Discuss the Similarities and Differences Between "new Terrorism" and the More Traditional Model of "old Terrorism"

Pantha rei Ð'- as it was stated by the Greek philosopher, Heraclites of Ephesus (sixth and fifth centuries B.C.) Ð'- everything flows, everything changes. Change in the contemporary world is an extremely fast process. Nothing remains the same as it was in the past. In political science especially, some notions (e.g. sovereignty) demand redefinition. The changing nature of all things also includes the political concept

of terrorism.

The official approach to this changing terrorism is rather complicated. The terrorist

of yesterday is the hero of today, and the hero of yesterday becomes the terrorist

of today . There is then a great need to know what contemporary terrorism is and what it is not. Terrorism is a calculated use of power to achieve a political change, thus violence Ð'-

or equally important, the threat of violence Ð'- is used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of a political aim . Terrorism is an expression of political strategy, a willful choice made

by an organization for political and strategic reasons (efficacy) rather than as the unintended outcome of psychological or social factors .

However, terrorism is difficult to define because the meaning of the term has changed so frequently over the past 200 years. It has morphed from positive connotation during the French Revolution (closely associated with the ideals of virtue and democracy ), through the revolutionary movement and finally to a religiously motivated act as it is mainly perceived today. Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves whether "old" and "new" terrorism really exists, or maybe the phenomenon we are facing today reminds us an old wine in a new bottle.

Two questions frame the discussed issue:

1. What is the nature of "new" terrorism?

2. What is the magnitude of threat of "new" terrorism?

"Old" and "new" terrorism are distinguishable in five points, as the table below shows .

Old Terrorism New Terrorism

Ideological Vague or religious motivations

Hierarchical Unorganized (lone wolf, ad hoc)

therefore more difficult to penetrate

Propaganda by deed

(bringing issue to the table) More violent

(killing for the sake of killing)

Sub-national Transnational and International (global)

State sponsored, learning by doing, conventional weapons Better financed, trained and in pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The "old" or "traditional" terrorists used terrorism as a tool in pursuit of very traditional goals that could be understood within the arena of normal politics, even if their tactics had left this arena. It was one tool attached to an overall strategy, and it was

a tightly controlled tool. In the past, terrorism was ideological (and still is today, if we remember about political Islam ). But under the old rules, "terrorists wanted a lot of people watching not a lot of people dead" . They wanted to sit at the table. "Today's terrorists are not particularly concerned about converts, and don't want to sit at the table, they want

to destroy the table and everyone sitting at it". In the past, these were mainly sub Ð'- state actors implementing hit-and-run violence in order to attract attention to, and ensure publicity for themselves and their cause . The terrorism used to be the last in a sequence of choices. The most common tactics were diplomatic kidnappings, hijackings or hostage takings. They ensured efficiency since the other methods were not expected to work

or were time consuming, given the urgency of the situation and government's superior resources. That is why terrorism was called "the shortcut to revolution." Pursuing extreme interests in the political area, the phenomenon called "old" terrorism", was also state sponsored from complete control at the one end of the spectrum, through providing trainings, funds and safe haven for an autonomous group, to simple support at the other end. Essentially the state was always part of the equation.

The "new" apocalyptical terrorism, (or what is also called 4th generation warfare),

is inspired mainly by political extremism and ethnic separatist movement. But there is also the religion factor Ð'- it has long been a powerful transÐ'-national force in international relations as it does not respect national boundaries . The terrorists do not perceive themselves as terrorists. They simultaneously refuse to be bound by rules of warfare and codes of conducting a conflict. They are also a fundamental altruists who believe that they serve a "good" cause designed to achieve greater good for a wider constituency - whether real or imagined - which the terrorist and his organization purport to represent, This is true because "a terrorist without a cause is not a terrorist", as Konrad Kellen said.

The terrorist is a fundamentally violent intellectual prepared to use, and indeed committed to using, force in the attainment of his goals.

Like twentieth century totalitarians, today's Islamic fundamentalist fanatics are convinced that they posses absolute truth. This truth is immune from refutation or criticism. They believe that force and terror are necessary to establish a utopia in place of the current decadent and corrupt world. Unlike the followers from the past centuries, today's terrorists draw inspiration from religious radicalism. Therefore religion marks the clearest difference from the "old" terrorism. Now the need to be heard is not only an expression

of anger, feeling helpless, and alone, as we can observe jihad as an international violent phenomenon fulfilling the gap in absence of revolutionary ideology. Modern terrorists see violence as an end in itself. They do not care if the body count is high; in fact they are trying to pump it as high as they can for the nihilist pleasure of destruction. They think that violence pleases God ("innocent victims do not exist" Ð'- as one of the Palestinians leaders said once). Furthermore, new terrorism is global and does not answer to any government, operates globally