Terrorism

Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead. (Jenkins, 1988) Discuss. The past decade has witnessed a dramatic transformation in the nature and use of terrorism. (Bongar, 2007) The word ‘terrorism’ was first popularized during the French revolution (Hoffman, 2006; 3) and had positive a connotation. However, since that time the word has undergone many changes and is now associated with a more negative outlook. The meaning of the world has changed over time to accommodation the political changes in society. Terrorism has numerous definitions and as a term is politically loaded. (Karayotis, 2010) ‘Historically, terrorism has been seen as a tactical phenomenon which fluctuates according to geography and culture and so can not be strictly defined.’ (Gearson, 2002; 10) In 1988 Jenkins made the claim that ‘terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead’. (Jenkins, 1988) Although this statement at the time could be held as true, the changing nature of terrorism has caused the statement to be challenged. In this essay I intent to look at the meaning behind what Jenkins had to say and analyse it. I also intent to look at whether or not the statement could have been applied to terrorism at one point throughout the years and if so does this remain to be true in today’s society. Firstly, I will discuss what Jenkins was trying to convey by his quote. In an interview with adnkronas international in 2006 he explains that he said those words in response to those who saw terrorists as ‘bent upon mindless murder’ (Adnkronos international) and also highlighted that since those who are labelled terrorist did not do what they were technically capable of doing there must be self-imposed constraints. (Adnkronos international) Therefore, he was making clear that he believed that terrorists were capable of doing a lot more, but did not, and restrained themselves for many reasons, i.e. to receive public sympathy. However, later on in the interview Jenkins discussed how these self-imposed constraints have worn over-time and terrorists have became more brutalised by long struggles and had to escalate to stay in the headlines. (Adnkronos international) From this point I will discuss old and new style terrorism and to what extent each can be held accountable to Jenkins original point that terrorists are not out to kill mass numbers they just want to raise awareness. Old style terrorism is that which is carried out within states national boundaries and is domestically operated. It can be said that they use terrorism as a theatre to attract public attention and put across their message. In old style terrorism it can be argued that these types of groups did not want mass casualties and therefore, can be shown to be held true to Jenkins quote. It can be said that terrorists use enough shocking violence to bring attention to a cause felt to have been neglected, but limit scales of violence that might turn domestic and foreign audiences against their cause. This was the case for the IRA. Throughout the years the IRA have wanted to cause fear and panic amongst the British government and the people, however, they did not want to cause mass fatalities in the process. An example of this was during the IRA’s bombing campaign against the financial district of London in the early 1990’s. When attacks were launched in the evening, multiple warnings were given so that the office buildings could be evacuated in time. This showing that they did not intend to cause vast civilian casualties, but wanted to cause terror, heavy financial loss and intimidate the British government. (Neuman, 2009; 7-8) Hoffman agrees as he says at one time, the terrorists themselves were far more cooperative than they are today (Hoffman, 2006) Furthermore, Old style terrorist organizations were also considered to have typically revolutionary and religious objectives which were clearly defined from the outset, i.e. The IRA have the ‘Green Book’ set out with their objectives.(Karayotis, 2010) Additionally, some of their tactics included the use of hostages as leverage and weapons of control over the government (Hough, 2005) Small scale bombings and attention grabbing incidents are also amongst their tactics. An example of this could be Olympic Massacre in Munich 1972 where a group of eight Palestinian terrorists belonging to the Black September organisation broke into the Olympic Village and took eleven Israeli athletes hostage. By using such a high profile event such as the Olympics raised much awareness of the group’s supremacy and objectives without large scale fatalities. These examples show, that attacking symbols of government as a form of protest (which is a typical characteristic) and using self-discipline in order to gain sympathy and support for the organisation, ties in nicely with Jenkins statement. Therefore, it could be concluded that old style terrorist groups do fit in with Jenkins idea of terrorists wanting no mass casualties; they just want a lot of people watching as a way to gain and raise support for their cause. On the other hand, if we analyse the nature of new style terrorism which has emerged in today’s society we can see at first glance that it does not appear to fit with Jenkins statement. New style terrorism is much more international, and this can be said to be due to globalisation. In new style terrorism, there are often networks stretching across many countries. The aims of new style terrorism are much larger than those of groups such as the IRA. The events of 9/11 carried out by Al Qaeda in the US were an expression of new style terrorism and this act could not have been organised without the new technology that globalisation offers. This group of terrorists had connections to Osama bin Laden and crashed four hijacked aircraft to different points in the USA, including the twin towers. The effects of this terrorist plot were catastrophic causing over 3000 deaths. This is in comparison to the IRA, which in over thirty years of campaigning only had approximately the same number of deaths. (Karayotis, 2010) Furthermore, it is also worth mentioning that the attacks on September 11, 2001, were intended to cause far more deaths and injuries than they actually did, as it was originally hoped that the twin towers would not collapse directly on top of themselves, but fall over onto the street below causing more civilian casualties. This clearly shows that in this case of new style terrorism that mass death and casualties were definitely intended, which in turn goes against Jenkins statement. Here not only was the effect to scare the public and cause major global news but to also create many civilian fatalities. In addition, another example of terrorists groups wanting ‘a lot of people dead’ was in August 2006. Here there was an alleged plot to kill thousands of people on up to ten transatlantic flights. The plan was to blow up passenger jets with explosives disguised as soft drinks or other seemingly harmless fluids. If the plan had been successful there would have been many deaths. (Giddens, 2006) This again highlighting that in the recent era of new terrorism, it is not only about the terrorist group having an impact on the people watching to raise awareness but also cause mass loss of life. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at the time, observed the point that modern terrorists ‘have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent.’ (Bongar in Bongar et al, 2007, 5) Again this clearly highlights the problems within Jenkins view that terrorists only want to create a theatre of fear for the public. Although there has been a common distinction between old and new terrorism over the years, it is not unreasonable to consider just to what extent this new hypothesis is actually true. Tucker in his journal ‘What’s New about the New Terrorism and how dangerous is it'’ makes the claim that ‘new terrorism’ is more ad hoc, lethal and dangerous than the old style terrorism and that with an assessment of these claims concludes that terrorism currently differs little from its previous manifestations. (Tucker, 2001; 1) Lutz & Lutz agree in their book, ‘Global Terrorism’ by stating that the infliction of death and misery by violent groups seeking to achieve political ends ahs been going on for millennia. (Lutz & Lutz, 2008; 291) It can be said that even earlier terrorist groups hold features of modern day terrorist associations. As early as the 1960’s groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), was made up of many different organisational net works. (Hamid, 1975; 1) Therefore, it is safe to admit with closer examination on the matter and style of new terrorism that it proves to be not that much different to old style terrorism Furthermore, it is worthy to note that Tucker also pointed out that due to increasing cost of operating terrorist organisations more groups have been looking for state funding, this is originally associated with the features of old style terrorism. For example Al Qaeda now looks for state support (Tucker, 2001; 1) In addition, he points out that new style terrorist groups are no more dangerous than old, and that new fatality figures seem much higher as they have been distorted by one incident, i.e. September 11th 2001. Terrorist groups even in today’s society are still using tactics to create mass audiences not mass deaths. For example, in the case of the anthrax attacks there was not mass death as a result, rather a psychological impact. (Gearson, 2002; 7) When all these combining factors have been considered, it shows that there is not a huge distinction between the two styles of terrorism. This therefore argues that ‘new’ style terrorism has not evolved and changed dramatically over the years-which as a result show the significance of Jenkins argument. As noted in the Psychology of Terrorism (2007) it is recognised that modern terrorists use fear and threatening behaviour to cause panic and stress amongst the people witnessing the terrorization-this having a profound psychological effect. However, the effect of this could be said to be heightened due to the media saturated world that we live in. The amount of attention the terrorist groups are given through the media could cause people to believe that there is more of a threat of an attack than there actually is. Bassiouni agrees in his journal on Terrorism, Law Enforcement and the Mass Media by saying that due to frequent focusing on terrorist events, television and other media, engenders the feeling in the viewing public that terrorist events are much more common and therefore, more dangerous than they actually are. (Bassiouni, 1981; 3) According to a survey carried out by Pennsylvania State University it showed that the majority of new respondents felt that the media had influenced their views on the importance of terrorism as a national problem. (Jimirrow Centre, 2003) This could show that’s what people perceive in the media can to some extent shape their views on terrorism. This in many respects supports Jenkins original argument that terrorist groups carry out fearful threats and attacks to gain exposure without inflicting physical pain on others. With the media over exaggerating the scale of the attacks, it reinforces Jenkins argument that terrorists are in fact not only setting out to kill the innocent. Overall, the world has changed dramatically over the past few decades, including terrorism, arguably which has evolved since Jenkins original statement. However, the distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ style terrorism is arguably changed only to an extent. New style terrorist groups display increased capabilities and less control over their actions than older terrorist groups. However, after analysing the evidence it is reasonable to assume that there has not been as huge a change as originally perceived and that many features of ‘new’ terrorism are not entirely modern. Finally, the media plays a huge roll in the influence of the general population (especially in today’s society) and this I believe is a strong contributing factor to the heightened fear that is labelled to the idea of ‘new terrorism’.