Научно-исследовательская работа Терроризм

Муниципальное общеобразовательное учреждение Гимназия №1

Научно-практическая конференция

Человек. Земля. Вселенная.

ТЕРРОРИЗМ

Работу выполнил                         Сидоров Олег,

ученик 8 «б» класса.

Руководитель    Моисеева Надежда Сергеевна.

Г. Краснознаменск

2009 год

What is Terrorism and Who Defines It?

Terrorism is a complex term with a long history and different meanings, depending on the context and who uses it. Here you’ll find articles that define terrorism and explain different facets of the term. Also on this page: glossaries of related terms and terrorist groups, and links to how other experts and international conventions define terrorism.

Origin of term

"Terror" comes from a Latin terrere meaning "to frighten". 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. After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse. Although the Reign of Terror was imposed by a government, in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of innocent people by a private group in such a way as to create a media spectacle. This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist". 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".

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. 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 foundered 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." 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. 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 repeteadly 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 that may be invoked to justify them."

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, “Political terrorism: A Research Guide,” Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the “search for an adequate definition is still on” Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.”

Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

• ineluctably political in aims and motives
• violent -- or, equally important, threatens violence
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psycological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic" struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.

Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act  to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.

Pejorative use

The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations. These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population. Those labeled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties to a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.

On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing civilians, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism". Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".

In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:

“On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.”

The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally. During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British. More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union, yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush. Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action. Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and said:

“There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless.”

Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called "terrorists" by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called "statesmen" by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.

Sometimes states which are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether or not members of a certain organization are terrorists. For instance, for many years, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was using methods against one of the United States' closest allies (Britain) which Britain branded as terrorism. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.

For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality try to be careful in their use of the term.

Types of Terrorism

Different types of terrorism have been defined by lawmakers, security professionals and scholars. Types differ according to what kind of attack agents an attacker uses (biological, for example) or by what they are trying to defend (as in ecoterrorism). Here, a comprehensive list of types of terrorism, with links to more information, examples and definitions.

Researchers in the United States began to distinguish different types of terrorism in the 1970s, following a decade in which both domestic and international groups flourished. By that point, modern groups had began to use techniques such as hijacking, bombing, diplomatic kidnapping and assassination to assert their demands and, for the first time, they appeared as real threats to Western democracies, in the view of politicians, law makers, law enforcement and researchers. They began to distinguish different types of terrorism as part of the larger effort to understand how to counter and deter it.

State Terrorism

Many definitions of terrorism restrict it to acts by non-state actors.

But it can also be argued that states can, and have, been terrorists. States can use force or the threat of force, without declaring war, to terrorize citizens and achieve a political goal. Germany under Nazi rule has been described in this way.

It has also been argued that states participate in international terrorism, often by proxy. The United States considers Iran the most prolific sponsor of terrorism because Iran arms groups, such as Hizballah, that help carry out its foreign policy objectives. The United States has also been called terrorist, for example through its covert sponsorship of Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s.

Bioterrorism

Bioterrorism refers to the intentional release of toxic biological agents to harm and terrorize civilians, in the name of a political or other cause.The U.S. Center for Disease Control has classified the viruses, bacteria and toxins that could be used in an attack. Category A Biological Diseases are those most likely to do the most damage. They include:

Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis)

Botulism (Clostridium botulinum toxin)

The Plague (Yersinia pestis)

Smallpox (Variola major)

Tularemia (Francisella tularensis)

Hemorrahagic fever, due to Ebola Virus or Marburg Virus

Cyberterrorism

Cyberterrorists use information technology to attack civilians and draw attention to their cause. This may mean that they use information technology, such as computer systems or telecommunications, as a tool to orchestrate a traditional attack. More often, cyberterrorism refers to an attack on information technology itself in a way that would radically disrupt networked services. For example, cyberterrorists could disable networked emergency systems or hack into networks housing critical financial information. There is wide disagreement over the extent of the existing threat by cyberterrorists.

Ecoterrorism

Ecoterrorism is a recently coined term describing violence in the interests of environmentalism. In general, environmental extremists sabotage property to inflict economic damage on industries or actors they see as harming animals or the natural enviroment. Thes have included fur companies, logging companies and animal research laboratories, for example.

Nuclear terrorism

"Nuclear terrorism" refers to a number of different ways nuclear materials might be exploited as a terrorist tactic. These include attacking nuclear facilities, purchasing nuclear weapons, or building nuclear weapons or otherwise finding ways to disperse radioactive materials.

Narcoterrorism

Narcoterrorism has had several meanings since its coining in 1983. It once denoted violence used by drug traffickers to influence governments or prevent government efforts to stop the drug trade. In the last several years, narcoterrorism has been used to indicate situations in which terrorist groups use drug trafficking to fund their other operations.

History.

1st Century BCE-13th Century: Terrorism in the Pre-Modern World:

The history of terrorism is as old as humans' willingness to use violence to affect politics. The Sicarii were a first century Jewish group who murdered enemies and collaborators in their campaign to oust their Roman rulers from Judea.

The Hashhashin, whose name gave us the English word "assassins," were a secretive Islamic sect active in Iran and Syria from the 11th to the 13th century.

Their dramatically executed assassinations of Abbasid and Seljuk political figures terrified their contemporaries.

Zealots and assassins were not, however, really terrorists in the modern sense. Terrorism is best thought of as a modern phenomenon. Its characteristics flow from the international system of nation-states, and its success depends on the existence of a mass media to create an aura of terror among many people.

1793: The Origins of Modern Terrorism:

The word terrorism comes from the Reign of Terror instigated by Maxmilien Robespierre in 1793, following the French revolution. Robespierre, one of twelve heads of the new state, had enemies of the revolution killed, and installed a dictatorship to stabilize the country. He justified his methods as necessary in the transformation of the monarchy to a liberal democracy:

Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic.

Robespierre's sentiment laid the foundations for modern terrorists, who believe violence will usher in a better system. For example, the 19th century Narodnaya Volya hoped to end Tsarist rule in Russia.

But the characterization of terrorism as a state action faded, while the idea of terrorism as an attack against an existing political order became more prominent.

1950s: The Rise of Non-State Terrorism:

The rise of guerrilla tactics by non-state actors in the last half of the twentieth century was due to several factors.These included the flowering of ethnic nationalism (e.g. Irish, Basque, Zionist), anti-colonial sentiments in the vast British, French and other empires, and new ideologies such as communism.

Terrorist groups with a nationalist agenda have formed in every part of the world. For example, the Irish Republican Army grew from the quest by Irish Catholics to form an independent republic, rather than being part of Great Britain.

Similarly, the Kurds, a distinct ethnic and linguistic group in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq, have sought national autonomy since the beginning of the 20th Century. The Kurdistan Worker's Party(PKK), formed in the 1970s, uses terrorist tactics to announce its goal of a Kurdish state. The Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are members of the ethnic Tamil minority. They use suicide bombing and other lethal tactics to wage a battle for independence against the Sinhalese majority government.

1970s: Terrorism Turns International:

International terrorism became a prominent issue in the late 1960s, when hijacking became a favored tactic. In 1968, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijacked an an El Al Flight. Twenty years later, the bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, shocked the world.

The era also gave us our contemporary sense of terrorism as highly theatrical, symbolic acts of violence by organized groups with specific political grievances.

The bloody events at the 1972 Munich Olympics were politically motivated. Black September,a Palestinian group, kidnapped and killed Israeli athletes preparing to compete.Black September's political goal was negotiating the release of Palestinian prisoners. They used spectacular tactics to bring international attention to their national cause.

Munich radically changed the United States' handling of terrorism: "The terms counterterrorism and international terrorism formally entered the Washington political lexicon," according to counterterrorism expert Timothy Naftali.

Terrorists also took advantage of the black market in Soviet-produced light weaponry, such as AK-47 assault rifles created in the wake of the Soviet Union's 1989 collapse. Most terrorist groups justified violence with a deep belief in the necessity and justice of their cause.

Terrorism in the United States also emerged. Groups such as the Weathermen grew out of the non-violent group Students for a Democratic Society. They turned to violent tactics, from rioting to setting off bombs, to protest the Vietnam War.

1990s: The Twenty First Century: Religious Terrorism and Beyond

Religiously motivated terrorism is considered the most alarming terrorist threat today. Groups that justify their violence on Islamic grounds- Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah—come to mind first. But Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and other religions have given rise to their own forms of militant extremism.

In the view of religion scholar Karen Armstrong this turn represents terrorists' departure from any real religious precepts. Muhammad Atta, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, and "the Egyptian hijacker who was driving the first plane, was a near alcoholic and was drinking vodka before he boarded the aircraft." Alcohol would be strictly off limits for a highly observant Muslim.

Atta, and perhaps many others, are not simply orthodox believers turned violent, but rather violent extremists who manipulate religious concepts for their own purposes.

Terrorist Tactics:

Car Bombing

Car bombs, which are called Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices by the military, use explosives to weaponize cars, trucks and even motorcycles. They are used globally by terrorists and militias in assassinations aimed at killing a specific individual and in attacks designed to achieve mass destruction to people and property.

In some car bombings, explosives are rigged to a car or truck's ignition system, and triggered when the vehicle is turned on. In others, explosives are attached to another part of the car, or beneath it, and set off remotely.

Car bombs can also be deployed in suicide attacks. In such attacks, a car or truck is packed with explosives and then driven into a building, another vehicle or another target. Car bombs have been used by the IRA, by Hezbollah, by the Tamil Tigers and by jihadist groups associated with Al Qaeda.

Ramzi Yousef's 1993 World Trade Center attack was carried out with explosives packed into a van, which were triggered by twenty foot long fuses attached to the van and lit by a cigarette lighter.

Rocket Propelled Grenades

The lightweight, shoulder launched weapons known as RPGs were originally designed to damage tanks. Their name, in fact, means "handheld antitank grenade launcher" in the language of its original Soviet manufacturers, Russian: Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot,. In common English usage, RPG is understood to stand for Rocket Propelled Grenade. Those most widely in use today are RPG-7s, first developed by the Soviets.

Despite their originally intended use as anti-tank weapons, RPGs inflict most damage on unarmed vehicles and personnel in conflicts today, since tanks have been designed to resist RPG attacks.

RPGs' easy portability, low cost and wide availability on black markets of the Middle East and Eastern Europe make them popular among terrorist groups and other sub-state militias. They were used by mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan war and are currently used by insurgents in the Iraq War.

Assassination

Assassination is the term given to the murder of political or other well-known figures. It has been a stock ingredient in terrorists' arsenal since Narodnaya Volya (The People's Will), a late 18th century Russian group, assassinated Tsar Alexander II, a symbol of the feudal system they wished to revolutionize.

Notable assassinations by terrorist groups include the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat by Egyptian Islamic Jihad, to protest the Sadat's normalization of relations with Israel. In 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an extremist orthodox Jew who believed there was divine justification for killing a head of state.

Assassinations in Russia and the former Soviet Union

Peter III of Russia, (1762), Emperor of Russia

Paul of Russia, (1801), Emperor of Russia

Mikhail Andreyevich Miloradovich, (1825), military Governor of Saint Petersburg

Nikolay Vladimirovich Mezentsev, (1878), Executive Director of the Third Section

Alexander II of Russia, (1881 March 13), Tsar of All the Russias

Nikolay Alekseyev, (1893), Mayor of Moscow

Dmitry Sipyagin, (1902 April 8), Russian Interior Minister

Vyacheslav Pleve, (1904), Russian Interior Minister

Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich Romanov, (1905), former Governor-General of Moscow

Peter Stolypin, (1911 September 14), Russian Prime Minister, killed in theater in Kiev

Grigori Rasputin, (1916 December 30), controversial friar and mystic

Tsar Nicholas II and his family: Tsarina Alexandra, Tsarevich Aleksey, and the Grand Duchesses Anastasia, Tatiana, Olga and Maria (1918 July 16)

Elizabeth (Ella) of Hesse, Grand Duchess of Russia, sister of Alexandra Feodorovna, wife of tsar Nicholas II. (18 July 1918)

Wilhelm von Mirbach, (1918), German Ambassador in Moscow

Sergei Kirov, (1934 December 1), Bolshevik party leader in Leningrad

Solomon Mikhoels, (1948), Chairman of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee

Vladislav Listyev, (1995), a Russian journalist and head of the ORT TV Channel

Dzhokhar Dudayev, (1996), first Chechen separatist President and anti-Russian guerrilla leader

Valeriy Hubulov, (1998), South Ossetian politician, former prime minister

Galina Starovoitova, (1998), influential politician, then member of Russian parliament (Duma)

Otakhon Latifi, (1998), Tajik journalist and opposition figure

Sergei Yushenkov, (2003), Russian politician, in Moscow

Yuri Shchekochikhin, (2003), Russian journalist, in Moscow

Paul Klebnikov, (2004), editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine

Akhmad Kadyrov, (2004), Kremlin-backed President of the Chechen Republic

Aslan Maskhadov, (2005), President of separatist Chechnya

Anatoly Trofimov, (2005), former FSB deputy director

Magomed Omarov, (2005), deputy Interior Minister of Dagestan

Bayaman Erkinbayev, (2005), Kyrgyz MP

Altynbek Sarsenbayev, (2006), Kazakh politician

Abdul-Khalim Sadulayev, (2006), President of separatist Chechnya

Anna Politkovskaya, (2006), Russian journalist and human rights campaigner.

Vitaly Karayev, (2008), mayor of Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia-Alania

Kazbek Pagiyev, (2008), former mayor of Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia-Alania

Nina Varlamova, (2008), mayor of Kandalaksha, Murmansk Oblast

Stanislav Markelov, (2009), human rights lawyer

Seifutdin Kaziakhmedov, (2009), police investigator in Dagestan

Adilgerei Magomedtagirov, (2009), interior minister of Dagestan

Aza Gazgireyeva, (2009), deputy chair of Ingushetia Supreme Court

Bashir Aushev, (2009), former deputy prime minister of Ingushetia

Natalia Estemirova, (2009), human rights activist

The Causes of Terrorism

Terrorism is the threat or use of violence against civilians to draw attention to an issue. Those searching for the causes of terrorism -why this tactic would be selected, and in what circumstances- approach the phenomenon in different ways. Some see it as an independent phenomenon, while others view it as one tactic in a larger strategy. Some seek to understand what makes an individual choose terrorism, while others look at it at the level of a group.

Political

Terrorism was originally theorized in the context of insurgency and guerrilla warfare, a form of organized political violence by a non-state army or group. Individuals, abortion clinic bombers, or groups, like the Vietcong in the 1960s, can be understood as choosing terrorism because they don't like the current organization of society and they want to change it.

Strategic

Saying that a group has a strategic cause for using terrorism is another way of saying that terrorism isn't a random or crazy choice, but is chosen as a tactic in service of a larger goal. Hamas, for example, uses terrorist tactics, but not out of a random desire to fire rockets at Israeli Jewish civilians. Instead, they seek to leverage violence (and cease fires) in order to gain specific concessions related to their goals vis-a-vis Israel and Fatah. Terrorism is typically described as a strategy of the weak seeking to gain advantge against stronger armies or political powers.

Psychological (Individual)

Research into the psychological causes that take the individual as their focus began in the 1970s. It had its roots in the 19th century, when criminologists began to look for the psychological causes of criminals. Although this area of inquiry is couched in academically neutral terms, it can disguise the pre-existing view that terrorists are "deviants." There is a substantial body of theory that now concludes that individual terrorists are no more or less likely to have abnormal pathology.

Group Psychology / Sociological

Sociological and social psychology views of terrorism make the case that groups, not individuals, are the best way to explain social phenomena such as terrorism. These ideas, which are still gaining traction, are congruent with the late-20th century trend toward seeing society and organizations in terms of networks of individuals. This view also shares common ground with studies of authoritarianism and cult behavior that examine how individuals come to identify so strongly with a group that they lose individual agency.

Socio-Economic

Socio-economic explanations of terrorism suggest that various forms of deprivation drive people to terrorism, or that they are more susceptible to recruitment by organizations using terrorist tactics. Poverty, lack of education or lack of political freedom are a few examples. There is suggestive evidence on both sides of the argument. Comparisons of different conclusions are often very confusing because they don't distinguish between individuals and societies, and they pay little attention to the nuances of how people perceive injustice or deprivation, regardless of their material circumstances.

Religious

Career terrorism experts began to argue in the 1990s that a new form of terrorism fueled by religious fervor was on the rise. They pointed to organizations such as Al Qaeda, Aum Shinrikyo (a Japanese cult) and Christian identity groups. Religious ideas, such as martyrdom, and Armageddon, were seen as particularly dangerous. However, as thoughtful studies and commentators have repeatedly pointed out, such groups use selectively interpret and exploit religious concepts and texts to support terrorism. Religions themselves do not "cause" terrorism.

Terrorist Groups

Pre-Modern Terrorist Groups

Terrorism is best understood as a modern phenomenon: as violent struggle between non-state organizations and modern states, and because it relies on mass media to spread terror among as many people as possible. However, there are some pre-modern groups who used terror to achieve political ends, and who are often considered pre-cursors to modern terrorists:

Hashhashin

Sicarii

Thugees

Socialist/ Communist

Many groups committed to socialist revolution or the establishment of socialist or communist states arose in the last half of the 20th century, and many are now defunct. The most prominent included:

Baader-Meinhof Group (renamed Red Army Faction, defunct as of 1998) (Germany)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

Red Brigades (Italy)

Revolutionary Struggle (Greece)

Shining Path (Peru)

Weather Underground Organization (United States)

National Liberation

National liberation is historically among the most potent reasons that extremist groups turn to violence to achieve their aims. There are many of these groups, but they have included: ETA (Basque)

Fatah (PLO) (Palestinian)

Irgun (Zionist)

IRA (Irish)

PKK (Kurdish)

Tamil Tigers (Sri Lankan Tamils)

ETA (Basque)

Fatah (PLO) (Palestinian)

Irgun (Zionist)

IRA (Irish)

PKK (Kurdish)

Tamil Tigers (Sri Lankan Tamils)

Religious-Political

There has been a rise in religiosity globally since the 1970s and with it, a rise in what many analysts call religious terrorism. It would be more accurate to call groups such as Al Qaeda religious-political, or religious-nationalist. We call them religious because they use a religious idiom and shape their 'mandate' in divine terms. Their goals however, are political: recognition, power, territory, concessions from states, and the like. Historically, such groups have included: Al Qaeda (transnational, Islamist)

Aum Shinrikyo (renamed Aleph)(Japanese; various influences, including Hindu and Buddhist)

Klu Klux Klan (U.S.; Christian)

Abu Sayyaf(Philippines; Islamist)

Egyptian Islamic Jihad

Hamas (Palestinian; Islamist) (Hamas is designated by the U.S. and other governments as a terrorist group, but it is also the elected government of the Palestinian Authority)

Hezbollah (Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and other governments, but others argue it should be considered a movement, rather than a terrorist group)

Palestinian Islamic Jihad

Al Qaeda (transnational, Islamist)

Aum Shinrikyo (renamed Aleph)(Japanese; various influences, including Hindu and Buddhist)

Klu Klux Klan (U.S.; Christian)

Abu Sayyaf(Philippines; Islamist)

Egyptian Islamic Jihad

Hamas (Palestinian; Islamist) (Hamas is designated by the U.S. and other governments as a terrorist group, but it is also the elected government of the Palestinian Authority)

Hezbollah (Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and other governments, but others argue it should be considered a movement, rather than a terrorist group)

Palestinian Islamic Jihad

State Terrorism

Most states and transnational organizations (like the United Nations) define terrorists as non-state actors. This is often a highly contentious issue, and there are long standing debates in the international sphere over a few states in particular, including the United States. There are some states or state actions in history over which there's no dispute, though, such as in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

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.

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.

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

Funding

State sponsors have constituted a major form of funding; for example, PLO, DFLP and some other terrorist groups were funded by the Soviet Union.

"Revolutionary tax" is another major form of funding, and essentially a euphemism for "protection money". Revolutionary taxes are typically extorted from businesses, and they also "play a secondary role as one other means of intimidating the target population".

Other major sources of funding include kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling, fraud and robbery.

Responses

Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values. The term counter-terrorism has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors.

Specific types of responses include:

• Targeted laws, criminal procedures, deportations, and enhanced police powers
• Target hardening, such as locking doors or adding traffic barriers
• Preemptive or reactive military action
• Increased intelligence and surveillance activities
• Preemptive humanitarian activities
• More permissive interrogation and detention policies

Mass media

Media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise be ignored by the media. Some consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media. Others consider terrorism itself to be a symptom of a highly controlled mass media, which does not otherwise give voice to alternative viewpoints, a view expressed by Paul Watson who has stated that controlled media is responsible for terrorism, because "you cannot get your information across any other way". Paul Watson's organization Sea Shepherd has itself been branded "eco-terrorist", although it claims to have not caused any casualties.

The internet has created a new channel for groups to spread their messages. This has created a cycle of measures and counter measures by groups in support of and in opposition to terrorist movements. The United Nations has created its own online counter-terrorism resource.

The mass media will, on occasion, censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further terrorism. However, this may encourage organizations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media. Conversely James F. Pastor explains the significant relationship between terrorism and the media, and the underlying benefit each receives from the other.

"There is always a point at which the terrorist ceases to manipulate the media gestalt. A point at which the violence may well escalate, but beyond which the terrorist has become symptomatic of the media gestalt itself. Terrorism as we ordinarily understand it is innately media-related."

                                                                        Novelist William Gibson

Terrorism in Russia has a long history starting from the times of the Russian Empire. Terrorism, in the modern sense, means violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear. Terrorism tactics, such as hostage-taking, were widely used by the Soviet secret agencies, most notably during the Red Terror and Great Terror campaigns, against the population of their own country, according to Karl Kautsky and other historians of Bolshevism.

Starting from the end of the 20th century, significant terrorist activity has taken place in Moscow, most notably apartment bombings and the Moscow theater hostage crisis. Many more acts of terrorism have been committed in Chechnya, Dagestan, and other parts of the country. Some of them became a matter of significant controversy, since journalists and scholars claimed them to be directed by the Russian secret services, often through their Chechen agent provocateurs.

Major terrorist attacks

• Nevski Express bombing (2009)

• Beslan school hostage crisis (2004)

• Russian aircraft bombings of August 2004 (2004)

• Moscow metro bombing (2004)

• Stavropol train bombing (2003)

• Red Square bombing (2003)

• Moscow theater hostage crisis (2002)

• Kaspiysk bombing (2002)

• Russian apartment bombings (1999)

• Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis (1995)

Some of the hostage crises in Russian Federation

The Moscow theatre hostage crisis, also known as the 2002 Nord-Ost siege, was the seizure of a crowded Moscow theatre on October 23, 2002 by about 40-50 armed Chechens who claimed allegiance to the Islamist militant separatist movement in Chechnya. They took 850 hostages and demanded the withdrawal of Russian forces from Chechnya and an end to the Second Chechen War. The siege was officially led by Movsar Barayev (aged 23).

After a two-and-a-half day siege, Russian Spetsnaz forces pumped an unknown chemical agent (thought to be fentanyl, 3-methylfentanyl), into the building's ventilation system and raided it. Officially, 39 of the attackers were killed by Russian forces, along with at least 129 and possibly many more of the hostages (including nine foreigners). All but a few of the hostages who died during the siege were killed by the toxic substance pumped into the theatre to subdue the militants. The use of the gas was "widely condemned as heavy handed", and doctors in Moscow "condemned the secrecy surrounding the identity of the gas" that prevented them from saving more lives.

The Beslan school hostage crisis (also referred to as the Beslan school siege or Beslan massacre) was a three day hostage-taking of over 1000 people which ended in the deaths of over 300. It began when a group of armed mostly Ingush and Chechen terrorists took more than 1,100 people (including 777 children) hostage on September 1, 2004, at School Number One (SNO) in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia, an autonomous republic in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation. The hostage taking was carried out by a group sent by the Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, which issued demand of end to the Second Chechen War. On the third day of the standoff, Russian security forces stormed the building, using tanks, thermobaric rockets, and other heavy weapons. A series of explosions shook the school, followed by a fire which engulfed the building and a chaotic gunbattle between the hostage-takers and Russian security forces. Ultimately, at least 334 hostages were killed, including 186 children; hundreds more were injured and many were reported missing.

The tragedy led to security and political repercussions in Russia, most notably a series of government reforms consolidating power in the Kremlin and strengthening of the powers of the President of Russia. As of 2010, there are many aspects of the crisis still in dispute, including how many militants were involved, their preparations, and whether some of them had escaped. Questions about the government's management of the crisis have also persisted, including disinformation and censorship in news media, repressions of journalists who rushed to Beslan, the nature and content of negotiations with the militants, the responsibility for the bloody outcome, and the government's use of possibly excessive force.

The Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis took place from 14 June to 19 June 1995, when a group of 80 to 200 Chechen fighters led by Shamil Basayev attacked the southern Russian city of Budyonnovsk (pop. 60,000, often spelled Budennovsk), some 70 miles north of the border with the Russian republic of Chechnya. The incident resulted in the ceasefire and abortive peace talks between the federal and separatist sides in the conflict and led to a major political crisis in Moscow.Contents

Initial attack

Basayev's men crossed into the Stavropol Krai concealed in a column of military trucks supposedly transporting Russian Cargo 200 coffins from the war zone in Chechnya, while some others infiltrated the city earlier in small groups. At about noon of June 14 they stormed the main police station and the city hall, where the Chechen flags were raised over government offices.

After several hours, in the face of Russian reinforcements, the separatists retreated to the residential district and regrouped in the city hospital. There they held hostage between 1,500 and 1,800 people (some estimates reaching as high as 2,000 or even 2,500), most of them civilians (including about 150 children and a number of women with newborn infants).

Hostage crisis

The hostage-takers issued an ultimatum threatening to kill the hostages unless their demands, including an end to the First Chechen War and beginning of direct negotiations with Chechen regime, were met. Russian president Boris Yeltsin immediately vowed to do everything possible to free the hostages, denouncing the attack as "unprecedented in cynicism and cruelty."

On June 15, willing to cause leaders of the country to perform his claims, under the pretext of not allowing journalists to come in time, in about 8 p.m. militants murdered one of hostages from fire weapons in one of basement rooms. Same day, due to press representatives not coming into the hospital in the arranged time, 5 else hostages were shot to death on Basayev's order.  (The New York Times reported referring to the hospital's chief doctor, that "several of the Chechens had just grabbed five hostages at random and shot them to show the world they were serious in their demands that Russian troops leave their land.") Sergei Stepashin, the head of the Russian FSB security service, called the reports of the execution "a bluff." According to the various reports, between five and 11 hostages were executed, all of them either military pilots or other men in uniform who had been injured during the initial takeover.

After several days of siege, the Russian MVD and FSB OSNAZ special forces, including the elite Alpha Group, tried to storm the hospital compound at dawn on the fourth day, meeting fierce resistance. After several hours of fighting wherein scores of hostages were killed in crossfire, a local ceasefire has been agreed on and 227 hostages were released; 61 others were freed by the Russian troops.

A second Russian attempt to take control of the hospital few hours later also failed and so did another one later, resulting in even more casualties. Russian authorities accused the Chechens of using the hostages as human shields. Yeltsin's human rights adviser Sergey Kovalyov described the scene: "In half an hour the hospital was burning, and it was not until the next morning that we found out what happened there as a result of this shooting. I saw with my own eyes pieces of human flesh stuck to the walls and the ceiling and burned corpses . . ."

Conclusion:

Unfortunately, now we lose the war against the terror, but our state and federative structures in our time can prevent some of the terrorist acts, and I think: if we want, we will do it. Our future and happiness are in our hands! One of the means of struggle with terrorism is a psychological (poems, songs).

And I have written a song about it - "Never Die" (the lyrics are written below)

How often do we hear shoots?

How often do we see the death?

Not knowing, where are the roots,

We carry out orders being out of breath.

How many people have fallen victim

To terrorism without mercy?

We always fight, we say dictums,

But still hear the plaintive voices.

How long have we foughting in vain,

How long have we been doing nothing?

They manipulate us and obscure our brains

The murder weapon - their only thing.

They make us be afraid of living.

They force us go on offence.

And greed - their fault, their feelings.

Their actions bring us into a trance.

How often do we see the black mask

That hides the faces of these terrorists?

They'll come to you and not even ask,

They'll kill you, cause you entered in the "black list".

How often do we hear the cry?

But we don't even try to make the move.

Without the help of others, people die.

And we don't even try to improve.

Think of all the terrorist attacks,

Have occurred in recent years.

One day the sky turned black,

The aircraft crashed into skyscrapers.

Remember the musical "Nord Ost" -

The terrorists do not spare anyone.

But remember Beslan at first,

When children are killed by guns.

This war will never end,

It leaves traces on the sand.

Grenades, bombs, bullets and blades -

We have never been afraid of them!

For the terrorists, life has no shades,

And our life consists of bright colors, like a gem!

But we're still fighting for our lives.

We will destroy the evil in the world.

We will not use guns and knives.

We can beat them even with the help of words.

Prepare your mind to the heavy fighting.

And try to save yourself and others.

It will be dangerous and exciting,

Fight with the terror, don't bother!

We wanna try, we wanna safe the current world from devil violence,

But bombs and shoots and people's screams always break the deathly silence.

Our souls've been lost, the mind has been burst,

We destroy the wall, we raise and fall,

We try it all!

And let it all burn with the fire!

But we will live and never die!