Friday, the 22 July 2011 indelibly marked an onset of serious reconsideration of the nature of terrorism in Europe. On that day "a bomb exploded in the Government District in Oslo. The explosion resulted in eight persons being killed and nine seriously injured... Later the same day... a massacre started on Utøya in Hole Municipality. At the time, 564 persons were on the island, 530 of whom were youth attending the Norwegian Labour Youth (AUF) summer camp. This afternoon, altogether 69 persons were killed. Most were killed by shooting or as a consequence thereof. Furthermore, 33 youngsters were injured..." This appalling atrocity was perpetrated by a young Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, who was pronounced guilty by the Oslo District Court in August 2012.
Here, we are to debate the attributes that Breivik's act possesses in terms of the terrorism narrative. That means it is necessary to consider how the perpetration was labelled by the court and whether the institution's frame of reference bears relevance to the way terrorism is commonly defined. As there has been an apparent failure to accept an official definition of terrorism , this essay will employ the reasoning based on Schmid's Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism .
In her verdict the judge states that the defendant is responsible for committing acts of terrorism:" [the defendant is therefore sentenced] for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 148 of the Penal Code..." . The verdict exactly uses a term terrorist act and aims to provide substantive arguments supporting its interpretation. With respect to the court's wording, it indeed becomes clear that the jury deems Breivik's act to be terrorism, but what about the twelve definition c...
... middle of paper ...
...r institutions prior the attacks, his act was of a single nature; element 7 - it remains questionable whether Breivik had intended the people he killed to be his ultimate target or not, the people were both innocent civilians as well as the representatives of shared political values he condemned; eventually, element 12 - apparently Breivik's act was not a part of some extensive campaign, but rather an isolated act of politically fuelled violence.
[6] Schmid (2011), p. 86
[7] Ibid., p. 87
[8] Judgment of Anders Behring Breivik 2012-08-24
[9] Schmid (2011), p.
[10] Judgment of Anders Behring Breivik 2012-08-24
[11] McCauley, C. and Moskalenko, S. (2008) Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, 20:3, pp. 415-433. Available through: [Accessed 20 January 2014]
Speckhard, A. (2013). The Boston Marathon Bombers: the Lethal Cocktail that Turned Troubled Youth to Terrorism. Perspectives On Terrorism, 7(3). Retrieved from http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/268/540
Tankel, Stephen. 2009. “Lashkar-e-Taiba:From 9/11 to Mumbai” Developments in Radicalization and Political Violence. International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence. Print
Last but not least, one can also look at the brothers’ acts as acts of terrorism. These murders are not terrorism towards the general populace, but towards those who are criminals, and to those who might become criminals.
In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism is wrong, he defines what terrorism is, what causes terrorism, and what people believe terrorism to mean. With a working definition in place, Khatchadourian examines terrorism’s role in a just war and shows that terrorism is never just, even during war. With the assertion that terrorism, even during wartime is unjust, Khatchadourian analyzes the variations of innocence and non-innocence surrounding the victims of a terrorist attack. The analysis of innocence and non-innocence is accomplished through review of the principal of discrimination and the principal of proportion and how each relates to terrorism. From these philosophical and ethical standpoints, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism is unjust and wrong because of the way it groups and punishes the innocent with the guilty, not allowing the victim to properly respond to the charges against them. Finally, Khatchadourian looks at how terrorism is always wrong because of the way it denies a person their basic human rights. In examination of person’s human rights, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism specifically “violates its targets’ right to be treated as moral persons,” as it inflicts pain, suffering and death to those who are not deserving (298).
Wittig, P. (2013, June 14). Anders Breivik: Evil, Insane or just Criminal? [ Volume 3 - 2013] | Kyushu University Legal Research Bulletin. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://researchbulletin.kyudai.info/?p=295
A normal day in the city of Oklahoma on April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh, an anti-government man, and his accomplice took the lives of 168 innocent lives and injured many more. McVeigh’s hatred of the federal government and the handling of the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents led him to commit one of the most deadliest acts of domestic terrorism in U.S. history.
In V’s alternative world he is viewed as a terrorist, and in the dominant meaning of the word V is definitely a terrorist. He blows up buildings, kidnaps people, and kills politicians without any remorse. However Louise Richardson would argue that V is not a terrorist; in her mind terrorists show remorse for their actions, and think there actions are moral. A good example of what Richardson would po...
The September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States were felt worldwide. All countries feared seeing the tall Twin Towers and strong Pentagon being attacked by Islamist extremist members of Al-Qaeda. Although multiple countries prepared themselves to prevent an attack of such magnitude, Spain was not spared. In the morning of March 11, 2004 during rush hour, a series of 10 explosions in four locations occurred almost simultaneously in the mass transit rail system. This attack was performed by the Europe Al-Qaeda entity due to Spain’s involvement in the Iraq war, per a video release of an Al-Qaeda spokesman. This attack was the worst terrorist attack in Spain’s history, referred as Spain’s nine-eleven. This paper researches the gruesome attacks, the tactics employed by the terrorist, and the reaction by the Spanish and world governments.
Sedgwick, M. (2004). Al-Qaeda and the nature of religious terrorism. Terrorism and Policical Violence, 16(4), 795-814.
More and more in the world today, circumstances have brought about changes in how members have used radical protesting. One way used to protest a situation is through terrorism, and the people who exercise violence in the pursuit of what they hold to be just causes are alternately known as terrorists. This movement, although viewed as barbaric, requires a person to view the needs and goals of a particular cause to be greater than that of the well being of others. There are certain characteristic traits that can be found in the majority of terrorism, which can identify a profile of a terrorist’s mind. A terrorist is not just an insane person, but also possibly a person that has been forced either by personal decision or by situations beyond control to choose an “insane” method to achieve an unachievable goal.
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
Brian Jenkins a senior advisor to the Rand Corporation, a policy research think-tank organization, defines radicalization as the “process of adopting one’s self or inculcating in others a commitment not only to a system of beliefs, but to their imposition on the rest of society” (Gartenstein-Ross and Grossman, 2009, p. 7). McCauley and Moskalenko (2008) describe radicalization as “changes in beliefs, feelings and behaviors in directions that increasingly justify inter group violence and demand sacrifice in defense of the in-group” (p.416). As part of radicalization, an individual discovers a new revelation on how he or she perceives the world. Radicalization does not occur suddenly but is a complicated process influenced by personal experiences, the environment, personality character...
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
Categorical terrorism, according to Jeff Goodwin, is defined as “the strategic use of violence and threats of violence, usually intended to influence several audiences, by oppositional political groups against civilian or noncombatants who belong to a specific entity, religious or national group, social class or some other collectivity, without regard to their individual identities or roles.” More so, in terms of definition, according to a study done by Jeffrey Record in 2003, there was a count of over 109 definitions of terrorism, covering 22 different categorical elements. During the 70s and 80s, the United Nations struggled to define the term, finally coming up with the following definition: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
Terrorism has many forms, and many definitions. “Elements from the American definitional model define terrorism as a premeditated and unlawful act in which groups or agents of some principal engage in a threatened or actual use o...