View the step-by-step solution to:

Introduction: New frontiers of terrorism research: An introduction Author(s): Todd Sandler Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 48, No. 3, Special...

Hello, 

I have the following assignment. length is 250-300 words and have to use two of the three readings attached. due on Sunday 5/29



This week we focus on the definition of terrorism. You may be surprised to learn during your readings that the concept of terrorism is actually rather difficult to define. Some people say that terrorism is simply the use of tactics that invoke terror, but that's an unsatisfactory definition because it neatly avoids discussing the aim of such tactics. Some people say that terrorism is the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political goal, but that leaves the reader to determine whether force was used illegitimately. It also leaves the reader to contend with a rather large gray area, which definitions are meant to dispel. When you consider the Holocaust or other state-sponsored ethnic cleansing operations (Rwanda, Bosnia, etc), you aren't really sure whether that's considered terrorism or simply government run amok. And on that note, I present this week's question. Please start a new thread in which you answer my question(s), and then respond to at least two classmates.


The Islamic State's stated end-goal is to establish an Islamic caliphate. What makes them a terrorist organization? Do their actions and tactics meet many of the generally-accepted definitions of terrorism? How? Could they instead be viewed as guerilla fighters seeking to establish legitimate authority, much like our Founding Fathers strived to do during the American Revolution?

Introduction: New frontiers of terrorism research: An introduction Author(s): Todd Sandler Source: JournalofPeaceResearch , Vol. 48, No. 3, Special Issue: New Frontiers of Terrorism Research (may 2011), pp. 279-286 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23035427 Accessed: 27-05-2016 18:01 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] SagePublications,Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journalof PeaceResearch This content downloaded from 54.84.104.155 on Fri, 27 May 2016 18:01:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Background image of page 1
journal <>j Introduction New frontiers of terrorism research: An introduction Journal of Peace Research 48(3) 279-286 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022343311399131 jpr.sagepub.com (DSAGE Todd Sandler School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas Abstract This article opens the special issue by identifying the main contributions to date of the empirical and theoretical literature on terrorism. Important past theoretical articles investigated the application of game theory to study interactions among adversaries (e.g. terrorists and governments) and allies (e.g. commonly targeted governments). Past empirical articles examined the effectiveness of counter-terrorism policies, the root causes of terrorism, the dynamics of terrorist attacks, and other topics. This introduction also indicates new areas of research emphasis — e.g. the study of suicide terrorism and foreign aid as a counter-terrorism tool. Next, the introduction highlights some key definitions — e.g. domestic and trans national terrorism - that are applied throughout the special issue. Each article of the special issue is then introduced and briefly discussed. These articles display a rich diversity of topics and methods; nevertheless, they enlighten the reader on the consequences of terrorism. Topics in the special issue include the social impact of interrogation methods; the conse quences of aid-assisted counter-terrorism; the roots of domestic terrorism; the adverse effect of terrorism on growth; the use of experiments to study counter-terrorism; the relationship among terrorism, trust, and income; and legislative responses to transnational terrorism. The two main event datasets - International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorism Events (ITERATE) and Global Terrorism Database (GTD) - are also compared. Keywords domestic terrorism, frontiers of terrorism research, impact of terrorism, policy insights, transnational terrorism Introduction Almost a decade has passed since the horrible events on 11 September 2001 made the world acutely aware of the significant threat posed by terrorism. Even though trans national terrorism had plagued the world after 1967, no event before these four hijackings caused so many casualties or had such a profound influence on the global awareness of terrorism risks. The events on that fateful day induced an inflow of government spending into counter-terrorism activities in many at-risk countries (Enders & Sandler, 2006). Since 11 September 2001, scholars in economics, political science, and other disciplines have devoted much effort to the study of terrorism and its impact on the economy and society. Some studies have investigated the reverse impact - i.e. the influence of the economy and social grievances on terrorism (Abadie, 2006; Blomberg, Hess & Weerapana, 2004). In recent years, there has been much scholarship that applies empirical and theoretical methods to the study of terrorism. The former has been facilitated by increased availability of data on terrorist events — e.g. International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorism Events (ITERATE) and Global Terrorism Database (GTD). The development of new econometric techniques involving time series and panel estimations also bolstered novel empirical studies on terrorism. On the theory side, many recent theoretical articles have used game theory (Arce & Sandler, 2005; Bapat, 2006; Sandler & Siqueira, 2009). As a theoretical tool, game theory is particularly appropriate because it accounts for interactive rational choice, where adversaries (e.g. terrorists and governments) or allies (e.g. commonly targeted governments or different factions in a terrorist group) must take actions, while accounting for the Corresponding author: [email protected] This content downloaded from 54.84.104.155 on Fri, 27 May 2016 18:01:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Background image of page 2
Show entire document
The Origins of the New Terrorism MATTHEW J. MORGAN © 2004 Matthew J. Morgan T he suicidal collision of hijacked commercial airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 was the most de- structive terrorist attack in world history. Before the deaths of approximately 3,000 people in those attacks, the most devastating single terrorist attack had claimed the lives of about 380 people. The 2001 disaster took place at a time when experts had been defining a new form of terrorism focused on millen- nial visions of apocalypse and mass casualties. The catastrophic attacks con- firmed their fears. The State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism , published in early 2002, revealed that terrorist attacks have scaled back in number in recent years, even though more casualties have occurred. 1 The late 1980s were a high point for the number of terrorist attacks, with the incidence of attacks exceed- ing 600 annually in the years 1985-88. With the exception of 1991, the number of terrorist attacks after 1988 decreased to fewer than 450 every year, reaching their recent low point in the years 1996-98, when the number of attacks was about 300. The number of attacks has increased slightly since 1998, when there were 274 attacks, but the level has not reached the number realized in any of the years of the 1980s. This report is not a linear progression from a large number to a small number of attacks, but the trend revealed is one of a decreasing inci- dence. Yet even if the frequency has decreased, the danger has not. Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network of international terror- ists are the prime examples of the new terrorism, but Islamic radicalism is not the only form of apocalyptic, catastrophic terrorism. Aum Shinrikyo, the Jap- anese religious cult, executed the first major terrorist attack using chemical Spring 2004 29
Background image of page 01
weapons on a Tokyo subway in 1995. The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma revealed similar extremism by American right-wing militants. Other plots by Christian Identity terrorists have shown similar mass-casualty proclivities. Nadine Gurr and Benjamin Cole labeled nuclear-biological-chemical (NBC) terrorism as the “third wave of vulnerability” experienced by the United States beginning in 1995. (The first two waves were the Soviet test of the atomic bomb in 1949 and the escalating nuclear arms race that followed. 2 ) David Rapoport made a similar assessment that religiously motivated modern terrorism is the “fourth wave” in the evolution of terrorism, having been pre- ceded by terrorism focused on the breakup of empires, decolonialization, and anti-Westernism. 3 The National Commission on Terrorism found that fanaticism rather than political interests is more often the motivation now, and that terrorists are more unrestrained than ever before in their methods. 4 Other scholarly sources have reached similar conclusions. Terrorism is increasingly based on religious fanaticism. 5 Warnings about the dangers of nontraditional terrorism were raised frequently in pre-2001 literature. 6 For instance, Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow declared in the pages of Foreign Affairs in 1998 that a new threat of catastrophic terrorism had emerged. 7 Earlier con- cerns about alienating people from supporting the cause are no longer impor- tant to many terrorist organizations. Rather than focusing on conventional goals of political or religious movements, today’s terrorists seek destruction and chaos as ends in themselves. Yossef Bodansky’s Bin Laden quotes from S. K. Malik’s The Quranic Concept of War : Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is in the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the ends meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him. 8 Today’s terrorists are ultimately more apocalyptic in their perspec- tive and methods. For many violent and radical organizations, terror has evolved from being a means to an end, to becoming the end in itself. The Na- tional Commission on Terrorism quoted R. James Woolsey: “Today’s terror- 30 Parameters Captain Matthew J. Morgan is the Commander of the Headquarters and Headquar- ters Operations Company (HHOC), 125th Military Intelligence Battalion, at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Following command, Captain Morgan will deploy to Operation En- during Freedom in Afghanistan on the Joint Task Force intelligence staff.
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
C. A. J. COADY TERRORISM AND INNOCENCE (Received 30 June 2003; accepted in revised form 22 July 2003) ABSTRACT. This paper begins with a discussion of different deFnitions of “terrorism” and endorses one version of a tactical deFnition, so-called because it treats terrorism as involving the use of a quite speciFc tactic in the pursuit of political ends, namely, violent attacks upon the innocent. This contrasts with a political status deFnition in which “terrorism” is deFned as any form of sub-state political violence against the state. Some consequences of the tactical deFnition are explored, notably the fact that (unlike the polit- ical status deFnition) it allows for the possibility of state terrorism against individuals, sub-state groups and other states. But a major problem for the tactical deFnition is the account to be given of “the innocent.” In line with just war thinking, the idea of “the innocent” is unpacked in terms of the concept of non-combatants and this in turn is treated as the category of those who are not prosecuting the harm that allows for a legitimate violent response. Problems with this approach are explored, with particular reference to criticisms made by Gregory Kavka. The recent drive to expand the class of those who may be legitimately attacked is subjected to scrutiny. Particular attention is paid to the role of “collective responsibility” and “deserving your government” in these arguments. KEY WORDS: children, civilians, collateral damage, deFnition, immunity, innocence, just war, Gregory Kavka, liability, non-combatants, responsibility, terrorism, violence ±or a phenomenon that arouses such widespread anxiety, anger and dismay, “terrorism” is surprisingly difFcult to deFne satisfactorily. It has been estimated that there are well over 100 different deFnitions of “terrorism” in the scholarly literature. 1 This disarray partly re²ects the fact that much discourse employing the term is highly polemical so that the act of deFning becomes a move in a campaign rather than an aid to thought. Consequently, many deFnitions are too broad to be of analyt- ical value, con²ating terrorism with any form of violence of which the authors disapprove. Just as you are stubborn and pig-headed where I am Frm and resolute; so you are a terrorist where I am engaged in legiti- mate defence (or, these days, pre-emption). We need to move beyond this double-talk if we are to make sense of what is important in the debate about terrorism. On the other hand, it should be conceded that some of the 1 Alex P. Schmid, Political Terrorism: A Research Guide to Concepts, Theories, Data Bases, and Literature (Amsterdam: Transaction Publishers, 1984), pp. 119–158, cited in Walter Laquer, The Age of Terrorism (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1987), p. 143. The Journal of Ethics 8: 37–58, 2004. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Background image of page 01
38 C. A. J. COADY semantic confusion results from difference in judgement about the moral signiFcance of certain key political concepts, such as national sovereignty, self-determination and political legitimacy. I shall have something to say about this in what follows, but will not seek to settle these issues, merely to get them into the open. My main target is not, in any case, deFnitional, but primarily moral since I am concerned by attempts to reinterpret terrorism by chipping away at the concept of “innocence.” But some deFnitional clariFcation is initially necessary. Let me begin with a sample of some in±uential deFnitions picked out by the Terrorism Research Center in the United States. Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change (Brian Jenkins). 2 Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted. 3 Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intim- idation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to in±uence an audience. 4 Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behaviour or politics (U.S. Vice-President’s Task ²orce-1986). Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or 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 (²ederal Bureau of Investigation DeFnition). 5 These deFnitions exhibit how much confusion exists about what terrorism is. We might note that Jenkins’ deFnition has the consequence that all forms of war are terrorist. Whatever verdict we give on war, it is surely just confusing to equate all forms of it, including armed resistance to Adolf Hitler, with terrorism. More interestingly, several of the deFni- tions make use of the idea of unlawful or illegitimate violence, but this seems to fudge too many questions about what is wrong with terrorism. 2 The deFnition from Jenkins is cited by the Terrorism Research Center Inc. on their website http://www.terrorism.com, accessed December 8, 2003. The same source has been utilized in the references in footnotes 3, 4 and 5 below. 3 Laqueur, The Age of Terrorism . 4 James M. Poland, Understanding Terrorism: Groups, Strategies, and Responses (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1988). 5 Terrorism Research Center Inc.
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

View the full answer
Islamic State.docx

Islamic State
ISIS has evolved into an organized and structured fanatic association that is
solidifying its energy as a government inside the Islamic Caliphate. The ISIS controlled zones
are...

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online