Differences Between Old And New Terrorism Criminology Essay

Differences Between Old And New trifle of terrorism Criminology EssayTerrorism is not a new concept, and despite it was employ very often over the past decade, it remains one of the closely difficult issues to define. Its ambiguity comes from the different connotations that the term has gained over history. James D. Kiras stagecoachs bring out that, although the definitions of terrorism vary widely, the both come from a common point terrorism is a tactic characterized basically by the use of craze and the spread of fear it can take many forms and often randomly targets non-combatants. The starting points for the most disagreements about terrorism ar the settles for which violence is utilize, and its calm down causes (Kiras 2008 372). harmonise to Professor Adam Roberts, the term terrorism historically entered into European languages during the French transition of 1789, when violence was used by the governments in genus Paris to impose their new range on a reluctant citizenry. Therefore, as recorded by the Acadmie Franaise, the first meaning of the word terrorism was ashes of rule of terror (Roberts 2002). However, over the last decades the term terrorism has been used to define the recourse to violence by small groups to achieve governmental change. This has included ideological, ethnic, and religious exclusion or persecution (Kiras 2008). Terrorism has changed over meter, and aft(prenominal) 9/11 even upts, specialists in sociology, policy makers, scholars and the potbelly media submit been widely using the term new terrorism. Therefore, David Tucker states that This terrorism is re sayedly rattling(a) from the grey-haired by a new structure, a new physique of personnel, and a new attitude toward violence. (Tucker 2001 1).Further more(prenominal), according to Professor Martha Crenshaw, in order to analyse the deflexions between grey-headed and new terrorism, terce key aspects should be debated goals, methods, and presidency. T herefore, the new terrorism can be justified on a religious background, and the new terrorist groups considered having ambiguous goals on the systemic level and to treasure expiry for its own sake. On the some other side, the old terrorism is more comprehensible, limited and more specific, with its roots in semi semipolitical ideology (Crenshaw 2005). The old terrorism was regarded as being a political weapon, designed to micturate chaos with the strategic purpose of, either to maintain a regime, or to create the conditions for a new one. Michael Stohls study shows that the violence of the terrorist acts is not think simply to destroy but to be heard, and therefore terror is a message of strength, a warning designed to intimidate, to ensure compliance without the regard to physically touch citizen the more extensive is the message, the more successful is the act. (Stohl 1988 5). Stohl points out that the old terrorist groups chose their victims and targets with c be, in ord er to achieve maximum chance of success, even if that often meant to target non-combatants or mass innocent victims. An example of terrorist act which has had an important impact on the history was the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand by a 19-year-old Bosnian Serb student, Gavril Princip, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 (Roberts 2002). Another purpose was to create or enforce obedience, either of the population at king-size or at heart the ruling party, in order to ensure great future reluctance to assist the opposing side and greater obedience to the wishes of the insurgent cause or the security forces. This type of terror was put into effect during the revolutionary movements and in revolutionary regimes to create obedience within the ruling elites, to demonstrate their vulnerability and weakness, and force policy change. This occurred during the French revolution in 1789 and in Peru, when Sendero Luminoso secular organisation sought to destroy the living social a nd political order in order to create a Maoist regime (Stohl 1988).The new terrorism, although is not so new, has changed its purposes over the decades. According to Martha Crenshaw, the new terrorists religious point of view is related to the pursuit of mass casualties. Because their goals are religious, the new terrorists strikek to kill as many great deal as possible (Crenshaw 2006). Very often associated with Muslim terrorists, nowadays the terrorist groups bring forth widely developed in the fields of transport, communications and weaponry, due to the ample process of globalization. Therefore, they produce greater violence and climate of fear, in easier ways and with a lower level of risk. In the present, the most debated and feared terrorist network is the Islamic organization basis led by Osama bin Laden. According to world(prenominal) Security, it was establish around 1988 by bin Laden. In 1998, Al-Qaeda issued a statement under banner of The World Islamic Front for international jihad against the Jews and Crusaders saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens-civilian or military-and their ally everywhere. In consequence, on 9/11, 2001 a series of suicide attackers, members of Al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes, two of them crashing into theWorld Trade Centrein New York City, the third one into thePentagon, and the fourth plane, crashing into a field, after being redirected to Washington D.C. (Global Security 2006). Therefore, if the old terrorism could be resembled more with a form of guerrilla warfare, the new terrorism, become global war, representing a much greater danger.Moreover, in order to analyse the different methods used by the old and new terrorists, Martha Crenshaw divides them in two different categories secular terrorists and jihad terrorists. In the secular terrorism case the violence is said to be carefully calibrated, going just far enough to achieve their objectives. piece they could have killed more hatful, they stick to their political objectives and chose not to, because indiscriminate sidesplitting would not produce success. Therefore, BrianJenkins states that terrorists seem to be more interested in having a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead (Jenkins 1988). Although the number of their attacks achieved a great number, no attack in the preceding years was as destructive as the catastrophe of 9/11. Still there were a number of incidents that produced well over a hundred casualties, as the midair bombing of Pan Am 103, attributed to Libyan agents, or Air India, attributed to Sikh extremists who wanted an independent Punjab. In Crenshaws opinion the jihad terrorists are surpass by religion to seek mass causalities. Their attacks are more lethal and they have strategic targets. After the attacks in the linked States, a series of other bombing occurred in Bali, Madrid and London, spread fear not only on the American continent, but all over the world (Crensha w 2006). Among examples of the new terrorism, Aum Shinrikyos attack on the Tokyo vacuum tube is the only example of use of chemical weapons (Crenshaw 2003).On the other hand, the organization is widely different between old and new terrorism. As give tongue to by Crewnshaw the new terrorists are often described as a network rather than an organization. By contrast, the old terrorists organization is thought to have been hierarchical and centralized. The new terrorism is said to be horizontal and flat, whereas the old terrorism is vertical and pyramidal. The West German terrorists of the 70s and 80s were not tightly structure as they appear to be. They were composed of small different groups with shifting political objectives. Neither did the anarchists in the 19th century, who were certainly not a centralized organisation (Crenshaw 2006). Moreover, jihad terrorism appears to be more organizes that any other terrorist network. According to Kenneth Katzmans study, Al-Qaeda is a ve ry well structured organisation. in like manner it collaborates with a range number of other terrorist groups. These are either in partnership with Al Qaeda or on their own, attempting to destabilize established regimes in the region. These include the Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen) and Hizb-e-Islam/Gulbuddin) (Katzman 2005).Moreover, another crucial release between old and new terrorism is the massive use of extravagantly technology of the new terrorism groups. As indicated by John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt, and Michele Zanini terrorists are likely to increasingly use advanced information technologies for offensive and protective purposes, as well as to support their organizational structures (Arquilla et al. n.d.). Moreover, according to Kiras elements of globalization that permits the rapid exchange of ideas and good can also be leveraged and put-upon by terrorist groups. The technologies associated with globalization allow terrorists to operate in a highly distributed global ne twork that shares information and allows small cells to conduct highly coordinated, lethal attacks. Also, globalization may allow some terrorist groups to acquire, manufacture, and use weapons of mass destruction in order to conduct catastrophic attacks (Kiras 2008).To conclude, as stated by Tucker, although the networked, ad hoc character of contemporary terrorism is not new, the terrorism we puzzle today, at least the international terrorism, is more lethal than it was when it first emerged three decades ago and more likely to produce mass casualties (Tucker 2001). Thus, according to Crenshaw the difference between the new and the old terrorism is not as perfect as proponents of the new terrorism view would have it. The differences among groups and over time do exist, but they are due to the changing environment, in occurrence the globalization (Crenshaw 2003). The new terrorism has become seriously dangerous since the 11 September 2001 attacks, which have shaped much of the hi story of the years since. As Grant Wardlaws study shows, it is seems likely that terrorism will be a more serious problem towards the end of the century than is currently. The present analysts study that the incremental changes in the genius of terrorism and terrorist groups will eventually lead some group to attempt mass destruction terrorism. Also, the changes in political socialisation which have occurred worldwide over the past few decades, together with easier access to powerful weapons, suggest the possibility that terrorism may be come to be seen by a wider range of groups as an pleasurable way to stop governments operation in ways that group members see as inimical to their interest. (Wardlaw 1989) Although it changes over the decades, terrorism remains a decomposable phenomen in which violence is used to obtain political power. The new terrorism presents a great danger as globalization has improved the expert capabilities of terrorists and given them global reach. In other words, globalization changed the scope and the nature of the old terrorism (Kiras 2008).