Lecture 8: Terrorism Flashcards
What is the definition of Terrorism given by Tucker 1997?
Above the gates of hell is the warning that all who enter should abandon hope. Less dire, but to the same effect, is the warning given to those who try to define terrorism
What is the definition of Terrorism given by The Terrorism Act 2000?
Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause’
What are the four key differences between crime and terrorism identified by Fussey and Richards (2008) IMPORTANT
- Ideology: motivated by allegiance to some ideology (could be one of many)
–> they want to kill white people because they are white… - Symbolism: Intended to communicate a message to certain audiences
–> beyond the people who are victims of the terrorist attack: eg. rival groups - Process: Protracted and elaborate planning process (often)
–> 9/11: mid 90s there was a plan of the impact and scale - Grievance: Shared sense of wrongdoing leading to conflict
–> front and centre for terrorism
How ‘New is terrorism’?
- Not new at all (see Laqueur 1987)
- Before the 1960s, most terrorism activities were fairly localised
–> By which we mean within countries - This links to globalisation
–> Transportion
–> Communication - These development have contributed to a change in the nature and scale of terrorism
How is Terrorism geographically focused?
- Burkina Fasco: is top of the global terror index for 2023: In 2022 it was Afghanistan
- The Global Terror Index indicates countries most affected by terrorism based on number of terrorist incidents, number of fatalities, number of injuries and total property damage costs
- Public concern about terrorism is high- in many places, more than 50% people say they are concerned about being a victim
What changes have there been regarding Terrorism?
Changes in:
- Motivation
- Means of perpetration
- Use of violence
- Ultimate outlines
What were the Challenges post 9/11 and 7/7?
- The current Uk threat level is ‘substantial’- an attack is likely
–> low- moderate- substantial- critical - CBRN: chemical, biological, Radiological, Nuclear
–> A willingness to use these weapons to increased fear - The use of suicide attacks and the use of vehicles as weapons
- Increased attacks on UK cyberspace
- The aims of terror attacks have changed- a key aim to cause mass casualties without warning
Who is the offender? Are they a terrorist?
Who is the offender? The line is blurred
Terrorist? Activist? Freedom fighter?
–> Can these terms be used simultaneously?
- Underpinning this is our belief about the legitimacy of their actions
Is it just the primary perpetrator… or also those who assisted/facilitated… or knew about it?
- Through foreign policy, the state may play a role in creating terrorist organisations
–> The Contra Wars in Nicaragua in the 1970s-80s
Who are the Victims?
- Under-researched
- There are direct and indirect victims of terrorism
- Post 7/7
–> 51% thought it was very likely there would be another attack in the near future
–> 39% had stopped taking their children into the city
What are the 4 types of Terrorism?
- Ethno-nationalist Terrorism
eta, Spain - Ideological terrorism
Red Brigade, Italy - Religio-political terrorism
hamas, Palestine
al-Qaeda and ISIS - Single issue terrorism
Environmentalism, abortion and animal rights (E.g ALF)
How can we apply the Rational Choice Theory to Terrorism?
Cornish and Clarke (1986): ideas about cost-benefit analysis in criminal offences
Crenshaw (1988) argues terrorism is not pathological: not psychological imbalance, it is a logical and rational choice to meet their goals: animal liberation form
Why do some groups find terrorist activity useful, and others do not?
–> Is it a last resort? Have they seen it work for others and copycat them - the ‘contagion effect’?
Do terrorists react to changing risk environments? Use rational choice theory to understand: maybe a way to protect and avoid
–> Is the decision to take part in terrorist activity based on perceived outcomes?
–> Or the existence of government counter-terrorist strategies?
Even the most extreme forms of behaviour can follow an internal, strategic logic
Strong way to apply is to specific examples, types of terroism, groups of terrorism, example
How can we use Game theory to explain Terrorism?
–> There is a strategic, two-way, bargaining relationship between terrorists and governments
–> Individual decision-making is based on the options available and a prediction of how others will act in a given situation
What are the strengths of the Game Theory?
- Treats actions as interdependent, rather than seeing one side as passive
- Operates within groups as well as between groups
- Evidence suggests rationality by both parties, which is key (e.g. metal detectors)
- Applicable to any kind of hostage negotiations or threats/ demands
- Neither side has all the information, so uncertainty and learning are key
–> Sandler and Arce
What is the Psychological approach to Terrorism?
Piven (2002) argues there are psychological traits that cannot be explained by political injustice
–> Low self-esteem, Lack of empathy, Paranoid tendencies, Injured narcissism, Pre-occupation with power
Mental illness among terrorists? Not credible.
Demause (2002) suggests the roots of terrorism lie in ‘extremely abusive families of terrorists’
–> But his analysis is based on abuse suffered by girls - most terrorist offenders are male
Lyons and Harbinson (1986) suggest terrorists are actually psychologically healthy and stable
* Terrorist activities requires logical thought, calculation, meticulous planning, forward-thinking
What is the Social-Psychological Approach to Terrorism?
- Based on work around inter-group behaviour
- Group membership involves a reflexive sense of in-group favouritism vs out-group
- Radicalisation is an important theme here - how does one come to identify with terror groups?
–> Silke (2008) - terrorists see themselves as heroically working for the benefit of others
–> They are the victims of out-group aggression - Sykes and Matza’s (1957) techniques of neutralisation may also apply here
–> Appeal to higher loyalties - I was doing it to protect my community
–> Condemnation of the condemners - We are victimised by them
