Terrorism Flashcards
(107 cards)
Is terrorism a weapon of the weak or strong?
It is a weapon of the weak conducted by a minority who promote an extremist ideology - often fails to create Political change.
Has the UN been able to define terrorism?
No. There have been attempts by the UN level to draft a comprehensive convention on international terrorism in order to criminalise all forms of international terrorism and deny support. Negotiations are stalled because cannot define or reach a consensus on what terrorism is.
Areas of consensus; what is Terrorism characterised by?
Terrorism is characterised first and foremost by the use of violence and is often indiscriminate in its targets.
What is the Kiras’s definition of Terrorism?
Terrorism is defined as the use of violence by sub-state groups to inspire fear by attacking civilians and/or symbolic targets, for purposes such as drawing widespread attention to a grievance, provoking a severe response, or wearing down the opponent’s moral resolve, to effect political change. (Kiras
Areas of consensus; Which type of actors use terrorists tactics?
Terrorism is mostly done by non-state actors.
Areas of consensus; How is terrorism distinguished from criminal acts?
Terrorism or other acts of violence by sub-state groups is distinguished from criminal acts on the basis of the purpose of which violence is carried out; political change
Areas of consensus; What can increase support for terrorist groups?
Disproportionate or heavy handed responses by states to acts of terrorism.
What are the three main disagreements about terrorism about?
1) The purpose for violence used.
2) Whether terrorist violence is legitimate
3) What it’s root causes are
4) who or which actors can be said to commit acts of terror
State Vs non state terrorism; What was historically terrorism defined as?
Terrorism described state violence against citizens. It was during the reign of terror in order to consolidate power after the french revolution.
State Vs non state terrorism; Why is the label terrorism powerful for state actors?
It is a powerful and convenient way for states to delegitimise political violence committed by non-state actors against them by terming it terrorism.
State Vs non state terrorism; Can state violence be termed terrorism?
Debated still, whether its war or terrorism, e.g. Israeli deterrent tactics against Palenstinans.
State Vs non state terrorism; Example of states sponsoring non state actors that adopt terrorist tactics?
Iran supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon
Terrorist organisation vs Liberation movement; “One man’s …
terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Terrorist organisation vs Liberation movement; What do those sympathetic to terrorist causes suggest about violent tactics?
It is the only remaining option by which the aggrieved can draw attention to their flight.
Terrorist organisation vs Liberation movement; Who is less inclined to see legitimacy or justification behind attacks?
Those targeted by terrorism do not see legitimacy in attacks that spread fear by killing civilians.
Is a terrorist organisation clearly defined from a liberation movement?
No lines often blurred, cases of liberation movements becoming terrorist organisations and vice versa.
Example of terrorist organisation –> liberation movement? (1)
e.g. Mandela and ANC, they were once seen as terrorist by western world and South Africa, but Mandela now hero for racial equality.
Example of terrorist organisation –> liberation movement? (2)
e.g. IRA was described as terrorists by unionists and British Government but seen as national liberation movement by catholics and nationalists in N.Ireland.
Example of liberation movement —> terrorist organisation?
e.g. Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Ronald Reagan met with representatives of Afghan Mujahideen, perceived to be religious fighters engaged insurgency against soviet union who had taken power in 1979.
Who gave Mujahideen and allies, including Bin Laden financial/military aid?
United states, Saudi Arabia and others against Soviet union and their atheist communist beliefs.
Terrorism as an organisation vs terrorism as a tactic; Why is terrorism seen as the weakest form of irregular welfare? (2 reasons)
- It is weak because they rarely possess broader support of the population that characterised insurgency or revolution.
- \they do not have economic/military capabilities of opponents.
Some groups are labelled terrorist organisations but why is this not always technically accurate?
Particularly in the middle east, organisations do not solely use terrorism as a tactic to pursue power and authority. They use other tactics.
Name a example of a terrorist organisation that does not just use terrorism as a tactic to pursue power and authority?
What other tactics does this middle east organisation use?
e.g. Daesh (ISIS) and Hamas target civilians but this is only one and not the main tactic, describing it as a terrorist group is misleading; Guerrilla and Conventional warfare often more important than terrorism for the group.
Who argues that calling ISIS a terrorist organisation is a misleading?
What is it actually?
Daniel Bineman
ISIS use terrorism as a tactic but describing it as terrorist group is misleading.
Daesh (ISIS) is more of a quasi-state sponsor of terrorism rather than traditional terrorist group.
