I was curious to find out how long world history has had to deal with “terrorism.” Perhaps some of you can fill in more instances but it seems to have started simply with political murders carried by the Assassin sect in 11th century Islam. The next instance could be the thuggee's of India who in the 14th century began murdering and robbing travelers. They were also a separate Hindu sect but one which also accepted both Sikhs and Muslims. Early in the 19th century, we find the Bolshevik anarchists who assassinated Russian government officials but as well threw bombs in restaurants and streetcars. Between 1905 and the 1917 Russian Revolution, they killed some seven thousand people. The mid-19th century setting up of the Jewish state in Muslim Palestine and the Russian Occupation of Muslim Afghanistan led to the rise of Islamics terrorism which is growing more intense since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The civilian toll has now grown to tens of thousands.

This may not include all the types of terrorism in history but, nevertheless, it seems to be a phenomenon that is relatively recent in human history and a trend that is accelerating. Instead of focusing on the cause(s) of each, I suggest that we concentrate on the over-all trend.

Why is this trend occurring?

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet. com

Why is this trend occurring?


Because it is so easy and the world's population of crazed and misled people has constantly increased.

Terrorism can be carried out by very small groups and commonly by just a single individual.

In the state of Oklahoma, the single worst occurrence of this type of thing was the bombing of the Murrow Federal Building. It was carried out by only two individuals and could have been easily done by just one.

...and a trend that is accelerating. Instead of focusing on the cause(s) of each, I suggest that we concentrate on the over-all trend.

I wonder if the trend is accelerating or if it's just that the reports are more widespread and rapid than in the old days. In the early days, were acts of "terrorism" reported in the same way as now? I doubt.

But, by virtue of there simply being more people, and in more congregated areas, is probably the cause of any increases (if there are increases).

What I find odd is that groups continue to use terrorism even though it's seldom, if ever, effective for gaining anything for anyone. Has terrorism ever accomplished anything of consequence?

Baron Max

I was curious to find out how long world history has had to deal with “terrorism.” Perhaps some of you can fill in more instances but it seems to have started simply with political murders carried by the Assassin sect in 11th century Islam. The next instance could be the thuggee's of India who in the 14th century began murdering and robbing travelers. They were also a separate Hindu sect but one which also accepted both Sikhs and Muslims. Early in the 19th century, we find the Bolshevik anarchists who assassinated Russian government officials but as well threw bombs in restaurants and streetcars. Between 1905 and the 1917 Russian Revolution, they killed some seven thousand people.These do not satisfy the consensus definition of terrorism. There are a number of definitions floating around, but the essence is:Attacks on a civilian population and civilian infrastructure; As a form of extortion; Using terror to induce them to urge their government to adopt a policy; Which is so unpopular that the terrorists have no other way to promote it.Attacks on government officials and their staff, rather than ordinary citizens, do not satisfy this definition, and the word for this is in fact assassination, not terrorism. The thuggees were simply robbers, they were not promoting a political cause. To the extent that Bolsheviks murdered private citizens in order to browbeat them into supporting the Communist Party, these murders can be classified as acts of terrorism, but if they were simply trying to destroy order as a perfectly logical way to create an anarchist society, this was a campaign of insurrection or rebellion rather than terrorism.The mid-20th century [note: you said 19th century] setting up of the Jewish state in Muslim Palestine and the Russian occupation of Muslim Afghanistan led to the rise of Islamic terrorism which is growing more intense since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The civilian toll has now grown to tens of thousands.Regardless of the accuracy of your analysis of the causes, the current violence perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists satisfies the definition of terrorism. In the U.S. and other western countries and in Israel, the attacks are on civilian targets and the goal is to terrorize the civilians into pressuring their governments to adopt the policies promoted by the fundamentalist movement--policies so unpopular throughout Christendom and the West that there is no other hope of having them adopted by a world in which Muslims are outnumbered five-to-one and religious fundamentalists of any stripe are increasingly held in contempt. Attacks against military targets such as U.S. troops and occupying forces are, of course, guerrilla warfare or insurrection, not terrorism. Attacks against Israeli government and military targets launched from outside Israel's borders are simply acts of war.This may not include all the types of terrorism in history but, nevertheless, it seems to be a phenomenon that is relatively recent in human history and a trend that is accelerating. Instead of focusing on the cause(s) of each, I suggest that we concentrate on the over-all trend. Why is this trend occurring?The rise in terrorism is even a more recent phenomenon than you originally stated. None of your examples prior to the 20th century were actually acts of terrorism, but rather more traditional forms of politically motivated violence--or plain old street crime--that go back at least to the Roman and Greek empires and surely long before that.

So look to the politics of the 20th and 21st centuries for your answer. Expect some members to point to a correlation with the end of the colonial era and the demise of the empires, with their efficient but draconian maintenance of peace and order. Expect our resident devil's advocate, Baron Max, to suggest that the various ethnic groups who populate the Third World (and a few other hot spots like Kosovo, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, the Basque region, Northern Ireland... :)) are simply inferior to the rest of us in intelligence and morality, and can't be trusted with self-government.

Terrorism is very old, perhaps the oldest form of warfare. The recent rise of Islamic terrorism can be connected to the empowerment of the Mujahadeen by the US in Afghanistan.

Secondarily, the idea of terrorism suits the political needs of some US politicians, and so the threat is exaggerated to the extreme.

Terrorism means to terrorize a population for political gain. Terrorism is only as old as populations have had political influence. Accordingly, as populist republican democracy is fairly new, say beginning with the American Revolution, terrorism in no more than a couple centuries old. Terrorism occurs because the people influence politics, and it will continue for the foreseeable future as democracy has taken root in many parts of the world.

"The purpose of terror is to terrorize"

- Lenin

Lenin was not specific enough. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize the populace where the populace has a political say.

ter·ror·ism (tĕr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The trend, as brilliantly described by Martin Van Creveld in his book, "The Transformation of War", has to do with a transition from state conflict between armies to non-state entities.

MARTIN van Creveld's theme is that low-intensity conflict (LIC)-terrorism, guerrilla warfare, civil strife-has rendered obsolete the large-scale conventional wars for which soldiers now train. The account of this transformation is billed as "the most radical reinterpretation of armed conflict since Clausewitz." This reference to the Prussian soldier-theorist is made not because Vom Kriege is "the greatest work on war and strategy ever written within Western civilization" but because Clausewitz tied his theory to the modern nation-state. Mr. van Creveld sees the decline of the nation-state but not the decline of armed conflict-thus the need for a new guide to strategic thought.

"....The mid-19th century setting up of the Jewish state in Muslim Palestine and the Russian Occupation of Muslim Afghanistan led to the rise of ..."

you mean the mid '20th' century.

There's 180 nations in the word. 6 billion people. 170,000 are born every day and about 130,000 die every day.

There has never been a time in history when a lower percent of people died via violence..however that violence is defined....terrorism, murder, warfare, execution, etc. 1.3 billion Chinese go to be everynight without any fear of anyone blowing them up...as do Americans...Indonesians....Brazilians, etc.

There is a lot of hysteria about terrorism but it barely touches the lives of a fraction of humans. With 24/7 news services any instance with a topical twist will be played to death. 'what's happening to the schools in america'. Shootings everywhere!!!'.....actually school shooting deaths are lower than they've be in 40 years. Every shooting of a kid or cop now makes the news. Acts of 'terrorism' also now are labeled as such and get on the news.

The Spanish Inquisition was terrorism.

Vlad Dracul ran a terrorist state for a few years.

Likewise the KKK and related violence in the US, after the Reconstruction.

Before that, whatever the hell was going on in Kansas and nearby after the Civil War.

The death squads operating all through South and Central America in the 1900s.

The Philippines during that time as well.

Cambodia of course, during and after the Vietnam War.

Th word terrorism comes from the French

The term "terrorism" comes from Latin terrere, "to frighten" via the French word terrorisme,[4] which is often associated with the regime de la terreur, the Reign of Terror of the revolutionary government in France from 1793 to 1794. A leader in the French revolution, Maximilien Robespierre, proclaimed in 1794, “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs.”[5] The Committee of Public Safety agents that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as "Terrorists."[6] The English word "terrorism" was first recorded in English dictionaries in 1798 as meaning "systematic use of terror as a policy."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

The earliest history relates to the Zealots of Judea

The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men , they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open, and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada.


http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php

The trend, as brilliantly described by Martin Van Creveld in his book, "The Transformation of War", has to do with a transition from state conflict between armies to non-state entities.

MARTIN van Creveld's theme is that low-intensity conflict (LIC)-terrorism, guerrilla warfare, civil strife-has rendered obsolete the large-scale conventional wars for which soldiers now train. The account of this transformation is billed as "the most radical reinterpretation of armed conflict since Clausewitz." This reference to the Prussian soldier-theorist is made not because Vom Kriege is "the greatest work on war and strategy ever written within Western civilization" but because Clausewitz tied his theory to the modern nation-state. Mr. van Creveld sees the decline of the nation-state but not the decline of armed conflict-thus the need for a new guide to strategic thought.

I haven't read the book, although it sounds interesting. However, it would seem that the rise in terrorism in the 20th century is more a response to the development of super powers than a sign of their decline. Small and relatively poor forces don't stand much of a chance against a large modern military and guerilla warfare can only work when you're dealing with someone who is co-occupying territory. With terrorism you can maximize the damage to your enemy while minimizing spending a relatively small amount of your resources. It's cost-effective. Of course it helps if you're unconcerned with international or public opinion.

My understanding of terrorism is that it is directed at the general population, not specific groups within the population. It is meant to affect change in a political system where the people have the power. Hence, modern terrorism does not pre-date modern democractic governments.

Terrorism is very old, perhaps the oldest form of warfare.Many posts on this thread, including my own, dispute this opinion. If you're going to make this argument you have to substantiate it with some evidence or reasoning.Secondarily, the idea of terrorism suits the political needs of some US politicians, and so the threat is exaggerated to the extreme.Don't forget what it does for the news media, especially The News For People Who Can't Read, aka television. Frightened people buy more newspapers and they watch a whole lot more TV news. There has never been a time in history when a lower percent of people died via violence..however that violence is defined....terrorism, murder, warfare, execution, etc.Indeed. And the major factor in that is the decline in government-perpetrated and -sponsored violence. Sixty million people died in WWII. Since then only one war has taken more than one million victims. (The Congo civil war with about three million.) The world is a safer place than it's ever been because terrorism is not as great a risk to anyone's life as war.

During the opening eight years of this century, 3,000 Americans have been killed by terrorists. During that same time, almost 150,000 Americans have been killed by drunk drivers. We know the names and addresses of almost every one of the drunk drivers, and thwarting them is as simple as a law mandating a breathalyzer in every car. So which threat are we bankrupting the country, destroying international relations, and using the Constitution as toilet paper, in order to combat?The earliest history relates to the Zealots of Judea.The implied definition of terrorism does not fit the norm that is now generally accepted, by consensus if not by any academic process. They were primarily targeting government agents, including those who acted clandestinely as government agents. This might be an insurrection or guerrilla warfare but it was not terrorism by today's consensus definition because it was not primarily directed at ordinary private citizens.

I disagree, in the French Revolution, the revolutionaries instituted terrorism against the population to attempt to hold the government hostage.

The Zealots did the same, when they targeted the Jews who supported the occupying Romans.

This might be an insurrection or guerrilla warfare but it was not terrorism by today's consensus definition because it was not primarily directed at ordinary private citizens.

Yes, but the definition of "terrorism" has changed in the last 100 years. You are applying it to today's standards. Terrorism was practiced by the ancient Greeks. I believe Xenophon wrote of psychological warfare against the populace of the enemy. You are equating terrorism by the use of bombs and the like, when in effect, the true essence of terrorism is to instill fear, intimidation and terror in the populace. It can be orchestrated by civilians and by the Government to achieve its means. It can aimed at private citizens and Governments.

..., when in effect, the true essence of terrorism is to instill fear, intimidation and terror in the populace.

Interesting. Can the news media then be guilty of terrorism by spreading the instances of violence to us all? Isn't just telling us about some "terrorist" activity a form of terrorism itself? From you definition, it would seem so, don't you think?

It can be orchestrated by civilians and by the Government to achieve its means.

I have to disagree with that. I don't believe that legitimate governments can perform acts of terrorism. When governments do similar things, we call it something else ...like fire-bombing, nuclear attacks, war, ....etc. But we don't and shouldn't call it "terrorism".

Baron Max

I disagree, in the French Revolution, the revolutionaries instituted terrorism against the population to attempt to hold the government hostage.Okay, I'll give you that one.The Zealots did the same, when they targeted the Jews who supported the occupying Romans.That's a fine line. When the occupiers win and write history, those people are called "supporters." When they lose, they're called "collaborators." I doubt that anyone today would call the people who attacked Nazi collaborators in Europe "terrorists." But Northern Ireland is still British territory so the IRA are called "terrorists."Yes, but the definition of "terrorism" has changed in the last 100 years. You are applying it to today's standards. Terrorism was practiced by the ancient Greeks. I believe Xenophon wrote of psychological warfare against the populace of the enemy. You are equating terrorism by the use of bombs and the like, when in effect, the true essence of terrorism is to instill fear, intimidation and terror in the populace. It can be orchestrated by civilians and by the Government to achieve its means. It can aimed at private citizens and Governments.I understand that the definition has changed but we live today among people who use today's definitions. There is a qualitative difference between actually killing people with bombs and hijacked airliners, and simply making them afraid. The communist governments made their people afraid; was that terrorism?Interesting. Can the news media then be guilty of terrorism by spreading the instances of violence to us all? Isn't just telling us about some "terrorist" activity a form of terrorism itself? From you definition, it would seem so, don't you think?Exactly.I have to disagree with that. I don't believe that legitimate governments can perform acts of terrorism. When governments do similar things, we call it something else ...like fire-bombing, nuclear attacks, war, ....etc. But we don't and shouldn't call it "terrorism".History agrees with you. I don't think any historian calls the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism. Governments of course absolve themselves as they always do. Government definitions of terrorism always include the phrase ". . . by non-governmental organizations . . ." :)

When the occupiers win and write history, those people are called "supporters." When they lose, they're called "collaborators." I doubt that anyone today would call the people who attacked Nazi collaborators in Europe "terrorists."

No, Fraggle, whatever the end result, the French Resistance was not a terrorist organization .....they did NOT attack innocent civilians to terrorize anyone, they attacked Nazis and Nazi supplies, etc. Big difference.

History agrees with you. I don't think any historian calls the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism. Governments of course absolve themselves as they always do. ....

I detect a slight amount of sarcasm, Fraggle. But you're wrong. The attacks on cities in Germany and Japan during World War II was not intended to kill civilians, but to destroy and damage factories which made war goods and materials.

I will give you some measure of dignity for the remark about Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...both of those bombings were to demonstrate our resolve and to bring a quick end to the killing of Allied troops. I know you'll argue that point, but it doesn't matter, and it won't change anything. Japan, at that time, was conscripting kids as young as 10 and 12 to fight ...they'd vowed to fight to the end of everything and everyone in Japan. The bombs ended that foolish and dangerous Japanese resolve ...as it was intended to do.

But it was NOT terrorism in any realistic, acceptable definition of the word.

Let me ask you ....if the Nazis were holding positions in an Italian town, would you call it "terrorism" for the Allies to use artillery against those Nazi positions? In many cases, virtually destroying the town to drive the Nazis out? Or would you have forced the Allies to fight door-to-door, hand-to-hand, risking the lives of thousands of Allied soldiers like we're doing now in some places which I don't want to mention and I hope you don't either?

Baron Max

No, Fraggle, whatever the end result, the French Resistance was not a terrorist organization .....they did NOT attack innocent civilians to terrorize anyone, they attacked Nazis and Nazi supplies, etc. Big difference.I will defer to your authority on the subject, but are you sure that the resistance did not kill civilian collaborators as well? "Nazis and Nazi supplies, etc." Does that include French civilians who helped move Nazi supplies because they were kissing up to the Nazis?I detect a slight amount of sarcasm, Fraggle. But you're wrong. The attacks on cities in Germany and Japan during World War II was not intended to kill civilians, but to destroy and damage factories which made war goods and materials.The attacks on cities like Dresden and the carpet-bombing of Germany near the end of the war had no patent military objectives. Their purpose was to terrorize the German citizenry into petitioning their government for a quick surrender.I will give you some measure of dignity for the remark about Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...both of those bombings were to demonstrate our resolve and to bring a quick end to the killing of Allied troops.It was far more than that. It was also to bring a quick end to the killing of Japanese troops and civilians. It was an application of situational ethics: Kill a couple of hundred thousand Japanese civilians right now, to save the lives of tens of millions of them--as well as several hundred thousand soldiers on both sides--in a conventional war of attrition.I know you'll argue that point, but it doesn't matter, and it won't change anything. Japan, at that time, was conscripting kids as young as 10 and 12 to fight ...they'd vowed to fight to the end of everything and everyone in Japan. The bombs ended that foolish and dangerous Japanese resolve ...as it was intended to do. But it was NOT terrorism in any realistic, acceptable definition of the word.I'm not "arguing the point" and none of your data are controversial. I'm just pointing out that America's strategy was to terrorize the Japanese people into adopting a policy that was foreign to their culture: surrender. In their culture, fighting to the death, even certain death, is honorable. They had never had to contemplate death by vaporization with no chance to even face the enemy. We extorted them into facing that type of death by demonstrating it and forcing them to balance the grief against the alleged honor.

If Al Qaeda successfully transported nuclear weapons into Amarillo and Cedar Rapids and set them off, to demonstrate that they have the power to defeat us, I guarantee that we would call it terrorism. Of course if we did not surrender and we lost the ensuing war they would write the history books and they would not call it terrorism. Do you see the parallel?Let me ask you ....if the Nazis were holding positions in an Italian town, would you call it "terrorism" for the Allies to use artillery against those Nazi positions? In many cases, virtually destroying the town to drive the Nazis out?This scenario does not resemble Hiroshima and Nagasaki.No one was "holding" those towns, they were loyal Japanese citizens who lived there voluntarily. Their strategic value was negligible. Their factories produced material used by the military, but so did half the factories in Japan. We did not destroy those cities to reduce military supplies. It would hardly be cost-effective to destroy every Japanese city of 100,000 people with an incredibly rare and expensive nuclear bomb. The targets were deliberately chosen to cause the bare minimum number of civilian casualties necessary to make the point. We were hardly trying to "drive the Imperial Army out" of those cities. That was their own bloody homeland and in any case they weren't major military bases.Or would you have forced the Allies to fight door-to-door, hand-to-hand, risking the lives of thousands of Allied soldiers like we're doing now in some places which I don't want to mention and I hope you don't either?You have lost my point. I fully recognize the more-or-less humanitarian reasoning behind the nuclear attack, regardless of whether in hindsight it was accurate. U.S. leadership truly and honestly did want to avoid obliterating the Japanese people! They had made a number of decisions of that nature during the course of the war, such as never targeting Kyoto, the repository of so many ancient artifacts of Japanese culture.

My point is that the U.S. government made a decision to utilize terrorism as a tactic because they were confident that it would be successful!

Don't you understand that this is also what motivated/motivates the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, the Basque separatists, the Chechen partisans, the Palestinian commandos, and Al Qaeda? They all make decisions to utilize terrorism as a tactic because they are confident that it will be successful! Okay I'll grant you that some of them are probably wackos but most of them are not. They may not have such a high confidence in their success as we did in WWII, but they're also more desperate because they have no fallback option like we did with a conventional invasion of Japan, so it's still a rational strategy to resort to terrorism, just like it was a rational strategy for us.

Extortion can work and has often worked. Extortion raised to a higher order of magnitude so it can be called "terrorism" has worked at least once in history. You need to understand that every terrorist in the world knows about the U.S. nuclear extortion of the Japanese civilian population and is encouraged by our success!

Not to call this terrorism would blind us to this connection.

"You can never do just one thing." Sure we brought WWII to a quicker and less bloody close. But what long term consequences of those bombings are we facing now?

President Carter thought it was a splendid idea to provide money, arms and training to ragtag bands of loony Islamic fundamentalists because they would fight against the Russian occupiers of Afghanistan, never against the dear Americans who turned them into powerful political movements. You can never do just one thing.

The US government cannot by definition use terrorism. It's something only done by non-state entities. There can be no "terrorist nations".

Terrorism is the oldest form of warfare, because it was used before there were nations on rival tribes and made no distinction between soldiers and civilians.

Some native Americans used chemical warfare, shutting up rivals in their houses and dropping in gourds filled with charcoal and crushed hot peppers, creating a cloud of burning fumes.

The US government cannot by definition use terrorism. It's something only done by non-state entities. There can be no "terrorist nations".That definition is prevalent only because it's the ones that national governments want us to use and they have a lot of power over the development of their languages. No organization wants its tactics to be called terrorism. The PLO calls themselves freedom fighters. The Americans who nuked Japan call themselves soldiers. The victims of terrorism have a completely different perspective. I have argued that we're all victims of terrorism, no matter who perpetrates it, so we should stop kissing up to terrorist organizations, regardless of their nature, and call a terrorist a bloody terrorist!

The difference is that you can attack or overthrow a state, they have armies and diplomats to negotiate with.

The US government cannot by definition use terrorism. It's something only done by non-state entities. There can be no "terrorist nations". If the usage really has changed so radically in just the last couple of decades, so that the terrorizing of populations by their governments is no longer termed "terrorism" as it was for centuries (the Soviet Union a main target of such accusations during the Cold War), how did that redefinition take place, so quickly and (for governments considering certain tactics) so conveniently ?

For an example of routine usage, a book review of "the Gulag Archipelago" ( http://www.roca.org/OA/21/21h.htm ): No human being can read this book without being shocked. But this is no ordinary expose of "man's inhumanity to man." It is not merely the story of one nation's tragedy. It is not an account of some monstrous "accident" of history, of the "mistakes of the past." Solzhenitsyn writes: "Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions" (Vol.1, p.174).

But what monstrous ideology can be responsible for such an historical "experiment" as the Soviet slave-labor system, the likes of which has not been seen in all the world's history of terrorism?