The Significance of Terrorism

Old Terrorism and New Terrorism

Adrian Rojas
October 17, 2018

1 Introduction
Within contemporary politics, most mainstream media sources focus on the current rise
of Islamic terrorism which has affected the majority of the world, but tend to ignore
all other forms of of terrorism or utilize different criminal labels such as hate crime and
workplace violence. Generally speaking, virtually all established societies has perpetrated
some form of terrorism against their foes to instill fear or coherence a source of authority.
While terrorism is rare in any singular location, its occurrence affects the world due to how
globalized and interconnected the people have become. Incidents such as the 2015 Paris
attacks demonstrate how the world is affected and can rally in support after a terrorist
attack. From these attacks we can also observe the popularity of terrorist organizations
diminish due to excessive brutality. Nevertheless, terrorist attacks, in particular lone wolf
attacks, continue to occur, hence it is imperative to identify patterns in terrorist behavior,
the motives which drive individuals to radicalization, and how to halt terrorist efforts to
make society safer. No two locations are similar though, so in this paper the different
types and ideologies of terrorist cells will be examined in the United States and Europe.
While these regions are not the only recipients of terrorist attacks, these regions have
more tools to tackle the issues which are presented in combating terrorism.

2 Terrorism
2.1 Definition of Terrorism
To begin with, the definition of a terrorist act needs to be universally defined. Some
attacks that classify as terrorism in Europe do not classify as terrorist attacks in the
United States. It is difficult to point out what a proper definition of terrorism is as
there is no universally accepted definition of the term, not by the United Nations or
the European Union. In addition, within the government of the United States exists
several definitions of terrorism throughout many of the different agencies and departments.
For simplicity, the most common terms will be used as a definition to represent the
different regions, drawing from the European Union Council Framework Decision of 13

1
June 2002 on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA) as “acts committed with the aim of
‘seriously intimidating a population’, ‘unduly compelling a government or international
organization to perform or abstain from performing any act’ or ‘seriously destabilizing or
destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economics or social structures of a
country or an international organization’”(Pawlak, 2015). As aforementioned, the United
States carries multiple definitions at different levels of government. First, the United
States Code definition, serves as the highest description of how to classify such attacks,
which states terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (22 U.S. Code 38
§2656f, 2000). Another definition which is relevant and adds a crucial element is the
Code of Federal Regulations version which states terrorism is “the unlawful use of force
and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28
C.F.R. Section 0.85). In order to properly gauge how to evaluate terrorist acts and
organizations, the commonalities need to be extracted and made into a comprehensive
definition. First is intimidation or coercion of the population or government institution,
and second is attacks on the civilian population although, only the United States Code
mentions non-combatants or what is commonly thought of as a civilian population, and
finally, the objective of achieving political, economic or social aims, such as destabilization
as the Council of the European Union states it. Using these three central motivations as
characteristics necessary to define an attack as terrorism is integral to properly comparing
the United States to Europe. Furthermore, a terrorist organization shall be defined as
a group with 2 or more individuals who seek to intentionally perpetrate or promote any
action which may be defined as a terrorist act, this definition stems from the Council of
the European Union under the framework decision as above (2002/475/JHA).

2.2 Dangers of Ambiguity in the Definition of Terrorism

The definition of terrorism is very important within a legal standpoint due to the ram-
ifications should one associate with perceived terrorist organizations. The constantly
fluctuating definition of terrorism causes certain terrorist events to incorrectly be label,
either correctly or incorrectly. By extension, the constant flux can be observed as a po-
litical move to silence or discredit opposing groups. As an example, in the United States
during the 1980’s attacks toward abortion clinics or supporters, the conservative leaning
government did not label these attacks terrorism despite its clear intentions to instill fear
due the support of conservative lawmakers who sympathized with the movement. Due to
an ideological shift during the Clinton administration in 1992 to progressive liberal this
violence was justly labeled terrorism (Jenkins, 1999). Nevertheless, groups who are found
to be terrorist organizations, both domestically and internationally face legal pressure and
permanent degradation of their name.
As according to the United States Department of State, once an organization is des-
ignated as a terror network it becomes a federal offense, punishable by a fine and/or
a sentence of less than 20 years in prison, to aid these groups with material or mone-
tary support. More severely, if the terror network has committed atrocities which result

2
in death, the sentence then becomes up to life in prison (18 U.S. Code § 2339B(a)(1)).
Consequently those who are found to be representatives or active members of designated
foreign terrorist organizations can be removed from the United States and denied entry
(8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V))(8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(A)).
Socially, the effects of receiving a foreign terrorist organization label are extensive
as well. One an organization receives the label it falls out of public support and will
more than likely experience a decrease in membership and support. Merely receiving this
label, even if mislabeled, completely shatters the reputation of said groups and will likely
never reach same popularity as prior thank to the negative stigmata the association of
terrorism carries. Legally, the designation of terrorist activities carries heavier penalties
in the court room or even the complete removal of due process. Classifying someone as a
terrorist authorizes authorities to utilize otherwise illegal practices without the expressed
need of a warrant. Hence, it is easy to see why a conducive definition of terrorism needs
to be universally accepted due to the ramifications the label holds.

2.3 Brief History of Terrorism

Formally, the term terrorism or terror, in the fashion used today was coined due to the
1789 French Revolution following the successful overthrow and killing of King Louis XVI.
The new revolutionary government under the direction of Maximilian Robespierre formed
the Committee of Public Safety and the Revolutionary Tribunal. After these agencies were
established the so called ”régime de la terreur”, Reign of Terror, began. Mass surveillance
and frequent public executions became the norm in new post-revolution France with an
estimated 17,000 to 40,000 people falling victim to the senseless violence (Mahan & Griset,
2003). However, this form of terrorism is unlike what people may see now, this terrorism
was perpetrated by the government. This phenomenon is referred to as State-Terrorism,
State Sponsored Terrorism or Terrorism from Above; the goals remain the same as all
terrorism, instill terror in political dissidents to silence opposition and push an agenda.
However, by no means did the French create terrorism, terrorism had been a tool
in previous civilizations as a means to change regimes or gain freedom. One of the
earliest examples stems from the Jewish Zealots or Sicarii, this group was a religious
group with interest in protecting the religion from the Roman rule in Judea, modern day
Israel. Their motives spanned a more inclusive goal, however, to free Judea of Roman
rule, their attacks, which utilized daggers as a religious symbol, targeted Roman peace
envoys, Roman Garrisons and other Roman targets. The ultimate goal of the Zealots
were to generate an uprising within the Jewish community to drive away the Romans,
to generate support the Zealots manipulated and utilized the fear, outrage, sympathy
and guilt of participates to commit atrocities (Rapoport, 1983). Other early forms of
organized terrorist organizations including the Muslim Assassins, Hindi Thugs, Russian
Narodnaya Volya, the Irish Republican Army, etc...

3
2.4 Common Characteristics of Terrorist Organizations
2.4.1 “Old Terrorism”
Old terrorism is used by scholars to define pre-1990’s terrorism which appears to follow a
different set of standards to that of current New Terrorism. Old Terrorism is thought to
be discriminate with small calculated attacks, such as assassinations, to achieve their goal.
Groups utilizing old terrorism would use attacks sparingly to not inflict much damage and
tried to prevent accidental damage altogether. The fear of using indiscriminate attacks
would stifle recruitment, public support and their legitimacy. Terrorism can be seen as
propaganda as terrorist attacks would rely heavily on media coverage to spread their mes-
sage, especially since most old modern terrorist attacks would be followed communiqué to
claim responsibility, stating demands, and explain the reasoning for the attack. Such was
the case with the Spanish ETA which routinely communicate their intentions (Spencer,
2010).
Central to the belief of old and new terrorism is the ideology/goals which supports
the goal. Old terrorism is thought to have achievable and negotiable goals, such as se-
cession from host countries and demands of civil rights(Spencer, 2010). An example can
be seen with the Irish Republican Army’s (IRA) efforts to break free from the United
Kingdom. Seeking independence, the IRA targeted English targets in Ireland and in
mainland Britain, including Irish supporters of British occupation. In the end, a set-
tlement was reach where the majority of Ireland was given its independence, minus the
northern portion. The IRA was not exactly content with this separation and continued
to fight.
Another belief of old terrorism is the type of organizational structure utilized by the
groups themselves. Groups such as the IRA, ETA, KKK, pre-2000’s al-Qaeda and Aum
Shinrikyo utilize a hierarchical organizations structure with strong well defined leadership.
Perhaps, the most well known example is pre-2000’s al-Qaeda, founded by Osama Bin
Laden, followed a very rigid structure headed by the Amir, which for the majority of the
groups operation was Osama Bin Laden. The Amir also employed the use of Secretary
which would control all the administrative work behind the scenes, this role was played
by Nassir Al Wahishi. Next in the chain was the Deputy which contained more authority
than the Amir. The role of Deputy fell onto Ayman al-Zawahiri who is currently the
Amir of al-Qaeda. Next comes the Command Council, a body of 7-10 members who are
tasked with making most of the decisions within al-Qaeda’s operations (Gunaratna &
Oreg, 2010). Strikingly the structure can be loosely interchanged with that of a working
government, such that of the United States Executive Branch with rules similar to that
of a government on normal operation and the filling of vacancies.
Another characteristic among terror organization utilizing old terrorism is the use of
conventional weapons. Conventional weapons are low-technology weapons which have
low mass killing potential but are readily available. These weapons include small arms,
such as handheld firearms including but not limited to handguns, revolvers, rifles, ma-
chine guns and rocket launchers, and bombs, such as handheld grenades, pipe bombs,
pressure cookers and plastic explosives. Conventional weapons do not utilize weapons of

4
 Table 1: Old Terrorism versus New Terrorism
Trait Old Terrorism New Terrorism
Organizational Hierarchical Command Structure Spread Autonomous Cells
Structure
Motivations Secular, Religious, Political Religious
Attack Type Restrained Discriminate Indiscriminate
Weaponry Conventional Conventional, WMDs
Operational Territorial/Regional Transnational
Zone
Aims Regional Autonomy World or Regional Domination
Support Struc- State Limited or None
ture

mass destruction (WMD), WMD’s are classified as nuclear bombs, chemical weapons and
biological weapons(Spencer, 2010;18 U.S.C. §2332a).

2.4.2 “New Terrorism”

The existence of new terrorism is hotly debated among academia with proponents stating
terrorist organizations have undergone a massive organizational shift and have become
more radical in ideology. Dissenting opinions have stated that terror networks are not
utilizing any new tactics or methods of attack relative to their historical counterparts.
Scholars allege the existence of new terrorism due to the recent increase in the use of
religion as justifications for violence. Within old terrorism most of the groups were secu-
lar, focusing mostly on social, economic, and political causes (Crenshaw, 2008; Spencer,
2010). As noted earlier old terrorist groups such as the IRA fought for secession from
the United Kingdom, most major new terrorist groups focus on a religious justification,
such as al-Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban, Ansar Allah, etc. However, not all terrorist
organizations fall under this categorization in contemporary politics. Right Wing groups
in the United States and Europe, while based in christian, protestant or evangelical be-
liefs, are conducting terrorism in the name of perceived violation of civil rights, economic
grievance, and increases in multiculturalism.
New Terrorist group who utilize religious motivations are claimed to employ increasing
violent attacks. This is due to the belief that the extremist are not concerned with alien-
ating their supporters but rather see themselves as workers of a higher power (Spencer,
2010). Examples can be seen with new Islamic terrorist groups in the Arabian Peninsula.
ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, originated as a splinter group from al-Qaeda
in 2013, who refused al-Qaeda’s direction to not directly target Muslim. Serving as ex-
treme form of Islamic purism, ISIS had the goal of creating an Islamic Caliphate where
Sharia Law is implemented as government. One of the missions of ISIS is the demise of
Western influence, as such the group had attacked Europe and North America on nu-
merous occasions claiming more than 1000 lives over the group 5 year history. Their

5
most brutal attacks come out of non-western nations against other Muslims, attacking
Mosque which supported the Shia interpretation of Islam. The brutal attacks in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Iran and Syria would often times claim more than
50 lives. This caused ISIS to fall out of support of most Muslims. Indiscriminate violence
has also been linked with New terrorism as groups are conducting violence without regard
of who is affected by the resulting destruction (Spencer, 2010). This can be seen with
ISIS, as noted previously, originally being a splinter of al-Qaeda was restricted by Islamic
law from killing other Muslims. Zawahiri of al-Qaeda also urged al-Qaeda in Iraq (ISIS)
to kill less civilians and non-combatants to preserve the groups public appeal. Islamic
State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi refused and their partner came to an end, ISIS would
then go one perform some of the worse terror attacks perpetrated across the world.
New terrorist groups also tend to hold very extremist end goals, which can be thought
to be unattainable and unrealistic. In old terrorism the groups were able to negotiate
with authorities to get their demands fulfilled, new terrorist are quite the opposite and
do not wish to negotiate nor could they (Crenshaw, 2008). Due to the assertion that new
terrorist follow a religious sense of justification for violence, the groups portray themselves
in a good vs evil battle, the complete eradication of those perceived to be bad is the end
goal (Spencer. 2010).
New terrorism also alleges new terrorist utilize more advanced technology as it becomes
available, in particular WMD’s, as weapons (Spencer, 2006; Crenshaw, 2008; Gunaratna,
2010; Spencer, 2010). There have been no terrorist organizations capable of obtaining
usable nuclear weapons, however, the scare came about after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Several nuclear bombs were lost due to the chaos associated with the collapse. All of
the bombs have been largely recollected but the scare has extended to all governments
which have the capability to mobilize nuclear weapons. The most of high tech attacks
have included chemical and biological attacks as it materials tend to be easier to obtain.
While these attacks are rare, the result of these attacks tend to bring more deaths than
conventional weapons. An example of chemical attacks is the 1995 Tokyo Subway Sarin
Attack perpetrated by members of Aum Shinrikyo in Japan. However, the production of
the Serin gas had been rushed resulting in the gas being less potent. Should the gas had
been produced correctly it could have resulted in thousands of deaths rather than the 12
it did, thus showing the destructive capability.
Another aspect of new terrorism is the lack of hierarchical organizational structure
and the lack of the central leaderships control. These organizations are more likely to
follow a network structure which advocates for a numerous cells which operate under
similar guidelines but do not directly follow the commands of the central wing (Spencer,
2006, 2010). This method of organizational structure came to be with the advent of social
media and encrypted messaging platforms. Social media has served as a medium for which
radical ideas are shared, allowing extremist to develop worldwide as lone wolfs or splinter
groups. The main group has little or no direction over the individual or group but the
attack will reflect the terrorist organization as a whole.

6
3 Summary
Terrorism seeks to gain political leverage by means of violent attack, with or without bod-
ily harm. Destruction to landmarks, infrastructure and, most importantly, people should
not be tolerated by any civilization, terrorism is not an inherently successful method of
coercion. Ganor states that ”one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”(Ganor,
2002) a sentiment continued by Hoffman was observed members of terrorist organizations
see themselves as freedom fighters, armies, militas, self defense movements or liberators
rather than inflictors of violence (Hoffman, 2006). Yet, despite the use of violence, terror
groups see support from states and civilian populations should their interest align.
Acts of terrorism will be see for the rest of human history, regardless of the motives,
as a means of political coercion or means to incite widespread fear. Counterterrorism
efforts need to evolve with terrorist acts to aid in identification of at risk suspects and
prevention of attacks. While counterterrorism is largely oriented to a governmental and
law enforcement setting, the general public also plays a role in identifying suspects by
recognizing suspicious behavior. The task of counter terrorism lies with entities at all
levels.

7
References
Crenshaw, M. (2008). The debate over “new” vs.“old” terrorism. In Values and violence
(pp. 117–136). Springer.
Ganor, B. (2002). Defining terrorism: Is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom
fighter? Police Practice and Research, 3 (4), 287–304.
Gunaratna, R. (2010). Al-qaeda is an example of a’new terrorism. Debating Terrorism and
Counterterrorism: Conflicting Perspectives on Causes, Contexts, and Responses,
16–29.
Gunaratna, R., & Oreg, A. (2010). Al qaeda’s organizational structure and its evolution.
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33 (12), 1043–1078.
Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press.
Jenkins, J. A. (1999). Examining the bonding effects of party: A comparative analysis
of roll-call voting in the us and confederate houses. American Journal of Political
Science, 1144–1165.
Mahan, S., & Griset, P. L. (2003). Terrorism in perspective. Sage Publications Thousand
Oaks.
Pawlak, P. (2015). Understanding definitions of terrorism. Brussels: European Parlia-
mentary Research Service.
Rapoport, D. C. (1983). Fear and trembling: Terrorism in three religious traditions.
American Political Science Review , 78 (3), 658–677.
Spencer, A. (2006). Questioning the concept of ‘new terrorism’. Peace, Conflict and
Development, 1–33.
Spencer, A. (2010). The ‘new terrorism’of al-qaeda is not so new. Debating Terrorism and
Counterterrorism: Conflicting Perspectives on Causes, Contexts, and Responses, 4–
15.