The intended outcomes of this piece of work are to critically explore the concept of
new terrorism and the impact of it on counterterrorism efforts.
Terrorism is a concept that is difficult to define, the legal definition from the United
Kingdom’s government defines terrorism as “the use or threat of action, both in and
outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation
or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political,
religious or ideological cause” (CPS, 2017). However, having one definition to define
terrorism has been criticised as being too vague and broad. Alan Greene (2017)
argued that a multi definitional approach to the concept of terrorism in legal terms
would be more beneficial. Greene (2017) also discussed the geopolitical factors that
make an internationally agreed definition almost impossible. Therefor when
researching into terrorism having a generalised definition of the concept has more
advantages than using one definition given by one organisation or government.
By definition counter terrorism aims to undermine those they define as terrorist, or
the environments that produce them (Phillips, 2019).
Counter terrorism along with the concept of new terrorism has undergone
transformation in order to be effective to the modern-day form of terrorism and the
technological advancements that it presents.
Research into terrorism over the last two decades has imploded following the results
that occurred in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The majority of datasets extend
back only to the 1970s which creates limitation to quantitatively examine earlier
patterns of terrorism (Tschantret, 2019). Since the events of 9/11 the research on
terrorism has exponentially grown, Sillke (2004) estimated that three books
surrounding terrorism were published weekly after the attacks, with a more recent
meta-analysis concluding that 3500 journal articles were published.
Terrorism researches such as Gurr & Moore (1997), LaFree and Dugan (2008) etc,
have frequently claimed that strains or grievances are a major cause of terrorism.
However, claims over what strains link to terrorism differ, with terrorism said to result
from: absolute and relative material deprivation; issues associated with
globalisation/modernisation such as threats to religious dominance and challenges to
traditional family roles; territorial, ethnic, and religious disputes as a result from
postcolonial efforts; military occupation. Terrorists also explain their actions in terms
of the strains that they have experienced (Agnew, 2010). Academic research on
strain and terrorism involves case studies of terrorist groups, most of the studies
conclude that strains played a central role in the formation of such groups (Hoffman,
2006) however similar strains did not correlate to terrorism in other cases, several
quantitative studies have investigated this point (Agnew, 2010). Material deprivation
is one of the most commonly investigated strain in regard to terrorism, at an
individual level is a weak link. Poor and poorly educated Palestinians are not more
likely to support terrorism or engage in terrorist activities (Krueger and Maleckova,
2003), in some area’s terrorist are more likely to be drawn from middle class
educated people including college students. The weak link between deprivation and
, terrorism is true at macro-levels with the majority of studies concluding that it is
unrelated or weakly related to the number of terrorist acts that have taken place or
originated in a country (Agnew, 2010). This theory generally focuses on one or a few
types of strain for example material deprivation or threats to traditional values,
however the characteristics of strains likely to lead to terrorism differ greatly from
case to case (Agnew, 2010).
The concept of new terrorism argues that in comparison to traditional terrorism which
had left-wing, right-wing, or ethno-nationalistic political goals, the motivation behind
terrorism today is religious or mystical motivation. The shift between ‘old’ terrorism
and ‘new’ terrorism has been one that Is gradual and complex, with new terrorism
drawing on themes and ideas that have existed within older periods of terrorism.
Hoffman stated that “religious imperative for terrorism is the most important
characteristic of terrorist activity today” (Kurtulus, 2010). Juergensmeyer claims that
religious violence has reappeared in a form that is intended to terrify on a massive
scale, over the past few year’s terrorist groups such as the Islamic State have
proven this statement to be true, carrying out attacks that terrified millions around the
globe, an example of this is the 2015 November Paris attacks. On Friday 13 th
November 2015, 130 people were murdered, and hundreds left wounded after three
suicide bombers targeted a football stadium and several gunmen open fired at
popular nightlife spots (BBC News, 2015).
Arquilla et al stated that the structure of terrorist organisations has been transformed
to where there is no single, central leadership, command, or headquarters and
where there may also be multiple leaders. A third difference between old terrorism
and new terrorism is the targeting of their violence, old terrorism was often selective
where as new terrorism conducts indiscriminate attacks with the purpose of causing
a high number of casualties (Kurtulus, 2010). Jenkin’s (2010) stated that old
terrorism wanted a lot of people watching and few people dead where as new
terrorism wants a lot of people watching and a lot of people dead. Looking at recent
examples of new terrorism and the attacks that have been carried out this does
seem to be the case. An example of old terrorist groups is the Irish Republican Army,
established in 1969 as a result of conflict between pro-British Unionists and pro-Irish
Nationalist populations. The structure of the terrorist group was a military
organisation situated in Northern Ireland with the aim to end the British occupation.
The fourth main component of the new terrorist organisation is the intention and the
possible ability to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction such as chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (Kurtulus, 2010). In an interview with
the Washington Post Suleiman al-Afari an Iraqi scientist was offered the role to help
the Islamic State to make chemical weapons. Afari described the terrorist group’s
efforts to make sulfur mustard – a first generation chemical weapon that during
World War One inflicted tens of thousands of casualties. U.S. and Kurdish officials
who participated in missions to destroy Islamic State weapons plants and to capture
new terrorism and the impact of it on counterterrorism efforts.
Terrorism is a concept that is difficult to define, the legal definition from the United
Kingdom’s government defines terrorism as “the use or threat of action, both in and
outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation
or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political,
religious or ideological cause” (CPS, 2017). However, having one definition to define
terrorism has been criticised as being too vague and broad. Alan Greene (2017)
argued that a multi definitional approach to the concept of terrorism in legal terms
would be more beneficial. Greene (2017) also discussed the geopolitical factors that
make an internationally agreed definition almost impossible. Therefor when
researching into terrorism having a generalised definition of the concept has more
advantages than using one definition given by one organisation or government.
By definition counter terrorism aims to undermine those they define as terrorist, or
the environments that produce them (Phillips, 2019).
Counter terrorism along with the concept of new terrorism has undergone
transformation in order to be effective to the modern-day form of terrorism and the
technological advancements that it presents.
Research into terrorism over the last two decades has imploded following the results
that occurred in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The majority of datasets extend
back only to the 1970s which creates limitation to quantitatively examine earlier
patterns of terrorism (Tschantret, 2019). Since the events of 9/11 the research on
terrorism has exponentially grown, Sillke (2004) estimated that three books
surrounding terrorism were published weekly after the attacks, with a more recent
meta-analysis concluding that 3500 journal articles were published.
Terrorism researches such as Gurr & Moore (1997), LaFree and Dugan (2008) etc,
have frequently claimed that strains or grievances are a major cause of terrorism.
However, claims over what strains link to terrorism differ, with terrorism said to result
from: absolute and relative material deprivation; issues associated with
globalisation/modernisation such as threats to religious dominance and challenges to
traditional family roles; territorial, ethnic, and religious disputes as a result from
postcolonial efforts; military occupation. Terrorists also explain their actions in terms
of the strains that they have experienced (Agnew, 2010). Academic research on
strain and terrorism involves case studies of terrorist groups, most of the studies
conclude that strains played a central role in the formation of such groups (Hoffman,
2006) however similar strains did not correlate to terrorism in other cases, several
quantitative studies have investigated this point (Agnew, 2010). Material deprivation
is one of the most commonly investigated strain in regard to terrorism, at an
individual level is a weak link. Poor and poorly educated Palestinians are not more
likely to support terrorism or engage in terrorist activities (Krueger and Maleckova,
2003), in some area’s terrorist are more likely to be drawn from middle class
educated people including college students. The weak link between deprivation and
, terrorism is true at macro-levels with the majority of studies concluding that it is
unrelated or weakly related to the number of terrorist acts that have taken place or
originated in a country (Agnew, 2010). This theory generally focuses on one or a few
types of strain for example material deprivation or threats to traditional values,
however the characteristics of strains likely to lead to terrorism differ greatly from
case to case (Agnew, 2010).
The concept of new terrorism argues that in comparison to traditional terrorism which
had left-wing, right-wing, or ethno-nationalistic political goals, the motivation behind
terrorism today is religious or mystical motivation. The shift between ‘old’ terrorism
and ‘new’ terrorism has been one that Is gradual and complex, with new terrorism
drawing on themes and ideas that have existed within older periods of terrorism.
Hoffman stated that “religious imperative for terrorism is the most important
characteristic of terrorist activity today” (Kurtulus, 2010). Juergensmeyer claims that
religious violence has reappeared in a form that is intended to terrify on a massive
scale, over the past few year’s terrorist groups such as the Islamic State have
proven this statement to be true, carrying out attacks that terrified millions around the
globe, an example of this is the 2015 November Paris attacks. On Friday 13 th
November 2015, 130 people were murdered, and hundreds left wounded after three
suicide bombers targeted a football stadium and several gunmen open fired at
popular nightlife spots (BBC News, 2015).
Arquilla et al stated that the structure of terrorist organisations has been transformed
to where there is no single, central leadership, command, or headquarters and
where there may also be multiple leaders. A third difference between old terrorism
and new terrorism is the targeting of their violence, old terrorism was often selective
where as new terrorism conducts indiscriminate attacks with the purpose of causing
a high number of casualties (Kurtulus, 2010). Jenkin’s (2010) stated that old
terrorism wanted a lot of people watching and few people dead where as new
terrorism wants a lot of people watching and a lot of people dead. Looking at recent
examples of new terrorism and the attacks that have been carried out this does
seem to be the case. An example of old terrorist groups is the Irish Republican Army,
established in 1969 as a result of conflict between pro-British Unionists and pro-Irish
Nationalist populations. The structure of the terrorist group was a military
organisation situated in Northern Ireland with the aim to end the British occupation.
The fourth main component of the new terrorist organisation is the intention and the
possible ability to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction such as chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (Kurtulus, 2010). In an interview with
the Washington Post Suleiman al-Afari an Iraqi scientist was offered the role to help
the Islamic State to make chemical weapons. Afari described the terrorist group’s
efforts to make sulfur mustard – a first generation chemical weapon that during
World War One inflicted tens of thousands of casualties. U.S. and Kurdish officials
who participated in missions to destroy Islamic State weapons plants and to capture
