Terrorism and Counterterrorism
Lecture 1: What is terrorism?
Terrorism is not an ideology. Rather, terrorism is a tactic – a strategy used to achieve a specific end.
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence, generally against civilians for political
purposes. It is is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government or its citizens to further certain political or social objectives. Terrorists are often not interested in
governing.
Definitions in general need to be descriptive. It needs clear demarcations and it needs to be objective and
neutral. There are various types of definitions, such as legal, governmental and academic. How can they
impact research? How can they influence debates? In order to define terrorism, you need to realise that no
commonly accepted definition exists. Countries worldwide all take on different definitions. Terrorism is
considered to be far from merely an academic problem because (counter)terrorism can affect entire
populations. It has far reaching effects.
Terrorism is also the topic of highly politicised debates: “terrorist is everyone we do not agree with”.
Terrorism has gained extreme negative connotations. Freedom fighters versus terrorists. Too infrequent to
generalise? As a result, condemnation happens rather than description. Terrorism as a definitional weapon,
does it prescribes and rules out policy responses? Does it normatively influences research agenda?
Clarity through comparison
- Terrorism vs. Insurgency
- Terrorism vs. Organised crime
- Terrorism vs. Terror
- Terrorism vs. War
Schmid (2011) de nition of terrorism: terrorism refers on the one hand to a doctrine about the presumed
effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other
hand, to a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral
restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and
psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties’. Victims for terrorism are selected for the
psychological effects on parties. The victims are used in order to send a message and to gain more
supporters.
Within the United States, domestic violence is more prevalence even-though the government spreads more
worries about Jihadism. Also, terrorism is not a new phenomenon. An example is the Oklahoma City
bombing which was a domestic terrorist truck bombing on the Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995.
Contemporary terrorism is about more than just jihadism. Can the emphasis on jihadism be explained or
justified by their deadliness?
Counterterrorism evokes images of armed interventions, ‘hard counter’ to terrorism. In fact, the range of
options is far broader. Counterterrorism again depends on how you view terrorism. Counterterrorism
approaches rely on assumptions of what is being countered:
- Syndrome: evil deeds by evil men? Grounded in psychopathology.
- Tool: deliberate choice based on relative power? Means to an end.
1
fi
,Quick overview of different kinds of terrorism:
- Left-wing
Marxist/ Leninists, revolutionary, creation of potential for change, inspired by a 3rd world movement.
Example: mainly 1960s-1980s - Red Army Faction (Germany), Red Brigades (Italy).
- Right-wing
Mistrust of government, conspiracy theories, racist, neo-fascist, highly conservative, religious.
Example: Anders Breivik.
- Nationalist
Self-determination, anti-colonial, strong driver insurgency.
Example: Bloody Sunday 1972 or the IRA (Ireland).
- Separatist
Greater autonomy or independence.
Example: ETA (Spain)
- State terror
Large-scale violence to intimidate or control populations.
Numerous examples in Europe or Latin America, such as FARC.
- Religious
Revolutionary, millenarian, reform or destruction, (other) worldly goals
Example:
- International
Focus on operational form; globalisation and telecommunications revolutions
Example:
- Criminal
Examples: FARC? Taliban? IRA? Mob-activities?
- Single-issue
Not focused on a particular ideology, but a particular grievance.
Example:
- Environmental terrorism
Terrorism or activism?
Example:
- Lone actor
Single individuals who plan, prepare and execute attacks in isolation
Example: Incel - Elliot Rodger 2014
- Weapons of Mass Destruction
The sum of our fears?
Example:
- Cyber
The increasing importance of the internet
Example:
2
, The counterterrorism continuum: Prevent - detect - respond - prevent (re) occurrence
Various counterterrorism responses exist, such as:
1. Doing nothing
2. Conciliation
3. Legal reforms
4. Restriction
5. Use of violence
Counterterrorism in context:
- Democracies
Must maintain voter support and power of the executive is constrained. Countermeasure imperative.
- Totalitarian regimes
Very few constraints on government action.
Counterterrorism in short: counterterrorism can take many forms, shaped by preconceptions about nature
of the threat, notions of efficacy and boundaries set by constituents and rule of law. Effectiveness is
determined not just by the measure itself, but also by the context in which it is used and the configuration
of public support among the parties to the conflict. Different rules apply to different cases.
Conclusion: terrorism as a quintessential ‘contested concept’. Familiarity with the definitional
debate as key learning outcome. Schmid and ‘terrorism as demonstrative violence’. Terrorism is
not exclusively a non-state activity and knows many forms. Counterterrorism as a continuum of
interventions.
Lecture 2: Political violence and state-terrorism
Critiques of Terrorism Research argues that post 9/11 scholarship is ahistorical, treats terrorism as
emerging in a social vacuum, lacks multi-level analysis, is state-centric, focuses only on secondary rather
than primary data and is policy oriented.
Social Movement Theory (SMT) is an interdisciplinary study that seeks to explain why social mobilisation
occurs. It also seeks to explain how social mobilisation manifests, and seeks to explain potential social,
cultural and political consequences of social mobilisation. SMT finds its roots in the growth of social
movement activity both in Europe and the United States in the 1960. Young people did not agree with the
status quo anymore. Deprivation was not seen as a viable explanation anymore. Instead, structural
approaches examined how the social and political context enabled or hindered protests. The approach
rejects classical approaches such as collective behaviour theory, mass society theory & relative deprivation.
Advantages of Social Movement Theory:
- Relocates terrorism within its social and temporal context
- De-exceptionalises terrorism
- Underlines its temporal fluidity
- Counters the a-historicity and lack of context of terrorism research
- Brings the state into focus
- Brings international movement dynamics into focus
3
, Charles Tilly and the notion of Contentious Politics: Tilly’s work emphasises how dynamics of social
protests are tied to their political, social and economic context. According to Tilly, contentious politics are:
“episodic, public, collective, interactions in which actors make claims bearing on someone else's interest, in
which governments appear either as targets, initiators of claims, or third parties”. The two actors in
contentious politics are the claim makers (protestants) and the object of claim (e.g. the head of state). Tilly
is mainly interested in the dynamics by those who have power and those who try to influence the people
who have power.
Repertoires of Contention: “Arrays of contentious performances that are currently known and available
within some set of politics actors” — Sets of tools available for use by political actors that the general public
would recognise as a form of political protest.
Examples of action/ techniques of contention are creation of special-purpose associations and coalitions,
public meetings, solemn processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in
public media, boycotts, strikes and pamphleteering.
Tarrow’s 3 types of technique of contention:
Type Meaning
Contained Build on routines that people understand and that elites will accept/facilitate.
Disruptive Break with routine, startle bystanders and leave elites disoriented. Unstable and easily
turns into violence or becomes ‘contained’.
Violent Most dramatic and easiest to initiate. Under normal circumstances, limited to small
groups with few recourses who are willing to risk perception.
Tilly’s de nition of terrorism: terrorism is the “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against
enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current
regime”. Subset is violent and is prohibited, but nonetheless exists. That is what terrorism is.
Max Weber and his Monopoly on Violence: “The state is the central political institution that exerts a
‘monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” Max Weber in Politics as a
Vocation (1919).
Political violence is the exercise of physical force with the intention to harm the welfare and physical
integrity of the victim motivated by the goals (Neumayer, 2004). Important dimensions:
- Perpetrators: non-state actors, state actors
- Targets: noncombatants, state actors
- Means: intentional use of violence
- Goals: affecting political outcomes
Typology of Political Violence
Tilly de-exceptionalises terrorism: “Most uses of
terror actually occur as complements or as
byproducts of struggles in which participants—
often including the so-called terrorists—are
engaging simultaneously or successively in other
more routine varieties of political claim making.”
4
fi
Lecture 1: What is terrorism?
Terrorism is not an ideology. Rather, terrorism is a tactic – a strategy used to achieve a specific end.
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence, generally against civilians for political
purposes. It is is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government or its citizens to further certain political or social objectives. Terrorists are often not interested in
governing.
Definitions in general need to be descriptive. It needs clear demarcations and it needs to be objective and
neutral. There are various types of definitions, such as legal, governmental and academic. How can they
impact research? How can they influence debates? In order to define terrorism, you need to realise that no
commonly accepted definition exists. Countries worldwide all take on different definitions. Terrorism is
considered to be far from merely an academic problem because (counter)terrorism can affect entire
populations. It has far reaching effects.
Terrorism is also the topic of highly politicised debates: “terrorist is everyone we do not agree with”.
Terrorism has gained extreme negative connotations. Freedom fighters versus terrorists. Too infrequent to
generalise? As a result, condemnation happens rather than description. Terrorism as a definitional weapon,
does it prescribes and rules out policy responses? Does it normatively influences research agenda?
Clarity through comparison
- Terrorism vs. Insurgency
- Terrorism vs. Organised crime
- Terrorism vs. Terror
- Terrorism vs. War
Schmid (2011) de nition of terrorism: terrorism refers on the one hand to a doctrine about the presumed
effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other
hand, to a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral
restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and
psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties’. Victims for terrorism are selected for the
psychological effects on parties. The victims are used in order to send a message and to gain more
supporters.
Within the United States, domestic violence is more prevalence even-though the government spreads more
worries about Jihadism. Also, terrorism is not a new phenomenon. An example is the Oklahoma City
bombing which was a domestic terrorist truck bombing on the Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995.
Contemporary terrorism is about more than just jihadism. Can the emphasis on jihadism be explained or
justified by their deadliness?
Counterterrorism evokes images of armed interventions, ‘hard counter’ to terrorism. In fact, the range of
options is far broader. Counterterrorism again depends on how you view terrorism. Counterterrorism
approaches rely on assumptions of what is being countered:
- Syndrome: evil deeds by evil men? Grounded in psychopathology.
- Tool: deliberate choice based on relative power? Means to an end.
1
fi
,Quick overview of different kinds of terrorism:
- Left-wing
Marxist/ Leninists, revolutionary, creation of potential for change, inspired by a 3rd world movement.
Example: mainly 1960s-1980s - Red Army Faction (Germany), Red Brigades (Italy).
- Right-wing
Mistrust of government, conspiracy theories, racist, neo-fascist, highly conservative, religious.
Example: Anders Breivik.
- Nationalist
Self-determination, anti-colonial, strong driver insurgency.
Example: Bloody Sunday 1972 or the IRA (Ireland).
- Separatist
Greater autonomy or independence.
Example: ETA (Spain)
- State terror
Large-scale violence to intimidate or control populations.
Numerous examples in Europe or Latin America, such as FARC.
- Religious
Revolutionary, millenarian, reform or destruction, (other) worldly goals
Example:
- International
Focus on operational form; globalisation and telecommunications revolutions
Example:
- Criminal
Examples: FARC? Taliban? IRA? Mob-activities?
- Single-issue
Not focused on a particular ideology, but a particular grievance.
Example:
- Environmental terrorism
Terrorism or activism?
Example:
- Lone actor
Single individuals who plan, prepare and execute attacks in isolation
Example: Incel - Elliot Rodger 2014
- Weapons of Mass Destruction
The sum of our fears?
Example:
- Cyber
The increasing importance of the internet
Example:
2
, The counterterrorism continuum: Prevent - detect - respond - prevent (re) occurrence
Various counterterrorism responses exist, such as:
1. Doing nothing
2. Conciliation
3. Legal reforms
4. Restriction
5. Use of violence
Counterterrorism in context:
- Democracies
Must maintain voter support and power of the executive is constrained. Countermeasure imperative.
- Totalitarian regimes
Very few constraints on government action.
Counterterrorism in short: counterterrorism can take many forms, shaped by preconceptions about nature
of the threat, notions of efficacy and boundaries set by constituents and rule of law. Effectiveness is
determined not just by the measure itself, but also by the context in which it is used and the configuration
of public support among the parties to the conflict. Different rules apply to different cases.
Conclusion: terrorism as a quintessential ‘contested concept’. Familiarity with the definitional
debate as key learning outcome. Schmid and ‘terrorism as demonstrative violence’. Terrorism is
not exclusively a non-state activity and knows many forms. Counterterrorism as a continuum of
interventions.
Lecture 2: Political violence and state-terrorism
Critiques of Terrorism Research argues that post 9/11 scholarship is ahistorical, treats terrorism as
emerging in a social vacuum, lacks multi-level analysis, is state-centric, focuses only on secondary rather
than primary data and is policy oriented.
Social Movement Theory (SMT) is an interdisciplinary study that seeks to explain why social mobilisation
occurs. It also seeks to explain how social mobilisation manifests, and seeks to explain potential social,
cultural and political consequences of social mobilisation. SMT finds its roots in the growth of social
movement activity both in Europe and the United States in the 1960. Young people did not agree with the
status quo anymore. Deprivation was not seen as a viable explanation anymore. Instead, structural
approaches examined how the social and political context enabled or hindered protests. The approach
rejects classical approaches such as collective behaviour theory, mass society theory & relative deprivation.
Advantages of Social Movement Theory:
- Relocates terrorism within its social and temporal context
- De-exceptionalises terrorism
- Underlines its temporal fluidity
- Counters the a-historicity and lack of context of terrorism research
- Brings the state into focus
- Brings international movement dynamics into focus
3
, Charles Tilly and the notion of Contentious Politics: Tilly’s work emphasises how dynamics of social
protests are tied to their political, social and economic context. According to Tilly, contentious politics are:
“episodic, public, collective, interactions in which actors make claims bearing on someone else's interest, in
which governments appear either as targets, initiators of claims, or third parties”. The two actors in
contentious politics are the claim makers (protestants) and the object of claim (e.g. the head of state). Tilly
is mainly interested in the dynamics by those who have power and those who try to influence the people
who have power.
Repertoires of Contention: “Arrays of contentious performances that are currently known and available
within some set of politics actors” — Sets of tools available for use by political actors that the general public
would recognise as a form of political protest.
Examples of action/ techniques of contention are creation of special-purpose associations and coalitions,
public meetings, solemn processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in
public media, boycotts, strikes and pamphleteering.
Tarrow’s 3 types of technique of contention:
Type Meaning
Contained Build on routines that people understand and that elites will accept/facilitate.
Disruptive Break with routine, startle bystanders and leave elites disoriented. Unstable and easily
turns into violence or becomes ‘contained’.
Violent Most dramatic and easiest to initiate. Under normal circumstances, limited to small
groups with few recourses who are willing to risk perception.
Tilly’s de nition of terrorism: terrorism is the “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against
enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current
regime”. Subset is violent and is prohibited, but nonetheless exists. That is what terrorism is.
Max Weber and his Monopoly on Violence: “The state is the central political institution that exerts a
‘monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” Max Weber in Politics as a
Vocation (1919).
Political violence is the exercise of physical force with the intention to harm the welfare and physical
integrity of the victim motivated by the goals (Neumayer, 2004). Important dimensions:
- Perpetrators: non-state actors, state actors
- Targets: noncombatants, state actors
- Means: intentional use of violence
- Goals: affecting political outcomes
Typology of Political Violence
Tilly de-exceptionalises terrorism: “Most uses of
terror actually occur as complements or as
byproducts of struggles in which participants—
often including the so-called terrorists—are
engaging simultaneously or successively in other
more routine varieties of political claim making.”
4
fi
