关于恐怖主义的英文资料

What is Terrorism?

Terrorism

is

not

new,

and

even

though

it

has

been

used

since

the

beginning

of

recorded

history

it

can

be

relatively hard

to

define.

Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an

inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective

tactic

for

the

weaker

side

in

a

conflict.

As

an

asymmetric

form

of conflict, it confers coercive

power

with many of

the

advantages of

military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no

clear organization to defend against or to deter.

That is why preemption is being considered to be so important. In some cases, terrorism has been a means to carry on a conflict without

the adversary realizing the nature of the threat, mistaking terrorism for criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism has

become increasingly common among those pursuing extreme goals throughout the world. But despite its popularity, terrorism can be a

nebulous concept. Even within the U.S. Government, agencies responsible for different functions in the ongoing fight against terrorism

use different definitions.

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful v

iolence to

inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or

ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—

violence, fear, and intimidation

—

and each element produces terror in

its victims. The FBI uses this:

government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

defines

or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Outside

the

United

States

Government,

there

are

greater

variations

in

what

features

of

terrorism are

emphasized

in

definitions.

The

United Nations produced this definition in 1992;

individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets

of violence are not the main targets.

adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as

based communication processes.

e use of

violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear.

Terrorism

is

a

criminal

act

that

influences

an

audience

beyond

the

immediate

victim.

The

strategy

of

terrorists

is

to

commit

acts

of

violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to

obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act

itself,

but

in

the

public’s

or

government’s

reaction

to

the

act.

For

example,

in

1972

at

the

Munich

Olympics,

the

Black

Septe

mber

Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. But the true target was the estimated 1 billion people watching

the televised event.

The Black September Organization used the high visibility of the Olympics to publicize its views on the plight of the Palestinian refugees.

Similarly, in October 1983, Middle Eastern terrorists bombed the Marine Battalion Landing Team Headquarters at Beirut International

Airport. Their immediate victims were the 241 U.S. military personnel who were killed and over 100 others who were wounded. Their true

target was the American people and the U.S. Congress. Their one

act of violence influenced the United States’ decision to withdraw the

Marines from Beirut and was therefore considered a terrorist success.

There are three perspectives of terrorism: the terrorist’s, the victim’s, and the general public’s. The phrase “one man’s terrorist is another

man’s freedom fighter” is a view terrorists themselves would accept. Terrorists do not see themselves as evil. They believe t

hey are

legitimate combatants, fighting for what they believe in, by whatever means possible. A victim of a terrorist act sees the terrorist as a

criminal with no regard for human life. The general public’s view is the most unstable. The terrorists take great pains to foster a “Robin

Hood” image in hope of swaying the general public’s point of view toward

their cause. This sympathetic view of terrorism has become an

integral part of their psychological warfare and needs to be countered vigorously.

History of Terrorism

Terrorist acts or the threat of such action have been in existence for millennia

. Despite having a history longer than the modern

nation-state, the use of terror by governments and those that contest their power remains poorly understood. While the meaning of the

word terror itself is clear, when it is applied to acts and actors in the real world it becomes confused. Part of this is due to the use of terror

tactics by

actors

at all levels

in

the

social and

political

environment.

Is

the

Unabomber, with

his

solo campaign

of

terror,

a

criminal,

terrorist, or revolutionary?

Can

he

be

compared

to

the

French

revolutionary

governments

who

coined

the

word

terrorism

by

instituting

systematic

state

terror

against

the

population

of

France

in

the

1790s,

killing

thousands?

Are

either

the

same

as

revolutionary

terrorist

groups

such

as

the

Baader-Mienhof Gang of West Germany or the Weather Underground in the United States?

So we see that distinctions of size and political legitimacy of the actors using terror raise questions as to what is and is not terrorism. The

concept of moral equivalency is frequently

used as an argument to broaden and blur the definition of terrorism as well. This concept

argues

that

the

outcome

of

an

action is

what

matters,

not the intent.

Collateral or

unintended

damage

to civilians

from

an attack

by

uniformed military forces on a legitimate military target is the same as a terrorist bomb directed deliberately at the civilian target with the

intent of creating that damage.

Simply put, a car bomb on a city street and a jet fighter dropping a bomb on a tank are both acts of violence that produce death and terror.

Therefore (at the extreme end of this argument) any military action is simply terrorism by a different name. This is the reasoning behind

the famous phrase

revolutionary movements after the fact.

The very flexibility and adaptability of terror throughout the years has contributed to the confusion. Those seeking to disrupt, reorder or

destroy the status quo have continuously sought new and creative ways to achieve their goals. Changes in the tactics and techniques of

terrorists have been significant, but even more significant are the growth in the number of causes and social contexts where terrorism is

used.

Over

the

past

20

years,

terrorists

have

committed

extremely

violent

acts

for

alleged

political

or

religious

reasons.

Political

ideology

ranges from the far left to the far right. For example, the far left can consist of groups such as Marxists and Leninists who propose a

revolution of workers led by a revolutionary elite. On the far right, we find dictatorships that typically believe in a merging of state and

business leadership.

Nationalism is the devotion to the interests or culture of a group of people or a nation. Typically, nationalists share a common ethnic

background and wish to establish or regain a homeland.

Religious extremists often reject the authority of secular governments and view legal systems that are not based on their religious beliefs

as illegitimate. They often view modernization efforts as corrupting influences on traditional culture.

Special

interest

groups

include

people

on

the

radical

fringe

of

many

legitimate

causes;

e.g.,

people

who

use

terrorism

to

uphold

antiabortion

views,

animal

rights,

radical

environmentalism.

These

groups

believe

that

violence

is

morally

justifiable

to

achieve

their

goals.

Terrorism in the 20th and 21st Century

The Early 20th Century

The first half of the 20th century saw two events that influenced the nature of conflict to the present day. The effects of two World Wars

inflamed passions and hopes of nationalists throughout the world, and severely damaged the legitimacy of the international order and

governments.

Nationalism on the Rise

Nationalism intensified during the early 20th century throughout the world. It became an especially powerful force in the subject peoples

of various colonial empires. Although dissent and resistance were common in many colonial possessions, and sometimes resulted in

open warfare, nationalist identities became a focal point for these actions.

Gradually, as nations became closely tied to concepts of race and ethnicity, international political developments began to support such

concepts.

Members

of

ethnic

groups

whose

states

had

been

absorbed

by

others

or

had

ceased

to

exist

as

separate

nations

saw

opportunities to realize nationalist ambitions. Several of these groups chose terror as a method to conduct their struggle and make their

situation known to world powers they hoped would be sympathetic. In Europe, both the Irish and the Macedonians had existing terrorist

campaigns as part of their ongoing struggle for independence, but had to initiate bloody uprisings to further their cause. The Irish were

partially successful, the Macedonians failed.

Damaged Legitimacy

The

violations of the law of war. The desensitization of people and communities to violence that started in World War I accelerated during

World

War

II.

The

intensity

of

the

conflict

between

starkly

opposed

ideologies

led

to

excesses

on

the

part

of

all

participants.

New

weapons and strategies that targeted the enemies' civilian population to destroy their economic capacity for conflict exposed virtually

every civilian to the hazards of combatants. The major powers' support of partisan and resistance organizations using terrorist tactics

was viewed as an acceptance of their legitimacy. It seemed that civilians had become legitimate targets, despite any rules forbidding it.

Cold War Developments

The bi-polar world of the Cold War changed perception of conflicts the world over. Relatively minor confrontations took on significance as

arenas where the superpowers could compete without risking escalation to full nuclear war. Warfare between the East and the West took

place on the peripheries, and was limited in scope to prevent escalation. During the immediate postwar period, terrorism was more of a

tactical

choice

by

leaders

of

nationalist

insurgencies

and

revolutions.

Successful

campaigns

for

independence

from

colonial

rule

occurred throughout the world, and many employed terrorism as a supporting tactic. When terrorism was used, it was used within the

framework of larger movements, and coordinated with political, social, and military action. Even when terrorism came to dominate the

other aspects of a nationalist struggle, such as the Palestinian campaign against Israel, it was (and is) combined with other activities.

Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union provided direct and indirect assistance to revolutionary movements around the world. Many

anti-colonial movements found the revolutionary extremism of communism attractive. Leaders of these

the advantage of free weapons and training. They also realized that the assistance and patronage of the Eastern Bloc meant increased

international legitimacy. Many of these organizations and individuals utilized terrorism in support of their political and military objectives.

The

policy

of

the

Soviet

Union

to

support

revolutionary

struggles

everywhere,

and

to

export

revolution

to

non-communist

countries,

provided extremists willing to employ violence and terror as the means to realize their ambitions.

The Internationalization of Terror

The age of modern terrorism might be said to have begun in 1968 when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked

an

El

Al

airliner

en

route

from

Tel

Aviv

to

Rome.

While

hijackings

of

airliners

had

occurred

before,

this

was

the

first

time

that

the

nationality

of

the

carrier

(Israeli)

and

its

symbolic

value

was

a

specific

operational

aim.

Also

a

first

was

the

deliberate

use

of

the

passengers as hostages for demands made publicly against the Israeli government. The combination of these unique events, added to

the international scope of the operation, gained significant media attention. The founder of PFLP, Dr. George Habash observed that the

level of coverage was tremendously greater than battles with Israeli soldiers in their previous area of operations.

talking about us now.

Another

aspect

of

this

internationalization

is

the

cooperation

between

extremist

organizations

in

conducting

terrorist

operations.

Cooperative

training

between

Palestinian

groups

and

European

radicals

started

as

early

as

1970,

and

joint

operations

between

the

PFLP

and

the

Japanese

Red

Army

(JRA)

began

in

1974.

Since

then

international

terrorist

cooperation

in

training,

operations,

and

support has continued to grow, and continues to this day. Motives range from the ideological, such as the 1980s alliance of the Western

European Marxist- oriented groups, to financial, as when the IRA exported its expertise in bomb making as far afield as Colombia

Current State of Terrorism

The largest act of international terrorism occured on September 11, 2001 in a set of co-ordinated attacks on the United States of America

where

Islamic

terrorists

hijacked

civilian

airliners and used them to

attack

the World

Trade

Center

towers

in

New

York

City

and

the

Pentagon in Washington, DC. Other major terrorist attacks have also occured in New Delhi (Indian Parliament attacked); Bali car bomb

attack; London subway bombings; Madrid train bombings and the most recent attacks in

Mumbai (hotels, train station and a Jewish

outreach center). The operational and strategic epicenter of Islamic terrorism is now mostly centred in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Terrorist Behavior

There

is

clearly

a

wide

choice

of

definitions

for

terrorism.

Despite

this,

there

are

elements

in common

among

the majority

of

useful

definitions. Common threads of the various definitions identify

terrorism

as:

? Political? Psychological? Coercive? Dynamic? Deliberate

Political

A

terrorist

act

is

a

political

act

or

is

committed

with

the

intention

to

cause

a

political

effect.

Clausewitz'

statement

that

is

a

continuation

of

policy

by

other

means

is taken as

a

truism

by

terrorists.

They merely

eliminate

the intermediate step of

armies and

warfare, and apply violence directly to the political contest.

Psychological

The intended results of terrorist acts cause a psychological effect (

victims of the act. The intended target audience of the terrorist act may be the population as a whole, some specific portion of a society

(an ethnic minority, for example), or decision-making elites in the society's political, social, or military populace.

Coercive

Violence and destruction are used in the commission of the act to produce the desired effect. Even if casualties or destruction are not the

result of a terrorist operation, the threat or potential of violence is what produces the intended effect. For example, a successful hostage

taking operation may result in all hostages being freed unharmed after negotiations and bargaining. Regardless of the outcome, the

terrorist bargaining chips were nothing less than the raw threat of applying violence to maim or kill some or all of the hostages. When the

threat of violence is not credible, or the terrorists are unable to implement violence effectively, terrorism fails.

Dynamic

Terrorist groups demand change, revolution, or political movement. The radical worldview that justifies terrorism mandates drastic action

to destroy or alter the status quo. Even if the goals of a movement are reactionary in nature, they require action to

restore some cherished value system that is extinct. Nobody commits violent attacks on strangers or innocents to keep things

way they are.

Deliberate

Terrorism is an activity planned and intended to achieve particular goals. It is a rationally employed, specifically selected tactic, and is not

a

random

act.

Since

the

victims

of

terrorist

violence

are

often

of

little

import,

with

one

being

as

good

for

the

terrorists'

purposes

as

another, victim or target selection can appear random or unprovoked. But the target will contain symbolic value or be capable of eliciting

emotional response according to the terrorists' goals. Remember that the actual target of terrorism is not the victim of the violence, but

the psychological balance

Media Exploitation

Terrorism's

effects

are

not

necessarily

aimed

at

the

victims

of

terrorist

violence.

Victims

are

usually

objects

to

be

exploited

by

the

terrorists for their effect on a third party. In order to produce this effect, information of the attack must reach the target audience. So any

terrorist organization plans for

exploitation

of

available media

to

get

the message

to

the

right

audiences.

Victims

are simply

the first

medium that transmits the psychological impact to the larger target audience. The next step in transmission will depend on what media is

available, but it will be planned, and it will frequently be the responsibility of a specific organization within the terrorist group to do nothing

else but exploit and control the news cycle.

Some organizations can rely on friendly or sympathetic news outlets, but this is not necessary. News media can be manipulated by

planning around the demands of the

quickly, to

time

were

available.

Terrorists

often

provide

names

and

details

of

individual

victims

to

control

the

news

media

through

its

desire

to

humanize or personalize a story. For the victims of a terrorist attack, it is a certainty that the impact on the survivors (if there are any) is of

minimal importance to the terrorists. What is important is the intended psychological impact that the news of their death or suffering will

cause in a wider audience.

Operations in Permissive Societies

Terrorists

conduct

more

operations

in

societies

where

individual

rights

and

civil

legal

protections

prevail.

While

terrorists

may

base

themselves in repressive regimes that are sympathetic to them, they usually avoid repressive governments when conducting operations

wherever

possible.

An

exception

to

this

case

is

a

repressive

regime

that

does

not

have

the

means

to

enforce

security

measures.

Governments with effective security forces and few guaranteed civil liberties have typically suffered much less from terrorism than liberal

states with excellent security forces. Al Qaeda has shown, however, that they will conduct operations anywhere.

Illegality of Methods

Terrorism is a criminal act. Whether the terrorist chooses to identify himself with military terminology (as discussed under insurgencies

below), or with civilian imagery (

self-evident

in

activities

such

as

murder,

arson,

and

kidnapping

regardless

of

the

legitimacy

of

the

government

enforcing

the

laws.

Victimizing the innocent is criminal injustice under a dictatorship or a democracy. If the terrorist claims that he is justified in using such

violence as a military combatant, he is a de facto war criminal under international law and the military justice systems of most nations.

Preparation and Support

It's

important

to

understand

that

actual

terrorist

operations

are

the

result

of

extensive

preparation

and

support

operations.

Media

reporting and academic study have mainly focused on the terrorists' goals and actions, which is precisely what the terrorist intends. This

neglects the vital but less exciting topic of preparation and support operations. Significant effort and coordination is required to finance

group

operations,

procure

or

manufacture

weapons,

conduct

target

surveillance

and

analysis,

and

deliver

trained

terrorists

to

the

operational area. While the time and effort expended by the terrorists may be a drop in

the bucket compared to the amounts spent to

defend against them, terrorist operations can still involve large amounts of money and groups of people. The need for dedicated support

activities and resources on simple operations are significant, and get larger the greater the sophistication of the plan and the complexity

of the target.

Differences between Terrorism and Insurgency

If no single definition of terrorism produces a precise, unambiguous description, we can approach the question by eliminating similar

activities

that

are

not

terrorism,

but

that

appear

to

overlap.

For

the

U.S.

military,

two

such

related

concepts

probably

lead

to

more

confusion than others. Guerilla warfare and insurgencies are often assumed to be synonymous with terrorism. One reason for this is that

insurgencies

and

terrorism

often

have

similar

goals.

However,

if

we

examine

insurgency

and

guerilla

warfare,

specific

differences

emerge.

A key difference is that an

insurgency is a movement

- a political effort with a specific aim. This sets it apart from both guerilla warfare

and terrorism, as they are both methods available to pursue the goals of the political movement.

Another difference is the intent of the component activities and operations of insurgencies versus terrorism. There is nothing inherent in

either

insurgency

or

guerilla

warfare

that

requires

the

use

of

terror.

While

some

of

the

more

successful

insurgencies

and

guerilla

campaigns

employed

terrorism

and

terror

tactics,

and

some

developed

into

conflicts

where

terror

tactics

and

terrorism

became

predominant; there have been others that effectively renounced the use of terrorism. The deliberate choice to use terrorism considers its

effectiveness in inspiring further resistance, destroying government efficiency, and mobilizing support. Although there are places where

terrorism, guerilla warfare, and criminal behavior all overlap, groups that are exclusively terrorist, or subordinate

formed to specifically employ terror tactics, demonstrate clear differences in their objectives and operations. Disagreement on the costs

of using terror tactics, or whether terror operations are to be given primacy within the insurgency campaign, have frequently led to the

The ultimate goal of an insurgency is to challenge the existing government for control of all or a portion of its territory,

or force political

concessions

in

sharing

political

power.

Insurgencies

require

the

active

or

tacit

support

of

some

portion

of

the

population

involved.