[84] 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.[85]

Religious terrorism
Main article: Religious terrorism

Religious terrorism is terrorism performed by groups or individuals, the motivation of

which is typically rooted in the faith based tenets. Terrorist acts throughout the centuries
have been performed on religious grounds with the hope to either spread or enforce a
system of belief, viewpoint or opinion.[86] Religious terrorism does not in itself
necessarily define a specific religious standpoint or view, but instead usually defines an
individual or a group view or interpretation of that belief system's teachings.

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, 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.[87]

Over the years, many people have attempted to come up with a terrorist profile to attempt
to explain these individuals' actions through their psychology and social circumstances.
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.[88] 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.[89]

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.[90] The physical and behavioral description
of the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.[91] However, the majority of
terrorist attacks are carried out by military age men, aged 16–40.[91]

Terrorist groups

There is speculation that anthrax mailed inside letters to U.S. politicians was the work of
a lone wolf terrorist.
Main articles: List of designated terrorist organizations and Lone wolf (terrorism)

State sponsors
Main article: State-sponsored terrorism

A state can sponsor terrorism by funding or harboring a terrorist organization. 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.
State terrorism
Main article: 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 is regarded with shock,
horror, and the fetishization of the victims. ”
— Derrick Jensen[92]

As with "terrorism" the concept of "state terrorism" is controversial.[93] 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 and international humanitarian law.[94] 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"[95] However, he also made clear that, "regardless of the differences
between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what
we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's
cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."[96]