Defining terrorism: philosophy of the bomb, propaganda by deed and change through fear and violence

Criminal Justice Studies,Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2004, pp. 259–279

ISSN 1478-601X (print)/ISSN 1478-6028 (online) © 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1478601042000281105

Defining Terrorism: Philosophy of the Bomb, Propaganda by Deed and Change Through Fear and ViolenceArthur H. GarrisonTaylor and Francis LtdGJUP041018.sgm10.1080/1478601042000281105Criminal Justice Studies1478-601X (print)/1478-6028 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis [email protected]

The idea that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ has led to the errone-ous conclusion that defining terrorism is, in the final analysis, a subjective activity aboutassigning negative connotations to one’s opponents and positive connotations to one’sproponents. Terrorism, both as practiced and justified by terrorist themselves, is a toolused to achieve a specific outcome by using force or violence on one segment of society withthe primary goal of causing fear in the larger society to make change in that society. Thisarticle will review the historical development of the use of terror and demonstrate thatregardless of the actor, all terrorists share the common belief that terror is a tool of change.The desired change, the chosen target, and the justification of the use of terror can bespecific to the society and the perpetrators. The goal of this paper will be to show thecommon strands of uniformity of the understanding of terror as a tool of change throughhistory. Though there are differences between terrorists and waves of terror, the utility ofterror is not different.

Keywords: Utility of terror; Terrorist; Terrorism; Propaganda by deed; Philosophy of the bomb; Nature of terrorism

Introduction

After the attacks of September 11, 2001 society asked how 19 men could hijack fourplanes with the intent to crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon andinto either the White House or the Capitol Building in Washington DC. The attacks

Arthur H. Garrison is the Director of Criminal Justice Planning and Senior Researcher at the Delaware CriminalJustice Council and is a graduate of the US Department of Justice, Institute for Intergovernmental Research Stateand Local Anti-Terrorism Program (SLATT). Correspondence to: Delaware Criminal Justice Council, 820 N.French Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

260 A. H. Garrison

resulted in the death of 3062 people (US State Department, 2002). The question wasasked, were such men insane or simply evil? The literature on terrorism is one of themost written about and controversial subjects in the study of political science, criminaljustice and international affairs. One of the most debated issues in regard to terrorismis how to define terrorism. It will be asserted in this article that terrorism can be under-stood and defined through the writings of terrorists themselves.

In this article terrorist writings from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries will be usedinterchangeably to show the continuity of thought among terrorists in regard to the useof terrorism as a tool to achieve their desired goals. There is a consistent ideology thatconnects terrorists regardless of their desired goals or social context. Although there areclear differences in political ideology, philosophy, desired goals and the social contextbetween terrorists through history, an examination of their writings reveals that terror-ists share a common understanding of the utility of terror. To be sure there are vast differ-ences between Maximilien Robespierre, Johann Most, bin Laden, the Army of God, theAnimal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, but their adoption of terroras a tool to achieve their respective goals and their view on the utility and necessity ofviolence to achieve those goals are not dissimilar. It is this uniformity in the use ofterrorism as a tool to achieve a desired political, social and/or religious goal that allowsfor a neutral and systematic definition of terrorism.

A Terrorist is a Terrorist: The Cause Matters Not

Terrorism: The Unity of Understanding

Terrorists, regardless of issue or cause, hold at least one of ‘three basic concepts [aboutsociety]:

(1.) Society is sick and cannot be cured by half measures of reform.(2.) The state is itself violence and can be countered and overcome only by violence.(3.) The truth of the terrorist cause justifies any action that supports it. While some

terrorists recognize no moral law [they] have their own ‘higher’ morality’. (Parry,1976, p. 12)

The father of modern terrorism thought, Maximilien Robespierre, in his February 1794address (five months before his own head met the guillotine) entitled Report upon thePrinciples of Political Morality Which Are to Form the Basis of the Administration of theInterior Concerns of the Republic (1794), which was delivered to the National Convention,made the following clear:

Without, all the tyrants encircle you; within, all tyranny’s friends conspire; they willconspire until hope is wrestled from crime. We must smother the internal and externalenemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of yourpolicy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people’s enemies by terror.

If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of populargovernment in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal;terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt,severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle

Criminal Justice Studies 261

as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s mosturgent needs.

Three quarters of a century later, Russian anarchists echoed the ideas of Robespierre.Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin wrote in 1869 that the ‘nature of Russianbanditry [terrorism] is cruel and ruthless; yet no less cruel and ruthless is that govern-mental might which has brought this kind of bandit [terrorist] into being by its wantonacts’ (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 65). Bakunin continued:

Governmental cruelty has engendered the cruelty of the people and made it into some-thing necessary and natural. But between these two cruelties, there still remains a vastdifference; the first strives for the complete annihilation of the people, the other endeavorsto set them free. (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 65)

Ninety years later, Mao Tse-Tung’s Public Security Chief wrote in similar fashion in thePeople’s Daily on September 28, 1959. Note the similar self-serving distinction betweenthe use of terror on behalf of the people and terror by his adversary:

In suppressing the resistance of the counterrevolutionaries, the dictatorship of the prole-tariat cannot, of course, avoid the shedding of blood. But the nature of such bloodshed isentirely different from the bloodshed under the dictatorship of the exploiting classes; herethe blood that is shed is not the people’s but that of counterrevolutionaries. (Parry, 1976,p. 225)

More than a century and half before, Robespierre (February 1794) equally reflected onthe necessity of terror as a tool against ‘tyrants’ or other ‘enemies’ of the Republic. Notethe utility of demonizing the target of terror:

The protection of government is only due to peaceable citizens; and all citizens in therepublic are republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather,enemies. Is not this dreadful contest, which liberty maintains against tyranny, indivisible?Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear ourcountry apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people’s mandate; thetraitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonor the people’s cause,to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrev-olution by moral counterrevolution – are all those men less guilty or less dangerous thanthe tyrants whom they serve?

Osama bin Laden reminds us, two centuries after Robespierre, that the terrorist alwayshas a justification for terror (oppression and injustice) and is always the defender of thepeople against tyrants:

It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression,iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collab-orators; to the extent that the Muslim’s blood became the cheapest and their wealth as lootin the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. (bin Laden, 1996)

In the mind of the terrorist, it is the injustice of the oppressor that justifies the use ofterror and the use of such terror is not only justified, but can be required by the handof God.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individualduty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it. (binLaden, 1998)

262 A. H. Garrison

The terrorist, regardless of the cause, believes that violence is the only avenue toachieve a desired goal in society. Robespierre justified the use of violence as a tool tosecure his government and as a tool to deal with political enemies. Robespierreexhorted his countrymen ‘[s]ubdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will beright … Is force made only to protect [from] crime? And is the thunderbolt notdestined to strike the heads of the proud? Show mercy to the Royalists … pardon thevillains! No! [M]ercy for the innocent, mercy for the weak, mercy for the unfortunate,mercy for humanity’ (Robespierre, 1794). Osama bin Laden similarly encourages theuse of violence to attack the enemies of Allah and his people, namely the USA and theWest. He incites Muslims and Arabs with the invocation of Allah saying, ‘We – withGod’s help – call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded tocomply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever andwhenever they find it’ (bin Laden, 1996).

Terrorism: The Unity of Method

Although the modern use of terror dates back to Maximilien Robespierre and the JacobinParty in the French regime de la terreur between May 1793 and July 1794 (Garrison, 2003),it was the Russian revolutionaries and the anarchists of the 19th century that developedthe use of terror into a systematic tool to achieve specific social goals. Sergey Nechaevin 1869 wrote Catechism of the Revolutionist, which sets forth 21 principles therevolutionary or terrorist must be guided by (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 68).Among these 21 principles is the description of the terrorist who is fully committed tothe revolution, who has no ties to civil order, whose only goal is destruction, who hasno friendships nor pity for anything in the world, and who views the target society itselfas foul and something that must be destroyed because the target society is evil per se andthere is nothing worthy in it.

Carlos Marighella, the leader of the Action for National Liberation in Brazil (Grisetand Mahan, 2003) a century later, wrote in Manual of the Urban Guerrilla (1970) thatthe personal qualities of the urban guerrilla include bravery, decisiveness, a good marks-man, one who is trained in arms and explosives, skilled in the tactics of guerrilla warfare(assaults, bank robbery, raids, occupation, street combat, execution, kidnapping, sabo-tage and the use of bombs – terrorism), educated in political thought, and one who isnot afraid of dismantling and destroying the political and social structure of society(Cronin, 2002). The Catechism of the Revolutionist and the Manual of the Urban Guerrillaare not dissimilar to the Al Qaeda Manual that was found in England after a police raidon the home of an Al Qaeda member. The manual provides instruction on military oper-ations, military organization, religious reasons and justifications for the use of terror,instructions on counterfeiting, methods for communication, methods of organizationalsecurity, overt and covert operations, and how to behave if captured and placed on trial.

Nechaev explained in Catechism of the Revolutionist (1869), the terrorist ‘has nointerest of his own, no affairs, no feelings, no attachments, no belongings, not even aname. Everything in him is absorbed by a single exclusive interest, a single thought, asingle passion – the revolution’ (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 68). This idea of the


revolution being the sin qua non of the individual with no mercy or quarter to theenemies of the revolution was taken to a new level only eighty years later when MaoTse-Tung instituted a reign of terror that lasted 22 years starting with the Red Terror,which was the first wave of public trials (1949–1959), followed by the Great LeapForward (1958–1960), followed by the Cultural Revolution (1965–1969), and finallythe second wave of great public trials and executions (1969–1970); ‘[i]n all, the humantoll up to mid-1971 was 34,300,000 at least or 63,794,000 at the most’ (Parry, 1976,p. 242).

As Mao commented, in July 1957, of those killed during the Red Terror, ‘it was thedemand of the people; it was done to free the masses from long years of oppression …and all kinds of local tyrants’ (Parry, 1976, p. 225). During the Red Terror childrenwere encouraged to inform on their parents in mass governmental trials and executions(Parry, 1976). As one son said of his father: ‘My father should have been killed long ago.For the security of the people, for the permanent destruction of the old system, fortruth, for peace, I must firmly approve his execution’ (Parry, 1976, p. 235). Maoexplained that the terror was ‘absolutely necessary. … If we had not done so, the masseswould not have been able to lift their heads’ (Parry, 1976, p. 225). These thoughts arevery similar to those advocated by Robespierre more than a century and a half before,who elucidated ‘[t]o punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them iscruelty’ (Robespierre, 1794).

What do these and other historical examples prove? They prove that terrorism is notexplained by the cause, because causes change. Terrorism is defined by the rationaliza-tion, logic and perception of how to effect change. Robespierre, Hitler, Lenin, Stalinand Mao all used terror to instill fear in the hearts of their countrymen in order to createand build the society they wanted. Nechaev, Bakunin and Osama bin Laden, assertedthat terror must be used to instill fear in the target governments in order to bring downthe vileness of the government they despised and free the oppressed who suffer underthe hand of the government. Terrorists are different when viewed from the socialcontext of time, the target selection of the terror, the reason for the use of terror, thejustification of the use of terror, the evil that terrorists seek to address, and the goalsthey have. These and other factors will always differentiate terrorists in history, timeand place. But the use of terror as a tool to achieve desired goals has not changed. Thetactics of terror, whether used to instill fear or to free the oppressed, do not change.

The universal view of terrorists that change occurs only through the use of violence,and that the terrorist is the defender/liberator of the people or victimized segment ofsociety is also seen in ‘single issue’ terrorists. Craig Rosenbraugh, a spokesman for theEarth Liberation Front (ELF), ended his testimony before Congress in February 2002with the following exhortation:

All power to the people. Long live the Earth Liberation Front. Long live the AnimalLiberation Front. Long live all the sparks attempting to ignite the revolution. Sooner orlater the sparks will turn to flame. (Leader and Probst, 2003, p. 3)

Single-issue terrorists use the same tactics of terror as more broad issue terrorists. Forexample, the ELF has been responsible for the bombing of factories, hotels, resorts,

264 A. H. Garrison

logging companies, car dealerships, urban development and other industries theybelieve are destroying the environment. In their minds the environment is the entitybeing abused and victimized. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) uses the same tacticsto defend animals (the abused and victimized group) which they assert are equal tohumans and thus are due equal protection from abuse, harm and exploitation. Thehunting, killing, eating and use of animals in medical research are evils that can only bestopped through use of direct action. Animal rescues or ‘liberation’ as well as bombingof research facilities are some of the activities of the ALF. As noted on their crest ‘deedsnot words’ will end animal exploitation. Although the level of violence and the use ofarson, sabotage, vandalism and bombings used by ALF and ELF surely does not rise tothe level of the bombings of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, the idea of using bombs to changebehavior in the society in which the target of the violence resides and their belief in theutility and justification of such violence is not different.

Terrorism is a Systematic Tool to Achieve a Desired End

Terrorism: A Systematic and Asymmetric Tool

‘The concept of systematic terrorism and its use in revolutionary strategy first appearedbetween 1869 and 1881 in the writings of Russian revolutionaries’ (Laqueur andAlexander, 1987, p. 48). The early modern (pre-World War II) use of systematic terror-ism did not involve the use of indiscriminate violence to cause the most carnage. AsRussian anarchist Nikolai Morozov wrote in 1880, a ‘[t]erroristic struggle … strikes atthe weakest spot of the existing system’ (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 73) which areits leaders. Nechaev explained in Catechism of the Revolutionist (1869), the ‘guidingprinciple [in selecting targets for terror] must be the measure of service the person’sdeath will necessarily render to the revolutionary cause. [The] sudden and violentdeaths [of those targeted] will inspire the greatest fear in the government and, bydepriving it of its cleverest and most energetic figures, will shatter its strength’ (Laqueurand Alexander, 1987, p. 71). As American anarchist C. S. Griffin explained, ‘by assassi-nating the head just as fast as a government head appeared, the government could bedestroyed, and, generally speaking all governments be kept out of existence’ (Cronin,2002, p. 15). Thus was born the concept of individual terrorism. As explained byMorozov in 1880:

All that the terroristic struggle really needs is a small number of people and large materialmeans. This presents really a new form of struggle. It replaces by a series of individual polit-ical assassinations, which always hit their target [avoiding the errors of past] massive revo-lutionary movements, where people often rise against each other … and where a nationkills off its own children, while the enemy of the people watches from a secure shelter andsees to it that the people of the organization are destroyed. (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987,pp. 73–74, emphasis added)

Individual terrorism is target specific. The target is chosen with the purpose of causingfear in the larger society in order to effect change. As Morozov explains, the ‘movementpunishes only those who are really responsible for the evil deed. Because of this the


terroristic revolution is the only just form of a revolution’ (Laqueur and Alexander,1987, p. 74). As will be discussed below, individual terrorism became the vehicle for themethod of terrorism called Propaganda by Deed.

Terrorism is an asymmetric engagement of the enemy; that is why it does not requirelarge memberships and why it is difficult to fight. According to Morozov, the ‘revolu-tionary group is not afraid of bayonets and the government’s army because it does nothave to clash, in its struggle, with this blind and insensible force’ because ‘it can actunexpectedly and find means and ways which no one anticipates’ after which they‘disappear without a trace and thus they are able to fight again against the enemy,to live and work for the cause’ (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, pp. 73–75). It is onlywhen a terrorist group bases its operations in a known location, such as Al Qaeda inAfghanistan, that conventional warfare can be used against them.

Terrorism: A Tool of Direct Action — Propaganda by Deed

Terrorism, in addition to being asymmetric, is an act of propaganda. The terrorist act,in and of itself, communicates that change can occur and the violence of the actcommands the attention of the society. The propaganda effect is in the act of securingthe attention of the populous and then providing the message through the violence.Three Italian anarchists (Errico Malatesta, Carlo Cafiero and Emilio Covelli) conceivedand developed the idea of Propaganda by Deed through a series of letters to each otherbetween July and October 1876 (Linse, 1982). Although over time Propaganda by Deedevolved into a theory of assassination and bombings, Malatesta, Cafiero and Covelliconceived Propaganda by Deed as a method of insurrection not political assassination(Linse, 1982). The Italian Federation of the Anarchist International formally adoptedPropaganda by Deed as a strategy in December 1876 (Linse, 1982; Townshend, 2002).On December 3, 1876 Malatesta published an article affirming that the ‘Italian Feder-ation (of the International) believes that insurrection, reinforcing socialist principlesthrough deeds, is the most effective means of propaganda; … [and] is also the onlymeans of reaching … the lowest social classes and to involve these strongly alive forcesof mankind in the struggle of the International’ (Linse, 1982, p. 202).

In August 1877 anarchist Paul Brousse published an article entitled Propaganda bythe Deed in which he asserted that traditional forms of propaganda were inherentlylimited in spreading the anarchist message to the masses and that the message had tobe supplemented by deeds and action (Fleming, 1980). Italian anarchist Carlo Pisacane,explained that change occurs as a result of the use of violence and violence precedeschange, not the other way around:

The propaganda of the idea is a chimera. Ideas result from deeds, not the latter from theformer, and the people will not be free when they are educated, but educated when theyare free. (Hoffman, 1998, p. 16)

‘Pisacane argued that the masses were too exhausted at the end of their long workingday to read leaflets and listen to speeches; only violent actions could catch their atten-tion’ (Griset and Mahan, 2003, p. 6).

266 A. H. Garrison

By 1881 the concept of Propaganda by Deed was adopted by anarchist theoreticiansat the London International Congress (Fleming, 1980). German anarchist Johann Mostas well as other anarchists like Bakunin and Morozov advocated and explained the util-ity of Propaganda by Deed. Johann Most wrote in his London and later New York basedanarchist newspaper Freiheit (November 15, 1884):

We provoke; we stroke the fire of revolution and incite people to revolt in any way we can.The people have always been ‘ready’ for freedom; they have simply lacked the courage toclaim it for themselves. (Laqueur and Alexander 1987, p. 104)

In an article published on July 25, 1885 in Freiheit Most explained:

What is important is not solely these actions themselves but also the propagandistic effectthey are able to achieve. Hence, we preach not only action in and for itself, but also actionas propaganda. (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 105)

Why? As Bakunin wrote in 1869:

When the whole world of working peasants sleep what seems to be a sleep with no awak-ening, crushed by the whole burden of the state, the world of bandits in the forests carrieson its desperate fight and battles on until at last the Russian villages awake. (Laqueur andAlexander, 1987, p. 66)

And as Morozov explained in 1880:

Success of the terroristic movement will be inevitable if the future terroristic struggle willbecome a deed of not only one separate group, but an idea, which cannot be destroyed bypeople. (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 76)

Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin explained ‘actions which compel general attention… in a few days, make more propaganda than thousands of pamphlets’ (Townshend,2002, p. 56). More importantly, according to Kropotkin, an act of terror ‘awakens thespirit of revolt; it breeds daring …. Soon it becomes apparent that the established orderdoes not have the strength often supposed … the monster is not so terrible …’(Townshend, 2002, p. 56). As Fleming explains (1980, p. 4), for ‘some terrorists,propaganda by the deed came to be accepted as a suitable means of “educating” themasses (especially when many were not able or had no time or desire to read), tostimulate them to action, and draw them into the movement’.

The concept of Propaganda by Deed requires that the act have a purpose and thatthe purpose is made known to the populous. As Most explains in Freiheit (July 25,1885):

The great thing about anarchist vengeance is that it proclaims loud and clear for everyoneto hear, that: this man or that man must die for this and this reason …. Once such actionhas been carried out, the important thing is that the world learns of it from the revolutionar-ies, so that everyone knows what the position is… . In order to achieve the desired success… immediately after the action has been carried out, especially in the town where it tookplace, posters should be put up setting out the reasons for the action in such a way as to drawfrom them the best possible benefit. (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, pp. 105–106, emphasisadded)

As Laqueur explains, the tactic of bombing by the Russian anarchist group NarodnayaVolya (‘the will of the people’) put into practice the concept of Propaganda by Deed:


… it was one of the best weapons of agitation. One had to strike at the center to shake thewhole system. The future belonged to mass movements but terrorism had to show themasses the way. The program of the Narodnaya Volya Central Committee listed the liqui-dation … of those who had committed the most glaring oppression as the main tasks ofthe terrorist struggle. If ten or fifteen pillars of the establishment were killed at one and thesame time, the government would panic and would lose its freedom of action. At the sametime, the masses would wake up. (Laqueur, 2002, p. 34)

Half a century later, terrorism and Propaganda by Deed found fresh ground andapplication on the other side of the world. Jewish terrorist groups (the ‘Stern Gang’a.k.a. the Lehi, an acronym for Lohamei Herut Yisrael, ‘Fighters for the Freedom ofIsrael’ and the Irgun Zvai Leumi) used terror to force the British out of Palestine. TheStern Gang assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Administrator of Palestine, onNovember 6, 1944. The Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22,1946 killing 91 people and injuring another 45. On September 17, 1948 three membersof the Stern Gang assassinated Count Folk Bernadotte, the UN Mediator and ColonelAndre P. Serot of the French Air Force in Jerusalem. On April 9, 1948, commandos ofthe Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin (avillage with an estimated population of 750 Palestinians, situated on a hill overlookingthe main highway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv as well as a number of Jerusalem’swestern neighborhoods), and killed 100 Palestinians. The hotly debated incident (as towhether it was an act of terrorism, ethnic cleansing or an act of war, i.e., removing anenemy from a location in order to further military operations) resulted in the removalof the entire Palestinian population from the town.

In 1943 the Lehi published a publicity sheet, Hechazit, which advocated the utility ofterror in the tradition of Propaganda by Deed:

If the question is, is it possible to bring about liberation by means of terror? The answer is:No! If the question is, do these actions help to bring liberation nearer? The answer is: Yes![Terror] is not aimed at persons, but at representatives and is therefore effective. And if italso shakes the population out of its complacency, so much the better. (Townshend, 2002,p. 89)

The terror implemented by the Stern Gang and the Irgun ‘played a central part inbringing the majority of the Yishuv [the Jewish community living in Palestine who werecommitted to reliance on Britain] around to their view [that British friendship wasirrelevant to the goal of securing Palestine as a Jewish state]. Here the classic terroristargument that government repression would drive the people on to the side of theterrorists was borne out’ (Townshend, 2002, pp. 88–89). The British withdrew fromPalestine in 1948 and the UN partitioned Palestine into a state of Israel and a Palestin-ian state. The resulting wars thereafter have formed the seed of modern late 20thcentury terrorism (Garrison, 2002).

Terrorism: At First a Surgical Tool and Later a Blunt Instrument

In addition to the goal of government destruction, Russian revolutionaries andEuropean anarchists viewed terrorism as a tool to both protect and avenge the people.

268 A. H. Garrison

As Robespierre admonished, ‘[t]herfore let him beware who should dare to influencethe people by that terror which is made only for their enemies. … Death to the villainwho dares abuse the sacred name of liberty or the powerful arms intended for herdefense, to carry mourning or death on the patriotic heart’ (Robespierre, 1794). AsMorozov wrote in 1880, ‘only those who are really responsible for the evil deed’ aretargeted (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 74) because, as Most explains in Freiheit(July 25, 1885), ‘no action carried out by anarchists can have its proper propagandistaffect if those organs whose responsibility it is’ to carry it out fail to make such actions‘palatable to the people’ (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 106). The use of terrorshould only be implemented to capture the attention of society in order to promulgatetheir message (Propaganda by Deed) or to submit demands to the society (objectivedriven terrorism) or to avenge an injustice or to prevent additional injustice (terrordriven terrorism) (Garrison, 2003).

This is not to say that the rule of individual targeting of ‘only those who are reallyresponsible for the evil deed’ was universal among anarchists and revolutionaries. In1894 French anarchist Emile Henry ‘walked into the Café Terminus, a large establish-ment near the St. Lazare railway station in Paris … reached into his overcoat pocket,withdrew a small bomb, and threw it toward the orchestra’ (Liston, 1977, p. 27) killingone person and injuring 20 people. At his trial he explained how he committed the actand prepared for its completion (Liston, 1977). He stated that the attack was commit-ted because of ‘his contempt for the musical tastes and cultural pretensions of thewhite-collar workers who enjoyed the Café Terminus [and] he was punishing the bour-geoisie for their collaborating with a hateful system’ (Liston, 1977, p. 28). He showedno remorse for his actions. After being asked, what about the innocents in the Café, heresponded ‘Il n’y a pas d’innocents’ (Liston, 1977; Townshend, 2002).

The words there are no innocents ‘have echoed through the vacant corridors of aterrorist’s mind ever since’ (Liston, 1977, p. 28). Since the end of World War II,some ‘variation of the Emile Henry rationale is heard after every terrorist act’ (Liston,1977, p. 28). On May 30, 1972, three terrorists from the Japanese Red Army tooksemi-automatic machine guns out of violin cases and indiscriminately opened fire inthe Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel killing 26 people and injuring 78. The attack wascoordinated with the General Command of the Popular Front for the Liberation ofPalestine. After the attack, ‘the Palestine Liberation Organization said, “There are noinnocent civilians in Israel since we consider every Israeli as either a soldier fighting usor a colonist occupying our land”’ (Liston, 1977, p. 28, emphasis added).

Modern Terrorism: The End of Selectivity and the Rise of High Mortality Terror

As the 19th century came to a close and the 20th century began, selectivity in terroristtargeting remained a significant aspect of terrorism. The Irish Rebellion (1919–1921)instituted the concept of ‘selective terrorism, acts of terror against representatives of atarget class, to achieve political objectives. The use of terror was limited to members ofthe selected class: representatives of the British government operating in Ireland’ suchas police officers, judges, government officials, and military personnel (Garrison, 2003,


p. 46, emphasis added). After World War II, Jewish terrorist groups used selectiveterror to force the British to abandon their occupation of Palestine (Garrison, 2003).

The concept of the use of terror as a tool, selectively applied, to a specific class of indi-viduals or specific individuals so as to limit collateral injury did not last into the secondhalf of the 20th century (Garrison, 2002). On September 11, 2001 10 of 19 Islamicfundamentalists (Al Qaeda operatives) used two transcontinental planes as explosivedevices to destroy the World Trade Center and killed 2,829 people (US State Depart-ment, 2002). On May 12, 2003, nine Al Qaeda operatives used 400 pounds of explosivesand destroyed three residential buildings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and killed at least 30people. On April 19, 1995 two members of the American anti-government radical rightused an estimated 4,800 lbs. of fertilizer and fuel oil based explosives to blow up theAlfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people and injuringmore than 500 people. During the 1990s, the members of the radical pro-life movement,Army of God, were responsible for assassinations of abortion providers, the bombingof abortion clinics and gay nightclubs as well as the bombing of the Centennial OlympicPark in Atlanta, Georgia in 1996. The last two decades of the 20th century establishedthe new reality of terrorism: the use of terror to achieve high victim mortality rates andthe abandonment of selective/individual terror (Garrison, 2003).

Terrorism: The Use of the Bomb and the Philosophy of the Bomb

Terrorists, for the last three decades, have used explosives to destroy buildings, airplanes,airports, military bases and government offices. Although the amount of destructionand the scientific sophistication involved in making explosives have changed, the useof explosives is neither new nor novel. As Most wrote in Freiheit (March 27, 1886), morethan a century ago, the use of dynamite should be ‘willingly accepted and emphaticallyrecommended from every quarter, with the single observation that rifles, revolvers, anddynamite are better than dynamite alone’ (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 107). In hisfamous pamphlet entitled, The Science of Revolutionary Warfare: A Handbook ofInstruction Regarding the Use and Manufacture of Nitroglycerine, Dynamite, Gun-Cotton,Fulminating Mercury, Bombs, Arson, Poisons, etc. (1881), Most explained that ‘dynamite… is a formidable weapon against any force of militia, police or detectives that may wantto stifle the cry for justice that goes forth from plundered slaves. It can be used againstpersons and things. It is better to use it against the former than against bricks andmasonry … A pound of this stuff beats a bushel of ballots … and don’t you forget it’(Cronin, 2002, p. 21). Nor is the advent of the suicide bomber a new phenomenon inthe history of the use of terror. As Hoffman recounts of the March 14, 1881 NarodnayaVolya assassination of Czar Alexander II, ‘[f]our volunteers were given four bombs eachand employed along the alternate routes followed by the Tsar’s Cortege … the secondbomber emerged from the crowd and detonated his weapon, killing both himself andhis target’ (Hoffman, 1998, pp. 18–19).

The use of explosives as a tool to carry out terrorist acts has a long history, but theHindustan Socialist Republican Association (HRSA), in the 1929 manifesto the Philos-ophy of the Bomb, was the first to explain that terrorism and the use of explosives has a

270 A. H. Garrison

positive social and psychological affect on the terrorist personally irrespective of effectit has on the target of the terror. In 1929 the HSRA attempted to kill the viceroy of Indiaby blowing up his train. The act failed and was condemned by many Indian leadersincluding Mahatma Gandhi (Garrison, 2003). To answer its critics, the HRSApublished the Philosophy of the Bomb.

HRSA explained that a people who are oppressed and humiliated in the eyes of theworld and themselves due to the oppression of another seek ways to address theoppression in order to regain self-respect. The HRSA asserted that terror is birthed byhumiliation and desperation, concurrent with the presence of occupation, and drivesthe desire to make the occupier take notice that the oppression will no longer be toler-ated as well as to command the attention of the rest of the world in order to make ittake notice of the oppression. Thus terror, according to the Philosophy of the Bomb, canbe effective regardless of its short-term affect on the oppressor; for the terror lifts thespirits of the youth of an oppressed people and terror is seen by those youth as an effec-tive tool to defend and regain their honor in their own eyes as well as in the eyes of theirpeers.

More than 70 years after the HRSA asserted that terror is birthed by humiliation anddesperation, the Philosophy of the Bomb is espoused by the oppressed youth in theMiddle East. As a Palestinian imprisoned terrorist explained, ‘Recruits were treatedwith great respect, a youngster who belonged to Hamas or Fatah was regarded morehighly than one who didn’t belong to a group, and got better treatment than unaffili-ated kids’ (Post, Sprinzak and Denny, 2003, p. 178). Another terrorist explained thatfamilies who had sons killed, injured or arrested due to terrorist activity ‘enjoyed agreat deal of economic aid and attention. Perpetrators of armed attacks were seen asheroes, their families got a great deal of material assistance, [the] entire family … wongreat respect’ for its sacrifice for the Palestinian people (Post et al., 2003, p. 177).

More than half a century after the British occupation of India ended, the Philosophyof the Bomb is espoused by the Palestinian youth of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. ThePhilosophy of the Bomb explains, in part, why the intefada has lasted for three years; theuse of rocks, stones and suicide bombs is as much about regaining Palestinian self-respect by not accepting the occupation of the territories by Israel and keeping theattention of the world as it is a tactic to force Israel out of the territories. In a recentstudy conducted by Post et al. (2003), 35 Middle Eastern terrorists were interviewed inorder to understand their psychology and justifications for the use of terror. One of theinterviewed terrorists explained, reflecting the concept of the Philosophy of the Bomb,why suicide bombers targeted Israel:

You destroyed homes and turned children into orphans. You prevented people frommaking a living, you stole their property, you trampled on their honor. Given that kind ofconduct, there is no choice but to strike at you without mercy in every possible way. (Post etal., 2003, p. 178, emphasis added)

The use of terror has always been an appealing option to the young and those whoespouse terror have always sought to recruit and use the young to implement terror.Bakunin wrote in 1869, ‘the healthy, uncorrupted mind of youth must grasp the fact


that it is considerably more humane to stab and strangle dozens, nay hundreds, ofhated beings than to join with them to share in systematic legal acts of murder, in thetorture and martyrdom of millions of peasants’ (Laqueur and Alexander, 1987, p. 67).More than a century later, bin Laden exhorts Arab youth to ‘know that their rewardsin fighting … the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting someone else not fromthe people of the book’ (bin Laden, 1996). He praises these youth, proclaiming:

They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy ofGod like you …

…

Our youth believe in paradise after death. They believe that taking part in fighting will notbring their day nearer; and staying behind will not postpone their day either.

…

These youths love death as you love life. They inherit dignity, pride, courage, generosity,truthfulness and sacrifice from father to father. They are most delivering and steadfast atwar. (bin Laden, 1996)

Terrorism: Understanding its Nature

As the people of the USA were shocked by the act of terrorism on September 11, 2001,an act of terrorism similarly shocked the people of the USA at the beginning of the 20thcentury. On September 6, 1901 Leon Czolgosz, an American anarchist of Polish-Russian descent and a follower of Erma Goodman, assassinated President WilliamMcKinley. Czolgosz is reported to have said at his execution, ‘I killed the Presidentbecause he was an enemy of the good people! I did it for the help of the good people,the working men of all countries!’ (Cronin, 2002, p. 31). At the beginning of two centu-ries, terrorism was used to strike at the symbols of American democracy and politicalpower. Little has changed in two centuries.

Griset and Hahan observed:

From all corners of the earth, terrorism has been carried out by ideologues on the left andthe right, by wealthy aristocrats and poverty-stricken farmers, and by men and women. …The ends sought by terrorists have varied enormously. Some terrorists hoped to overthrowthe government so they could assume power. … Liberating their country from colonialrule has motivated some … and nationalist and separatist movements have [motivatedothers]. Religion has been a driving force for some … whereas others have struck blowsagainst secular leaders or wealthy industrialists. (2003, p. 10)

President George W. Bush similarly observed:

The terrorist who takes hostages, or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving thesame ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murderschildren on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of ayoung reporter for being a Jew.

We’ve seen the same ideology of murder in the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the firstattack on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two embassies in Africa, in theattack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror inflicted upon thousands of innocentmen and women and children on September the 11th, 2001.

272 A. H. Garrison

None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political ideol-ogy. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seekto oppress and persecute women. They seek the death of Jews and Christians, and everyMuslim who desires peace over theocratic terror. They seek to intimidate America intopanic and retreat, and to set free nations against each other. And they seek weapons of massdestruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive scale. (Bush, 2004)

Terrorist groups have ranged in size, purpose, causes and have existed in various typesof governmental structures in various periods throughout human history. However,the variety of terrorist activity and social contexts does not translate into the idea thatthe ‘best way to understand terrorism is to examine the social, economic, political, andreligious conditions and philosophies existing at a particular time and place’ (Grisetand Mahan, 2003, p.10).

The use of terrorism as a tool to effect change has remained the same throughouthistory. Although the causes asserted to justify terrorism have changed, the tool ofterrorism (and the value of its utility in the minds of those who use terror) has notchanged. Let me be clear about what I mean by the tool of terrorism. Terrorism is a toolto cause change through the infliction of fear. The use of terrorism as a method toachieve results remains constant regardless of the desired result. Thus all who use terrorto achieve a desired result, whether to build a society (Robespierre, Stalin or Moa), orto bring down a societal structure (Most or Lenin), or resist occupation (HRSA, theIrgun or the PLO), or in vengeance against a perceived indignity or injustice (bin Ladenand Al Qaeda), or to cause a specific single change in society (ALF or ELF), areterrorists. The cause explains the terrorist but does not define him. The act of using terrordefines the terrorist.

It is not asserted that all terrorists are the same. There are significant differencesbetween Hamas and ALF; but both use terror as a tool to achieve their desired goals.Both agree that the use of violence against a target within the larger society willcause, or is hoped to cause, a change in that society. Both advocate the use of explo-sives as a tool in their struggle to force their desired change. Although the bomb inthe days of Johann Most has advanced into the airplane of bin Laden today and theexplosive capacity of incendiaries has increased as technology has changed, the useof explosives as tools of terror and the rationalization for using them has notchanged. Both bin Laden and the Army of God employ explosives to achieve theirrespective goals. Both believe that an evil exists and both believe only the use ofviolence will achieve their desired goals. Neither has hesitated to kill to achieve theirgoals. The fact that the Army of God is a domestic single-issue terrorist group andAl Qaeda is an international terrorist group does not change their agreement on howchange is made in society nor in their assessment of the value of the lives of thosethey kill.

The techniques of terror today are much more destructive and numerous thanthose 100 or 200 years ago, but the rationalization for the use of terror in the mindof those who use terror and their belief in the utility of its implementation as a toolfor change has not changed. It is this fact that allows for an objective definition ofterror.


Terrorism: The Issue of Definition

Terrorism Defined

I define terrorism as the use of force or violence or the threat of force or violence to changethe behavior of society as a whole through the causation of fear and the targeting of specificparts of society in order to affect the entire society. The key to this definition is that forceis used (1) against a specific part of society so as to (2) cause fear in the greater societyin order to (3) change the entire society. The key to defining terrorism does not rest inthe targeting of civilians. Terrorism is about the use of violence with the primarypurpose of change caused by fear. Terrorism is not about the victim of the terror. Forexample, a Russian anarchist kills a Tsar because such action will cause fear and disrup-tion in the government as a whole, which the terrorist hopes will lead to the destructionof society. The Tsar is not significant per se, it is the result of his assassination that theterrorist is interested in.

A terrorist group blows up a plane over the ocean. The plane is destroyed with all ofits passengers and crew. The terrorist group takes responsibility and asserts that, ‘aslong as the people of Palestine are without homes, Americans will not be safe in thesky’. They further assert that they ‘will put bombs on planes and at airports at will untilthe Palestinians have a homeland’. Can one say that the terrorists blew up the planebecause that particular plane and those particular passengers had a strategic value inthe struggle for a Palestinian homeland? No. The victims of the plane were of littleconsequence. The goal was to cause fear about flying in the traveling public as a wholein order to change the behavior of travelers and put pressure on the USA and the worldto, in turn, put pressure on Israel in regard to the occupied territories. It is the goal andthe intent of the act that separates terrorism from war or criminal activity. For example,as Weinberg and Davis (1989, p.8) explain:

… a commercial airliner may be skyjacked by individuals seeking to escape from onenation by having its pilot fly it to another. But another airliner may be taken over by indi-viduals who demand that newspapers publish their political manifesto in exchange for thelives of its passengers. The latter is an act of terrorism, while the former is not.

The defining aspect of terrorism is in the intention of the terrorists and the circum-stances of the act, not in the violence or the level of destruction that occurs per se.

Terrorism: One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Terrorist

Terrorism is not victim based, it is goal and objective based. When terrorism is under-stood from this point of view, it is clear that one man’s terrorist is not another man’sfreedom fighter. Terrorism cannot be defined by attacks on ‘civilians’ or on ‘innocents,’because these terms are subjective as the French Anarchist Henry and the PLO taughtus and as bin Laden has more recently reminded us. The post World War II era ofterrorism has adopted the concept ‘there are no innocents’, and the nature of terrorismhas changed from individual or selective targeting to indiscriminate targeting. Butwhether targeted or indiscriminate, the goal of a terror incident is the fear that the act

274 A. H. Garrison

will produce and desired change in behavior that will occur due to the act. It is theintent and the goal of violence that differentiates between terrorism and warfare.

The distinction between terrorism and warfare is an important one. As Gatesexplains, ‘unlike war or revolution, terrorism is not an entity in and of itself. Instead itis a tactic or a method that can and has been used by a variety of people in a variety ofcontexts’ (Gates, 2002, 116). Weinberg and Davis (1989, p. 7) explains the differencebetween the violence of guerrilla warfare and terrorism as follows:

… guerrilla organizations war against weakly deployed government forces, and either bydesign or by accident inflict some civilian casualties along the way, terrorist groups usuallyavoid attacking their armed opponents, preferring instead to commit acts of violenceagainst unarmed civilians. Indeed, this is what gives terrorism its shock value. Setting off abomb in a crowded department store, taking hostage children in an elementary school:these are acts which usually generate much publicity.

Notice the difference. The target of guerrilla warfare has intrinsic value as a primarypurpose as opposed to the blowing up of a department store or kidnapping childrento generate fear and public attention. A terrorist will blow up a plane ‘in the hope ofdeterring prospective passengers from flying to or from a particular nation.Saboteurs, on the other hand, may blow up a bridge or railroad line in order toprevent their enemies from resupplying their forces at a remote location’ (Weinbergand Davis, 1989, p. 8). Ganor (1998) makes the same distinctions noting that ruralguerrilla warfare is ‘the use of violence against military personnel and security forcesin their area of deployment, activity and transport, in order to attain political aims’ assupposed to indiscriminate terrorism which entails ‘using violence against a civiliantarget, without regard to the specific identity of the victims – in order to spread fear ina population larger than that actually affected – with the purpose of attaining politicalaims’. Although the use of the word ‘civilian’ is problematic for reasons previouslydiscussed, the point is made.

In war, a target is selected because it has military value and will achieve a specific militaryobjective. In modern warfare, a specific target is attacked or destroyed because the actionserves a specific military necessity, achieves a specific result (utility) and leads to a specificgoal (objective) while limiting collateral damage (proportional use of force) to the civilianpopulation. In terrorism, the target is of little interest per se. What is important is that thetarget will realize a certain reaction on the part of the greater society. (Garrison, 2003, p. 42)

Although in warfare ‘terror’ may have a tertiary result, the primary purpose is toachieve a specific military objective. In modern warfare, discriminate targeting isprimary while in terrorism indiscriminate targeting is primary. The children and thedriver of a school bus blown up in the middle of a city are not the targets of the terroristnor was the purpose to kill the specific children on the bus. The purpose was to causeterror in the rest of the city.

Terrorism: Why Words and Definitions Matter

The ability to define terrorism is not just an academic exercise. Note the:


following exchange [that] took place between Ned Walker, Assistant to the Undersecretaryfor Middle East Affairs at the US State Department, and the Honorable Lee Hamilton,[C]hairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the Committee onForeign Affairs [United States] House of Representatives:Hamilton: Well, how do you define terrorism, do you define it in terms of non-

combatance?Walker: The State Department definition which is included in the terrorism report

annually defines it in terms of politically motivated attacks on non-combatant targets.

Hamilton: So an attack on a military unit in Israel will not be terrorism?Walker: It does not necessarily mean that it would not have a very major impact on

whatever we were proposing to do with the PLO.Hamilton: I understand that, but it would not be terrorism.Walker: An attack on a military target. Not according to the definition. Now wait a

minute; that is not quite correct. You know, attacks can be made onmilitary targets which clearly are terrorism. It depends on the individualcircumstances.

Hamilton: Now wait a minute. I thought that you just gave me the State Departmentdefinition.

Walker: Non-combatant is the terminology, not military or civilian.Hamilton: All right. So any attack on a non-combatant could be terrorism?Walker: That is right.Hamilton: And a non-combatant could include military?Walker: Of course.Hamilton: It certainly would include civilian, right?Walker: Right.Hamilton: But an attack on a military unit would not be terrorism?Walker: It depends on the circumstances.Hamilton: And what are those circumstances?Walker: I do not think it will be productive to get into a description of the various

terms and conditions under which we are going to define an act by the PLOas terrorism. (Ganor, 1998)

This exchange shows the difficulties that arise when an act of terrorism is defined bythe victim rather than by the goal of the actor. To answer Congressman Hamilton’squestion – would an attack on a military unit in Israel be a terrorist act – the answer isyes if the unit were targeted for the purpose of affecting the policy or the behavior ofIsrael. If the destruction of the Israeli unit was secondary to the affect it would have onIsrael, the attack was terrorism. It would not be an act of terrorism if the PLO wantedto remove the unit due to military necessity or strategy. If the unit held a position thatwould prevent the implementation of PLO operations and the unit was attacked so asto remove it from the position to allow PLO activity, then the attack would be an act ofwar or guerrilla activity. In such a case, the destruction of the Israeli unit was theprimary purpose of the attack. If the attack produces a secondary effect on the policyof Israel, such a result does not change the fact that the attack served a specific militarypurpose, which is an act of war, not terrorism.

Scholars at the Rand Corporation and the International Policy Institute for CounterTerrorism have similarly asserted that terrorism should be defined by the nature of theact rather the nature of the victim (Drake, 1998; Ganor, 1998; Jenkins, 1980). Such an

276 A. H. Garrison

approach allows for a definition of terrorism that can be applied to state governmentalas well as non-governmental terrorism. Wardlaw (1982, p. 16) defined terrorism as‘the use, or threat of use, of violence by an individual or a group, whether acting for orin opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extremeanxiety and/or fear inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediatevictims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to political demands ofthe perpetrators’. Claridge similarly defines terrorism as the ‘systematic threat or useof violence, whether for or in opposition to established authority, with the intentionof communicating a political message to a group larger than the victim group bygenerating fear and so altering the behavior of the larger group’ (Claridge, 1998, 66).Ezeldin (1987),1 Rosie (1987),2 Fontaine (1988),3 Wells (1996),4 Kushner (1998),5 theUnited Nations (1999)6 and Schwartz (2002)7 have asserted similar definitions ofterrorism.

It is conceded that there are various definitions of terrorism (Schmid, 1983) andthat the definition asserted in this article is by no means universal. After 20 years ofteaching and studying terrorism and the use of terror, Cooper concluded that terror-ism is simply ‘the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for thepurpose of securing and maintaining control over other human beings’ (Cooper,2002, p. 3). Researchers have sought to define every possible aspect of terrorism:defining it from the terrorist’s point of view, from the view of the victim, from itsutility, to viewing terrorism as another side of war (Kushner, 1998). Terrorism hasbeen defined as a psychological response to oppression and an illegitimate use ofpower and violence to make political, social and/or religious change. Although thedefinitions in the literature range from the very short to the verbose, the use ofpolitically sensitive and subjective adjectives like ‘innocent’, ‘civilian’, ‘unarmed’,‘illegal’, ‘merciless killing’ or ‘unjustified’, fail to provide a clear understanding ofterrorism. ‘[F]ocusing on the nature of the act rather than on the identity of theperpetrators [,] the nature of their cause’ (Thackrath, 1987, p. 27) or the nature ofthe victim, allows for a more objective analysis of the use of terror and the nature ofterrorism.

Conclusion

Terrorism is an old tactic that has been used by governments to suppress revolution aswell as by revolutionaries who have sought to achieve power over a government. It hasbeen employed by single-issue groups seeking to address a specific evil in society andby revolutionary governments trying to maintain power. When reviewing the literatureon terrorism, written by the terrorists themselves it becomes evident that there is acongruence of thought on the utility of terror. Mao taught, ‘hit one, teach a thousand’and his example of revolutionary terror, Lenin explained, ‘the purpose of terror is toterrorize’, and centuries before Sun Tzu determined, ‘kill one person, frighten tenthousand’.

Terrorism has been used by individuals and by organizations. Terror has claimedthe lives of kings, presidents and leaders of all types. Terrorists have justified the use of


the bomb and the bullet as the only means to ‘free the people’ from oppression, fornever has a terrorist lived that has said terror was used for individual gain. All terroristsassert that they are the defenders and liberators of oppressed people. Only the tacticsemployed and the level of destruction achieved by terrorists have changed. The causeschange but the psychology and utility of terror, as a tool in the mind of the terrorist hasnot. The name of the terrorist changes but the view that lives must be lost to achievefreedom has not. In the end the terrorist, whether in possession of governmentalpower or in want of governmental power, uses terror to achieve a political, social orreligious goal. Modern terrorism is at least two hundred years old and she has not ageda day.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper, ‘Terrorism by Any Other Name is Still Terrorism’, waspresented at the Twentieth International Social Philosophy Conference: War andTerrorism. Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, July 17–19, 2003.

Notes1.[1] The ‘systematic and persistent strategy of violence practiced by a state or political group

against another state or political group through a campaign of acts of violence … with theintent of creating a state of terror and public intimidation to achieve political ends’ (Ezeldin,1987, p. 40).

2.[2] The ‘use and/or threat of repeated violence in support of or in opposition to some authority,where violence is employed to induce fear of similar attack in as many non-immediate victimsas possible so that those so threatened accept and comply with the demands of the terrorist’(Rosie, 1987, p. 7).

3.[3] Terrorism is ‘political action employing extraordinary violent means to achieve the largelypsychological effect of intimidation and demoralization on the part of a nation’s regime andits populace’ (Fontaine, 1988, p. 4).

4.[4] Terrorism is the ‘strategy of employing violence or the threat of violence to escalate peoplesfears in order to achieve or keep political power. Terrorism consists of random violent acts onpersons or property in order to frighten or coerce a large number of people’ (Wells, 1996, p. 454).

5.[5] ‘Terrorism is the use of force (or violence) committed by individuals or groups againstgovernments or civilian populations to create fear in order to bring about political (or social)change’ (Kushner, 1998, p. 10).

6.[6] Terrorism is any ‘act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to anyother person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, whenthe purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel agovernment or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act’ (UnitedNations, 1999).

7.[7] ‘[T]errorism is defined as intentional actions (usually violent in word and deed) that areexecuted by individuals, groups, organizations and/or governments in order to produce asense of extreme fear (i.e. terror) in a large number of other people, including people inthe general “civilian” population beyond the immediate targets and victims. Politicalterrorism, a sub-category, is terrorism that is intended to do these things in such a way asto coerce political leaders to accede to the political demands of the perpetrators’ (Schwartz,2002, pp. 24–25).

278 A. H. Garrison

References

bin Laden, O. (1996). Declaration of war against the Americans occupying the land of the two holyplaces. Delaware Criminal Justice Council Terrorism Research Page. Retrieved October 13,2003, from http://www.state.de.us/cjc/binladen.htm

bin Laden, O. (1998). Jihad against jews and crusaders. Delaware Criminal Justice Council TerrorismResearch Page. Retrieved October13, 2003, from http://www.state.de.us/cjc/binladen.htm

Bush, G. (2004). Presidential address to the nation in prime time press conference April 13, 2004.White House: Washington DC. Retrieved April 15, 2004, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/print/20040413–20.html

Claridge, D. (1998). State terrorism? Applying a definitional model. In B. Schechtenan andM. Slann (Eds.), Violence and terrorism 98/99 (4th ed.) (pp. 64–72). Guilford, CT: AnnualEditions.

Cooper, H. (2002). Terrorism: The problem of definition revisited. In H. Kushner (Ed.), Essential-Readings on Political Terrorism (pp. 1–16). Lincoln, NE: Gordian Knot Books.

Cronin, I. (2002). Confronting fear: A history of terrorism. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press.Drake, C. (1998). Terrorists’ target selection. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.Ezeldin, A. (1987). Terrorism & political violence: An Egyptian perspective. Chicago, IL: Office of

International Criminal Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago.Fleming, M. (1980). Propaganda by the Deed: Terrorism and anarchist theory in late nineteenth-

century Europe. Terrorism, 4, 1–23.Fontaine, R. (1988). Terrorism: The Cuban connection. New York, NY: Crane Russak and Co.Ganor, B. (1998). Defining terrorism: Is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter?

International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism: Herzliya, Israel. Retrieved May 23, 2003,from http://www.ict.org.il/articles/define.htm

Garrison, A. (Ed.) (2002). Terrorism: Past, present and future – a training course. Wilmington, DE:Delaware Criminal Justice Council.

Garrison, A. (2003). Terrorism: The nature of its history. Criminal Justice Studies, 16(1), 39–52.Gates, J. (2002). The US Army and irregular warfare. Retrieved May 23, 2003, from http://

www.wooster.edu/history/jgates/Griset, P., & Mahan, S. (2003). Terrorism in perspective. London: SAGE.Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Jenkins, B. (1980). The study of terrorism: Definitional problems. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand

Corporation.Kushner, H. (1998). Terrorism in America: A structured approach to understanding the terrorist threat.

Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.Laqueur, W., & Alexander, Y. (Eds.) (1987). The terrorism reader: A historical anthology (rev. ed.).

New York, NY: New American Library.Laqueur, W. (2002). A history of terrorism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Leader, S., & Probst, P. (2003). The Earth Liberation Front and the environmental terrorism.

Delaware Criminal Justice Council Terrorism Research Page. Retrieved October 13, 2003, fromhttp://www.state.de.us/cjc/otherarticles.htm

Linse, U. (1982). ‘Propaganda by Deed’ and ‘Direct Action’: Two concepts of anarchist violence. InW. Mommsen and G. Hirschfeld (Eds.), Social Protest, Violence and Terror in Nineteenth andTwentieth Century Europe (pp. 201–229). London: Berg Publishers.

Liston, R. (1977). Terrorism. New York, NY: Thomas Nelson Inc.Mommsen, W. (1982). Non-legal violence and terrorism in western industrial societies: An

historical analysis. In W. Mommsen and G. Hirschfeld (Eds.), Social protest, violence andterror in nineteenth and twentieth century Europe (pp. 384–403). London: Berg Publishers.

Parry, A. (1976). Terrorism: from Robespierre to Arafat. New York, NY: Vanguard Press.Post, J., Sprinzak, E., & Denny, L. (2003). The terrorists in their own words: Interviews with 35

incarcerated Middle Eastern terrorists. Terrorism and Political Violence, 15(1): 171–184.


Robespierre, M. (1794). Report upon the principles of political morality which are to form the basisof the administration of the interior concerns of the Republic. Modern History Sourcebook:Maximilien Robespierre: Justification of the Use of Terror. Retrieved April 10, 2003, from http://www.fordam.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-terror.html and Modern History Sourcebook:Maximilien Robespierre: On the Principles of Political Morality, February 1794. Retrieved April10, 2003, from http://www.fordam.edu/halsall/mod/1794robespierre.html [Two translationsof the same speech used interchangeably].

Rosie, G. (1987). The dictionary of international terrorism. New York, NY: Paragon House.Schmid, A. (1983). Political terrorism: A research guide to concepts, theories, data bases and literature.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Schwartz, T. (2002). Terror and terrorism in the Koran. In H. Kushner (Ed.), Essential Readings on

Political Terrorism (pp. 22–34). Lincoln, NE: Gordian Knot Books.Thackrah, R. (1987). Terrorism: A definitional problem. In P. Wilkinson and A. Stewart (Eds.),

Contemporary Research on Terrorism (pp. 24–41). Aberdeen, Great Britain: Aberdeen Univer-sity Press.

Townshend, C. (2002). Terrorism: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford Press.United Nations (1999). International convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

Article 2 (b) Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 54/109 on9 December 1999. Retrieved May 11, 2004, from http://www.un.org/law/cod/finterr.htm

United States Department of State, Office of International Information Programs (2002). A selectedchronology of key events, September 11, 2001 — Present. Retrieved September 27, 2003, fromhttp://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0902/ijge/gjchron.htm

Wardlaw, G. (1982). Political terrorism: Theory, tactics and counter-measures. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Weinberg, L., & Davis, P. (1989). Introduction to political terrorism. New York, NY: McGraw-HillPublishing.

Wells, D. (Ed.) (1996). An encyclopedia of war and ethics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Defining terrorism: philosophy of the bomb, propaganda by deed and change through fear and violence

Documents

Transcript of Defining terrorism: philosophy of the bomb, propaganda by deed and change through fear and violence