From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Скачати 236.77 Kb.
НазваFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Сторінка1/7
Дата конвертації16.06.2013
Розмір236.77 Kb.
ТипДокументы
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7
Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Terrorist" redirects here. For other uses, see Terrorist (disambiguation).







United Airlines Flight 175 hits the South Tower of the former World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts ofunlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Perhaps,[3] it is less oppressive in itself than through the effects of the precautions taken to protect its likely victims.[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[8][9]

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[10] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism of terrorism can leverage human fear to help achieve these goals. [11]

See also: Terror and State terrorism

"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,[12] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terreō meaning “I frighten”.[13] 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.[14][15] After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse.[8]Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people[16] by a non-government group in such a way as to create a media spectacle.[17] This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".[18] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869.[19]

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".[20]

Definition

^ Main article: Definition of terrorism





Stamp of Azerbaijan with "Stop Terrorism!" description

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.[21] 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."[1]

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.[22] 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 repeatedly 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."[23]

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.”[24]

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





The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.

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

A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological 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."[26]





OsloNorway immediately after the 2011 terrorist attack in Norway perpetrated byAnders Behring Breivik.

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".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: warriotorganized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[27] and Animal Liberation Front[28] 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.[29] Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[30] 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 ideologybehind a terrorist act.[31]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[32] 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.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] 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"[33] 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.[34]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] 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.[35]





A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks onSeptember 11, 2001.

Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[36][better source needed] 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.[citation needed] 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.[original research?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence ofstate terrorism;[37] 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.[12][38][39][40]

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.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[41]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[42] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI 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.[citation needed]

Pejorative use

The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations.[43] 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.[44] Those labeled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatistfreedom fighter, liberator, revolutionaryvigilantemilitantparamilitaryguerrillarebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadimujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.[45]

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".[46] 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".[46][47]

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.[48][49][50]

The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".[45] 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.[51][52] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union,[53] 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.[54][55] Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.[56][57][58] 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.[59]

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.[60][61][62][63][64][65] WikiLeaks whistleblower Julian Assange has been called a "terrorist" by Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.[66][67]

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 (the United Kingdom) which the UK branded as terrorism. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.[68][69]

For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality try to be careful in their use of the term.[70][71]

Types of terrorism





A view of damages to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut caused by a terrorist bomb attack, April 1983





Sbarro pizza restaurant bombing in Jerusalem, in which 15 Israeli civilians were killed and 130 were wounded by a Hamas suicide bomber.

In early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction of H.H.A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.[72] The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Схожі:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia iconDownload free eBooks of classic literature, books and novels at Planet...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia iconTertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia iconDownload free eBooks of classic literature, books and

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia icon**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia iconЗаявка на участие во Всероссийском фестивале хореографии и пластики
«Free style на основе техник modern и jazz танца с использованием принципов contemporary» (3 часа)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia iconЛ юбая компьютерная помощь
Диагностика, помощь в приобретении пк, сборка разборка, ремонт, настройка: програмного обеспечения (бесплатное free, open), операционной...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia iconЛитература 18 > 7 Использованные источники информации 18 > 7 Дополнительная...
Дополнительная подготовка студентов по дисциплине «Информатика и информационные технологии»
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia iconГанновер-Кельн-Амстердам
Выезд из Калининграда в 00. Прохождение российско-польской границы. Посещение «Duty Free». Транзит по территории Польши, Германии....
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia iconПрограмма тура парома «Pr. Anastasia»
Таллинн. На борту работают бары, рестораны, дискотека, детская комната, магазины tax free, кинозал, казино «nemo». Музыкально-развлекательная...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia iconДмитрий Леушкин Стань свободным быстро (Be Set Free Fast)
До тех пор, пока индивид не найдет свою истинную сущность в себе самом, любые попытки придать жизни смысл через манипуляции во внешнем...
Додайте кнопку на своєму сайті:
Школьные материалы


База даних захищена авторським правом © 2013
звернутися до адміністрації
mir.zavantag.com
Головна сторінка