|
|
|
What are the criteria for it being called a "terrorist attack"? I'm just curious.
|
On December 14 2010 03:15 stenole wrote:
What are the criteria for it being called a "terrorist attack"? I'm just curious.
Yeah, me too. Where's the line between a terrorist attack and a normal day at some base in Afghanistan with some shooting? Does it also involve taking hostages? And what is the scientific relevant definitions of a "terrorist" in contrast to a normal criminal or maybe organized crime?
|
On December 14 2010 03:15 stenole wrote:
What are the criteria for it being called a "terrorist attack"? I'm just curious.
It's data from reported bombings, mortar bombardment (not all that many instances here), assassination attempts and outright armed assaults performed by members of terrorist organizations. Over 90% of the data is from bombings though.
There are no kidnapping, hostage situations, plane/car hijack attempts or cyber terrorism instances included.
Some failed attempts are also included.
There isn't all that much comprehensive data to work with on this matter. The subject is huge and spread all over the place (Internet, books, articles) and it's pretty hard to compile it reasonably since the amount of raw data is overwhelming.
|
Any such list not including US attacks is a joke.
|
I'd like to know what percentage of these attacks can be related to or have been directly claimed by Islamist extremist groups. They get the lion's share of the blame for terrorism in American media, so I want to know if this is really true.
|
Interesting statistic, but:
Bomings isn't always = terrorism. (At least as I see it):
Terrorism is an attempt to cause fear in a society, which is succesfully accomplished by many of the World's leaders among others. A good example of terrorism with bombings was Al-Qaeda's attempt to shut down the voting process in Iraq by making people fear puplic gatherings because of the risk of a bomb going off. They of course do this because they are "against democracy"... (I'm not quite sure how they agreed to that).
|
On December 14 2010 03:08 Manit0u wrote:
Seeing how we have this "How real is the terrorist threat?" topic popping from time to time, I thought it could be a good idea to put down some of the results I got.
You can't use attacks by insurgents in unstable countries to predict the threat of terrorist attacks in developed countries (US, EU members, etc.)
Note that I'm not saying these attacks don't constitute terrorism. Many do.
But the interesting question is how much danger do these people pose to us. This is what tells us what steps are reasonable to avert this danger.
|
On December 14 2010 03:38 XsebT wrote:
Interesting statistic, but:
Bomings isn't always = terrorism. (At least as I see it):
Terrorism is an attempt to cause fear in a society, which is succesfully accomplished by many of the World's leaders among others. A good example of terrorism with bombings was Al-Qaeda's attempt to shut down the voting process in Iraq by making people fear puplic gatherings because of the risk of a bomb going off. They of course do this because they are "against democracy"... (I'm not quite sure how they agreed to that).
Depends what definition of terrorism are you using (what kind of terrorism?).
Here's what WikiPedia tells you:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists. Common 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, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.
Here's my take on it:
War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.
That's your classic Clausewitz right there, but we need to go further:
Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.
"Asymmetric warfare" can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the "weaker" combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality. Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized. This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.
That's more or less what I'm using in my paper (I'm writing on counter-terrorism but have to provide basic terrorism info for that) and I'm counting terrorism as asymmetric warfare.
|
On December 14 2010 04:00 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 03:38 XsebT wrote:
Interesting statistic, but:
Bomings isn't always = terrorism. (At least as I see it):
Terrorism is an attempt to cause fear in a society, which is succesfully accomplished by many of the World's leaders among others. A good example of terrorism with bombings was Al-Qaeda's attempt to shut down the voting process in Iraq by making people fear puplic gatherings because of the risk of a bomb going off. They of course do this because they are "against democracy"... (I'm not quite sure how they agreed to that). Depends what definition of terrorism are you using (what kind of terrorism?). Here's what WikiPedia tells you: Show nested quote +
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists. Common 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, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.
Here's my take on it: That's your classic Clausewitz right there, but we need to go further: Show nested quote +
Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.
"Asymmetric warfare" can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the "weaker" combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality. Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized. This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.
That's more or less what I'm using in my paper (I'm writing on counter-terrorism but have to provide basic terrorism info for that).
I said it was "as I see it". There are lots of delicate definition with complex wording, but let's agree that "terror" means fear.
|
Actually, terrorism has changed in the past years. It is now targeted more for media publicity to gather support for your organization more than actually instilling fear (that's a byproduct now, not the object, of terrorism for most organizations).
|
this is one sided communication in the end, aka propaganda. we got this whole movement of liberals on the internet nowadays who act like know it alls yet they still believe theres a "good guy" in war. as far as im concerned hezbollah is as much as a terrorist organization as any other militarized country.
|
I'm moving to canada.
That aside this is interesting, but probably not terribly accurate.
|
I just dropped by to say Happy Birthday.
|
The greatest casualty is from Bali Bombing 2002. 202 died and 200 more injured, mostly australian.
In case you're wondering, Bali is in Indonesia.
|
The definition of terrorism is too subjective for me to be able to process information like this. The word itself is so loaded with bias and propaganda that the moment I see it I start to take things with a grain of salt. We really should get rid of that word in my opinion, it just breeds fear and hatred and sometimes it's completely unwarranted.
|
Interesting, would like to see the numbers of 2010. and what are your main sources?
And wszystkiego najlepszego z okazji urodzin (hope thats spelled right  love your posts in the Random pics thread)
On December 14 2010 07:13 Shana wrote:
The greatest casualty is from Bali Bombing 2002. 202 died and 200 more injured, mostly australian.
In case you're wondering, Bali is in Indonesia.
That may be the highest number of dead people, but with over 500 injured people the attack in Baghdad is worse. Both very sad things.
|
I somehow missed the injured numbers from baghdad bombing, wtf hundreds killed and injured 500.
|
whats wrong with a simple definition that terrorist attacks target civilians and insurgent attacks target occupying forces?
|
Nice research there, Manit0u, and happy birthday! Hopefully you don't waste too much of it arguing with the discriminating liquidian intelligentsia 
It's quite shocking to see these high numbers. You don't get a good idea of the anual casualties from the daily reports. 12 dead, 32 injured DAILY? Damn!
|
On December 14 2010 09:36 Never_Never_V_ wrote:Nice research there, Manit0u, and happy birthday! Hopefully you don't waste too much of it arguing with the discriminating liquidian intelligentsia It's quite shocking to see these high numbers. You don't get a good idea of the anual casualties from the daily reports. 12 dead, 32 injured DAILY? Damn!
High numbers? 12 dead is high? Do you know how many people are on this planet? Twice as many people die to lightning each day. 200 times that many people kill themselves every day. Terrorism ain't nothing but smoke and mirrors.
|
On December 14 2010 08:25 DoXa wrote:Interesting, would like to see the numbers of 2010. and what are your main sources? And wszystkiego najlepszego z okazji urodzin (hope thats spelled right love your posts in the Random pics thread) Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 07:13 Shana wrote:
The greatest casualty is from Bali Bombing 2002. 202 died and 200 more injured, mostly australian.
In case you're wondering, Bali is in Indonesia. That may be the highest number of dead people, but with over 500 injured people the attack in Baghdad is worse. Both very sad things.
Ad. 1.
Main sources would be wikipedia (they have a nice, up-to-date databese of terrorist attacks) + reuters/other links it provides as I have to check them for credibility.
Ad. 2.
You spelled it right
Ad. 3.
I could post a lot of attacks with many people dead and/or injured (can't really top 9/11 with 2973 dead, 26 missing and who knows how many injured), I might even do so as an excercise:
21. 12. 1988, Scotland - 270 dead.
30. 12. 1996, India - 300 dead.
07. 08. 1998, USA, Tanzania, Kenia (embassy bombings) - 224 dead, thousands injured.
11. 03. 2004, Spain -198 dead, 1500 injured.
1-3. 09. 2004, Russia (N. Osetia) - 332 dead (including 155 children).
11. 07. 2006, India - 200 dead, 700 injured.
(and note that none of them took place in middle-east)
But my primary point is:
Notice that the OP is only about the year 2009 (until I add 2010) and everything before that is not included.
|
How do your numbers compare to "official" ones (e.g. CIA factbook, etc.)?
Also, back in 2005 or 2006 I asked a former Canadian ambassador to NATO about its purpose in a post-Cold War world, and the rushed answer was counter-terrorism. I was and remain rather sceptical but couldn't press the matter further. So, just out of curiosity, does NATO have a significant role to play in counter-terrorism, as far as your research and opinion goes?
@seppolevne: And many MANY more die in car accidents. I am well aware that people die, but these numbers amount to a major terrorist attack every day, the kind that rates as front page news. Given that this is averaged, I would have expected much lower numbers. My comments were on the perception and news coverage, more than enything else.
|
Depends on what do you mean by "official". Most of this data comes from Reuters press agency, so if "made the news somewhere" is equal to "official" then they should be about right.
The fact is however, that in reality this numbers should be higher, but there isn't sufficient data readily available for it.
When it comes to NATO I can't say much as I didn't research it all that much yet (and besides, the guy promoting my paper at the univ asked me to narrow it down to Poland only since the original idea I had would take 300+ pages to write). I can't really say why this ambassador said that NATO's purpose is counter-terrorism... It was created to keep the balance between the west and USSR back in the days, now it's most common task is peacekeeping missions. The only way I can see their involvement in terrorism is NATO's involvement after 9/11 but it was more of a support role rather than direct action (flying AWACS over US).
|
Seems like south america is very safe from terrorism. probably the safest place from it because it isnt really a target.
just goes to show how political terrorism is.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm glad you're not defining it through politics/culture/religion/etc. because it's simply a tactic, but I think equating it so closely with asymmetric warfare is a mistake that fails to highlight why 'terrorism' is important. I would hardly call an Army vehicle being taken out by an IED a terrorist attack, until you reach a point where IED concentration is so high as to disrupt an entire society (think land mines in Africa.)
Of course, it being your research, you can define it however you like. I just think you've set yourself with a very broad definition (and your map strangely lacks Central/South America.) Also keep in mind that terrorism is usually identified a posteriori, which is problematic in and of itself.
To put it in terms of TL, there's a lot of shitty posters on TL and then there's CharlieMurphy. The shitty posters do the exact same actions as CM, and usually get banned for it, but they're not as bad. Part of it is the regularity with which CM terrorized TeamLiquid, but that regularity led to an intangible aura which could not be identified or done away with simply by removing his ability to post. His terrible posting changed the culture in such a way that more terrible posts became expected - the norm - and others began to believe that they could shit up TL in a similar fashion.
Now, that wasn't CM's intentions, unlike tdot, but again, acts of terrorism are usually identified after the fact. Whether that's a suitable method is a debate worth having.
|
On December 15 2010 02:19 Jibba wrote:
I'm glad you're not defining it through politics/culture/religion/etc. because it's simply a tactic, but I think equating it so closely with asymmetric warfare is a mistake that fails to highlight why 'terrorism' is important. I would hardly call an Army vehicle being taken out by an IED a terrorist attack, until you reach a point where IED concentration is so high as to disrupt an entire society (think land mines in Africa.)
Of course, it being your research, you can define it however you like. I just think you've set yourself with a very broad definition (and your map strangely lacks Central/South America.) Also keep in mind that terrorism is usually identified a posteriori, which is problematic in and of itself.
To put it in terms of TL, there's a lot of shitty posters on TL and then there's CharlieMurphy. The shitty posters do the exact same actions as CM, and usually get banned for it, but they're not as bad. Part of it is the regularity with which CM terrorized TeamLiquid, but that regularity led to an intangible aura which could not be identified or done away with simply by removing his ability to post. His terrible posting changed the culture in such a way that more terrible posts became expected - the norm - and others began to believe that they could shit up TL in a similar fashion.
Now, that wasn't CM's intentions, unlike tdot, but again, acts of terrorism are usually identified after the fact. Whether that's a suitable method is a debate worth having.
heheheheh Chalz
I don't even know if landmines would count unless they are specifically placed in a fashion to go after civilians, not impede movement of troops.
I tend to agree with what blackjack said.
|
There are no clear definitions of terrorism. If you ask USA what terrorism is you will get answer A and if you ask the UN what terrorism is you get answer B or maybe they dont even know.
If i were you, i would substitute all instances where terrorism is mentioned in your report with another word that is more suitable.
Is bombing plain warfare? Or perhaps an act of resistance opposing invading forces?, an accident or a terrorist attack?
When BP did oilspill in the Mexico gulf, was that an act of terrorism? Maybe the workers on the oilrig wanted higher wages and if they didnt got it they would disable all safety functions. Who can tell how it all went?
You cant answer these questions unless you know what terrorism is!
|
Zurich15325 Posts
It's still not hard to make a clear definition of terrorism. It's just that people don't want one in the first place as they live with the blurry ones better.
For your project you don't need to know a definition of terrorism or terrorists anyway. You need a definition of terrorist acts. Luckily for you, terrorist acts are easier defined than the other two concepts, and don't suffer from subjective point of views or different assertions of the position or aims of potential terrorist which might skew a definition.
So, what is a terrorist act? Let me help you out:
Within a terrorist act, a protagonist X uses a violent action A against an immediate target Y, to induce terror in target Z, to coerce final target F into doing result R.
Example: Separatist X sets up a bomb (A) next to a cafe to blow up visitors of the cafe (Y). Doing so he wants to induce terror in the general populace (Z), to coerce the government (F) to release his fellow fighters from prison (R).
Example: Air fleet marshal X orders carpet bombing (A) of an enemy city (Y). He wants to demoralize the enemies populace (Z) to coerce the enemy military (F) to surrender (R).
Elements of this definition:
X - potential terrorist
A - violent action
Y - addressee of violence
Z - addressee of terror
F - final addressee
R - intended result
It is important that X assumes that action A will in fact induce terror in Z, and that that will coerce final target F into reacting (more to that in detail further down). Since the mere attempt already induces terror in Z, one cannot "try" to commit a terrorist act. Thus attempted (A) = (A) within this definition.
Generic definition of a terrorist act:
(T) A terrorist act is an act that (attempts to) cause an end by means of terror induced by violence.
Violence deserves its own definition, but that shall be part of a different blog. Suffice to say in this context that it includes all (attempted) forms of violence against persons and objects, be they legitimate targets in a military sense or not.
The most important part of this definition though is the conjunction of violence and terror. To clarify:
(1) The fact that X does A means Y will be victim of violence
(2) The fact (1) causes terror in Z
(3) The fact (2) causes F to do R
(3*) and (3) happens because
(3.1) F believes: If F doesn't react with R, this will lead to consequence C
(3.2) F wants to avoid C
(3**) and (3.1) happens because
(3.1.1) F believes: If F doesn't react with R, X will react with R*
(3.1.2) F believes: Reaction R* by X will cause C
Within an (attempted) terrorist act, X assumes (1) to (3), and also (3*) and (3**), and wants (1) to (3) to happen. The terrorist act is successful exactly if X is correct in his assumption.
To bring some order in this array of elements let's orient ourselves at this ranking of concepts:
1. terrorizing behavior
2. behavior to induce terror
3. terror induced by violence
4. (3.), end in itself
5. (3.), to coerce
6. coercion to cause consequences
Behavior that is terrorizing (1.), but isn't performed to the effect of inducing terror(2.) cannot establish a terrorist act. The intention is of importance. As previously mentioned violence is essential for a terrorist act. A horror movie might induce terror, but it doesn't do so by using violence.
Of special importance is (3.) and (4.): A terrorist act is always comprised of a terrorizing act, but a terrorizing act doesn't always succeed in a terrorist act. A (via violence) terrorizing act that isn't done to coerce, but rather as in end in itself, is not a terrorist act via this definition. The Joker's various terrorizing acts are thus not terrorist acts.
It's only if you arrived at (6.) going through this ranking that you can affirm that an act is a terrorist act.
Note: Generally this definition is meant to be self-containing. For example, the reaction R that F is supposed to perform might not be the final aim of X. To come back to the initial example, separatist X might actually want F to NOT release the prisoners, thus broaden support for his cause among the populace on the long run. However to define a terrorist act one can't consider this macro perspective, and luckily one doesn't have to: The mechanics of (1) to (3) are still in effect independent of the long term ends X might actually have.
So, if you can affirm this definition for each of the terrorizing or violent acts that appear in your data, you are good to go with "Terrorism in numbers".
Hope that helped.
|
On December 15 2010 02:19 Jibba wrote:
I'm glad you're not defining it through politics/culture/religion/etc. because it's simply a tactic, but I think equating it so closely with asymmetric warfare is a mistake that fails to highlight why 'terrorism' is important. I would hardly call an Army vehicle being taken out by an IED a terrorist attack, until you reach a point where IED concentration is so high as to disrupt an entire society (think land mines in Africa.)
Of course, it being your research, you can define it however you like. I just think you've set yourself with a very broad definition (and your map strangely lacks Central/South America.) Also keep in mind that terrorism is usually identified a posteriori, which is problematic in and of itself.
To put it in terms of TL, there's a lot of shitty posters on TL and then there's CharlieMurphy. The shitty posters do the exact same actions as CM, and usually get banned for it, but they're not as bad. Part of it is the regularity with which CM terrorized TeamLiquid, but that regularity led to an intangible aura which could not be identified or done away with simply by removing his ability to post. His terrible posting changed the culture in such a way that more terrible posts became expected - the norm - and others began to believe that they could shit up TL in a similar fashion.
Now, that wasn't CM's intentions, unlike tdot, but again, acts of terrorism are usually identified after the fact. Whether that's a suitable method is a debate worth having.
I'm linking terrorism to asymmetric warfare because then it's easier for me to describe counter-terrorism and its social aspects (what my work is really about). Besides, every book I've got about it compares it to or just outright defines it as a mode of asymmetric warfare (this are all fairly new publications, 2006-2010, most of them written by people who either were/are a part of military/counter-terrorist groups or people somehow involved in the matters of defence - like Colin Gray). I guess it's easier for them to approach this matter like that and I think it will make my life easier too since I won't have to cover as much ground and by sticking to one, simple definition I can give my work more focus.
The map is wrong, I just put it in to break the blandness of the unfinished OP. It comes from Wikipedia and is described differently on different pages there (one page claims it's the map of attacks during first three months and the other claims it covers first six months of 2009).
@ Zatic:
Nice write-up, it'll help me a lot but indirectly. I can't really use such definition since in my work I'm explaining the change in modern/post-modern terrorism where terror/terrorizing and third parties are things of the past (they still terrorize, but it's neither means nor object of the terrorist act).
I don't really have space here to explain exactly how my views on terrorism are shaped but I can tell you that it involves:
1. History
- Where terrorism evolves from auxiliary/support tactic of guerilla warfare into its own, viable form of employed strategy.
2. The global changes
- The globalization process and non-state entities gaining access to military equipment and beginning to employ military tactics ("de-statifation" of war).
- Change in terrorist organizations itself, how their structure now is built upon the best marketing/company standards (some companies could even learn from Al-Quaeda on how to manage their assets, personnel and entire organization - fun fact: large portion of Al-Quaeda funding comes from legal stock-market operations performed by their members, they invest heavily in rubber market and stuff like that).
etc. etc.
I'm just starting on it, so stuff my still change and (hopefully) I'll be able to provide you with larger and more comprehensive theories.
|
That map is why i was glad when the German government came out and said that they had info that a terrorist attack would happen in November.
What i like to know how much freedom we have to give up for stopping terrorism is really necessary.(Considering they want to raise the Data save program that our government has)
|
On December 15 2010 05:19 Clamev wrote:
That map is why i was glad when the German government came out and said that they had info that a terrorist attack would happen in November.
What i like to know how much freedom we have to give up for stopping terrorism is really necessary.(Considering they want to raise the Data save program that our government has)
This will be one of the key elements of my work. I'll post the results of my findings and my theories when I'm done with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Number_of_terrorist_incidents_2009.png)
