Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes.

In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] ommon definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror)! are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal! and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non"combatants (civilians). #ome definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. $he use of similar tactics by criminal organi%ations for protection rac&ets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. $he word 'terrorism' is politically and emotionally charged,[(] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. #tudies have found over 1)) definitions of 'terrorism'.[*][+] In some cases, the same group may be described as 'freedom fighters' by its supporters and considered to be terrorists by its opponents. [,] $he concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimi%e political or other opponents,[-] and potentially legitimi%e the state.s own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as 'terror' by opponents of the state).[-] [/] 0t the same time, the reverse is also used where states perpetrate state terrorism. $errorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organi%ations to further their ob1ectives. It has been practiced by both right"wing and left"wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[2] 0n abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. $he symbolism of terrorism can e3ploit human fear to help achieve these goals.

Origin of term
'$errorism' comes from the 4rench word terrorisme,[11] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the 4rench government during the 1-2("1-2* 5eign of terror. $he 4rench word terrorisme in turn derives from the 6atin verb terre meaning 'I frighten'.[12] $he terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in 5ome in response to the approach of warriors of the imbri tribe in 1)+ 7 . $he 8acobins cited this precedent when imposing a 5eign of $error during the 4rench 5evolution.[1(][1*] 0fter the 8acobins lost power, the word 'terrorist' became a term of abuse.[-] 0lthough 'terrorism' originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the &illing of innocent people[1+] for political purposes in such a way as to create a media spectacle. $his meaning can be traced bac& to #ergey 9echayev, who described himself as a 'terrorist'.[1,] 9echayev founded the 5ussian terrorist group ':eople.s 5etribution' (;<=>?@<A =<BC=<D<) in 1/,2.
[1-]

In 9ovember 2))*, a Enited 9ations #ecretary Feneral report described terrorism as any act 'intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non"combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organi%ation to do or abstain from doing any act'.[1/]

Definition
$he definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Garious legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Horeover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. $hese difficulties arise from the fact that the term 'terrorism' is politically and emotionally charged.[12] In this regard, 0ngus Hartyn, briefing the 0ustralian :arliament, stated that '$he international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. Iuring the 12-)s and 12/)s, the Enited 9ations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the conte3t of conflicts over national liberation and self"determination.'[1]

$hese divergences have made it impossible for the Enited 9ations to conclude a omprehensive onvention on International $errorism that incorporates a single, all"encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[2)] $he international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminali%e various types of terrorist activities. #ince 122*, the Enited 9ations Feneral 0ssembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorismJ ' riminal acts intended or calculated to provo&e a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance un1ustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invo&ed to 1ustify them.'[21] 7ruce Koffman, a scholar, has notedJ It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. L3perts and other long"established scholars in the field are eMually incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, .:olitical $errorismJ 0 5esearch Fuide,. 0le3 #chmid devoted more than a hundred pages to e3amining more than a hundred different definitions of terrorism in an effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive e3plication of the word. 4our years and a second edition later, #chimd was no closer to the goal of his Muest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the 'search for an adeMuate definition is still on' Nalter 6aMueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental wor& on the sub1ect, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to ma&e the attempt.'[22] Koffman believes it is possible to identify some &ey characteristics of terrorism. Ke proposes thatJ $he 7aghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in 0ugust 2))+ that &illed *( people. 7y distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is J

ineluctably political in aims and motives violent O or, eMually important, threatens violence designed to have far"reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target conducted by an organi%ation with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and perpetrated by a subnational group or non"state entity.[2(]

0 definition proposed by arsten 7oc&stette at the Feorge . Harshall enter for Luropean #ecurity #tudies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorismJ $errorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimi%ation and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). #uch acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organi%ation. $he purpose of terrorism is to e3ploit the media in order to achieve ma3imum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short" and midterm political goals andPor desired long"term end states.'[2*] Qslo, 9orway immediately after the 2)11 terrorist attac& in 9orway perpetrated by 0nders 7ehring 7reivi&.

Nalter 6aMueur, of the enter for #trategic and International #tudies, noted that 'the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence'.[citation needed] $his criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorismJ war, riot, organi%ed crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] :roperty destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Larth 6iberation 4ront[2+] and 0nimal 6iberation 4ront[2,] as violence and terrorism! see eco" terrorism. $errorist attac&s are usually carried out in such a way as to ma3imi%e the severity and length of the psychological impact.[2-] Lach act of terrorism is a 'performance' devised to have an impact on many large audiences. $errorists also attac& national symbols,[2/] to show power and to attempt to sha&e the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. $his may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organi%ation andPor ideology behind a terrorist act.[22] $errorist acts freMuently have a political purpose.[()] $errorism is a political tactic, li&e letter"writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the &ind of change they desire.[according to whom?] $he change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] $his is often where the inter"relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. Nhen a political struggle is integrated into the framewor& of a religious or 'cosmic'[(1] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and 8erusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes eMuated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[(2] Gery often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific 'symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings'[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. $heir suffering accomplishes the terrorists. goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[((] 0 collection of photographs of those &illed during the terrorist attac&s on #eptember 11, 2))1. #ome official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[(*][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authori%ed by a government (and thus 'lawful') and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Esing this criterion, actions that would otherwise Mualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] 4or e3ample, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authori%ed by a government.[original research?] $his criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] becauseJ it denies the e3istence of state terrorism![(+] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a 'legitimate' government! 'legitimacy' and 'lawfulness' are sub1ective, depending on the perspective of one government or another! and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[11][(,][(-][(/] 0mong the various definitions there are several that do not recogni%e the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Qther definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately &ill or harm civilians and non"combatants, thus ma&ing a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] 0ccording to 0li Rhan, the distinction lies ultimately in a political 1udgment.[(2] 0n associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non"state actor.[*)] $he semantic scope of this term includes not only 'terrorists', but while e3cluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as 'terrorists', and also e3plicitly e3cludes state terrorism. 0ccording to the 47I, terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a

government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social ob1ectives.[citation
needed]

7arac& Qbama, commenting on the 7oston Harathon bombings of 0pril, 2)1(, declared '0nytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror.'[*1] Garious commentators have pointed out the distinction between 'act of terror' and 'terrorism', particularly when used by the Nhite Kouse.[*2][*(][**]

Pejorative use
$he terms 'terrorism' and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations.[*+] $hese terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, un1ustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.[*,] $hose labeled 'terrorists' by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar"meaning word in other languages and cultures. 8ihadi, mu1aheddin, and fedayeen are similar 0rabic words which have entered the Lnglish le3icon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.[*-] Qn the Muestion of whether particular terrorist acts, such as &illing civilians, can be 1ustified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have e3pressed different viewsJ while, according to Iavid 5odin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the 'harmful effects of undermining the convention of non"combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism'.[*/] 0mong the non"utilitarian philosophers, Hichael Nal%er argued that terrorism can be morally 1ustified in only one specific caseJ when 'a nation or community faces the e3treme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non"combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so'.[*/][*2] In his boo& Inside Terrorism 7ruce Koffman offered an e3planation of why the term terrorism becomes distortedJ Qn one point, at least, everyone agreesJ terrorism is a pe1orative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one.s enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. .Nhat is called terrorism,. 7rian 8en&ins has written, .thus seems to depend on one.s point of view. Ese of the term implies a moral 1udgment! and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.. Kence the decision to call someone or label some organi%ation terrorist becomes almost unavoidably sub1ective, depending largely on whether one sympathi%es with or opposes the personPgroupPcause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for e3ample, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light! and it is not terrorism.
[+)][+1][+2]

$he pe1orative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, 'Qne man.s terrorist is another man.s freedom fighter'.[*-] $his is e3emplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally. Iuring Norld Nar II, the Halayan :eople.s 0nti"8apanese 0rmy was allied with the 7ritish, but during the Halayan Lmergency, members of its successor (the Halayan 5aces 6iberation 0rmy), were branded 'terrorists' by the 7ritish.[+(][+*] Hore recently, 5onald 5eagan and others in the 0merican administration freMuently called the 0fghan Hu1ahideen 'freedom fighters' during their war against the #oviet Enion,[++] yet twenty years later, when a new generation of 0fghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attac&s were labelled 'terrorism' by Feorge N. 7ush.[+,][+-][+/] Froups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.[+2][,)][,1] 6eading terrorism researcher :rofessor Hartin 5udner, director of the anadian entre of Intelligence and #ecurity #tudies at

Qttawa.s arleton Eniversity, defines 'terrorist acts' as attac&s against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and saidJ $here is the famous statementJ .Qne man.s terrorist is another man.s freedom fighter.. 7ut that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. Qne can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless.[,2] #ome groups, when involved in a 'liberation' struggle, have been called 'terrorists' by the Nestern governments or media. 6ater, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called 'statesmen' by similar organi%ations. $wo e3amples of this phenomenon are the 9obel :eace :ri%e laureates Henachem 7egin and 9elson Handela.[,(][,*][,+][,,][,-][,/] Ni&i6ea&s whistleblower 8ulian 0ssange has been called a 'terrorist' by #arah :alin and 8oe 7iden.[,2][-)] #ometimes, states which are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether or not members of a certain organi%ation are terrorists. 4or instance, for many years, some branches of the Enited #tates government refused to label members of the :rovisional Irish 5epublican 0rmy (I50) as terrorists while the I50 was using methods against one of the Enited #tates. closest allies (the Enited Ringdom) which the ER branded as terrorism. $his was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.[-1][-2] 4or these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality try to be careful in their use of the term.[-(][-*]

Types of terrorism
#barro pi%%a restaurant bombing in 8erusalem, in which 1+ Israeli civilians were &illed and 1() were wounded by a Kamas suicide bomber. In early 12-+, the 6aw Lnforcement 0ssistant 0dministration in the Enited #tates formed the 9ational 0dvisory ommittee on riminal 8ustice #tandards and Foals. Qne of the five volumes that the committee wrote was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the $as& 4orce on Iisorders and $errorism under the direction of K.K.0. ooper, Iirector of the $as& 4orce staff.[-+] $he $as& 4orce classified terrorism into si3 categories.

Civil disorder O 0 form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community. Political terrorism O Giolent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes. Limited political terrorism O Fenuine political terrorism is characteri%ed by a revolutionary approach! limited political terrorism refers to 'acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state. Official or state terrorism O'referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions.' It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political ob1ectives, often as part of their foreign policy.

9umber of failed, foiled or successful terrorist attac&s by year and type within the Luropean Enion. #ourceJ Luropol.[-,][--][-/] 1 person died in terrorist attac&s from separatist groups in 2)1).[-,] #everal sources[-2][/)][/1] have further defined the typology of terrorismJ

:olitical terrorism o #ub"state terrorism #ocial revolutionary terrorism

9ationalist"separatist terrorism 5eligious e3tremist terrorism 5eligious fundamentalist $errorism 9ew religions terrorism 5ight"wing terrorism 6eft"wing terrorism #ingle"issue terrorism o #tate"sponsored terrorism o 5egime or state terrorism riminal terrorism :athological terrorism

Motivation of terrorists
0ttac&s on .collaborators. are used to intimidate people from cooperating with the state in order to undermine state control. $his strategy was used in the E#0 in its Nar of Independence and in Ireland, in Renya, in 0lgeria and in yprus during their independence struggles. 0ttac&s on high profile symbolic targets are used to incite counter"terrorism by the state to polarise the population. $his strategy was used by 0l Saeda in its attac&s on the E#0 in #eptember 2))1. $hese attac&s are also used to draw international attention to struggles which are otherwise unreported such as the :alestinian airplane hi1ac&ings in 12-) and the #outh Holuccan hostage crises in the 9etherlands in 12-+. 0brahm suggests that terrorist organi%ations do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[/2] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organi%ation than by political platforms or strategic ob1ectives, which are often mur&y and undefined.[/2]

Democracy and domestic terrorism

Iemonstration in Hadrid against L$0, 8anuary 2))). 5oughly a million people met there. $he relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is very comple3. $errorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and is least common in the most democratic nations.[/(][/*][/+][/,] Kowever, one study suggests that suicide terrorism may be an e3ception to this general rule. Lvidence regarding this particular method of terrorism reveals that every modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracyOa state with a considerable degree of political freedom.[/-] $he study suggests that concessions awarded to terrorists during the 12/)s and 122)s for suicide attac&s increased their freMuency.[//] #ome e3amples of 'terrorism' in non"democracies include L$0 in #pain under 4rancisco 4ranco (although the group.s terrorist activities increased sharply after 4ranco.s death),[/2] the #hining :ath in :eru under 0lberto 4u1imori,[2)] the Rurdistan Nor&ers :arty when $ur&ey was ruled by military leaders and the 09 in #outh 0frica.[21] Iemocracies, such as the Enited Ringdom, Enited #tates, Israel, Indonesia, India, #pain and the :hilippines, have also e3perienced domestic terrorism. Nhile a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an act of terrorism within such a state may cause a dilemmaJ whether to maintain its civil liberties and thus ris&

being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem! or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus ris& delegitimi%ing its claim of supporting civil liberties.[22] 4or this reason, homegrown terrorism has started to be seen as a greater threat, as stated by former I0 Iirector Hichael Kayden.[2(] $his dilemma, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s)! namely, to delegitimi%e the state.[2*]

Religious terrorism
Hain articleJ 5eligious terrorism

ivilians trapped in a 6ondon Enderground train after a bomb e3ploded further down the train at 5ussell #Muare $ube station on -th 8uly 2))+

Islamabad Harriott Kotel bombing. #ome (+,))) :a&istanis have died from terrorist attac&s in recent years.[2+] 5eligious terrorism is terrorism performed by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in faith"based tenets. $errorist acts throughout the centuries have been performed on religious grounds with the hope to either spread or enforce a system of belief, viewpoint or opinion.[2,] 5eligious terrorism does not in itself necessarily define a specific religious standpoint or view, but instead usually defines an individual or a group view or interpretation of that belief system.s teachings.

Perpetrators
$he perpetrators of acts of terrorism can be individuals, groups, or states. 0ccording to some definitions, clandestine or semi"clandestine state actors may also carry out terrorist acts outside the framewor& of a state of war. Kowever, the most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause and many of the most deadly operations in recent times, such as the #eptember 11 attac&s, the 6ondon underground bombing, and the 2))2 7ali bombing were planned and carried out by a close cliMue, composed of close friends, family members and other strong social networ&s. $hese groups benefited from the free flow of information and efficient telecommunications to succeed where others had failed.
[2-]

Qver the years, many people have attempted to come up with a terrorist profile to attempt to e3plain these individuals. actions through their psychology and social circumstances. Qthers, li&e 5oderic& Kindery, have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by terrorists. #ome security organi%ations designate these

groups as violent non-state actors.[2/] 0 2))- study by economist 0lan 7. Rrueger found that terrorists were less li&ely to come from an impoverished bac&ground (2/T vs. ((T) and more li&ely to have at least a high"school education (*-T vs. (/T). 0nother analysis found only 1,T of terrorists came from impoverished families, vs. ()T of male :alestinians, and over ,)T had gone beyond high school, vs. 1+T of the populace.[22] $o avoid detection, a terrorist will loo&, dress, and behave normally until e3ecuting the assigned mission. #ome claim that attempts to profile terrorists based on personality, physical, or sociological traits are not useful.[1))] $he physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.[1)1] Kowever, the ma1ority of terrorist attac&s are carried out by military age men, aged 1,O*).