Essence of Terrorist Attacks - Essay Example

Therefore, the review is organized to identify the constructs of terrorism and identify a psychological definition of ‘fear of crime’, followed by insights into situational crime prevention theory and the psychological impact of a terrorist attack. Employees within an organization that has experienced a terrorist act in the past face fear of a repeat experience, maybe in a different form, and this adds to existing stresses at the workplace. This additional stress, both on the employees themselves as also those who protect them, reduces efficiency and has myriad negative effects on the individual and the organization.

Empirical literature shows that although terrorist attacks can kill and injure thousands of people and cause immense property damage, the essence of terrorism, as the name implies, is not destruction but terror: destruction is a means to the end and the end is a psychological effect. Terrorists use terrorism to demoralize businesses, the public, and the government of the target nation to promote their own political goals. Because the terrorists’ weapon is fear, the response to terrorism must make fear the object of special concern (Posner, 2002:02).

Traditionally the essence of terrorism and the goal of terrorists have been to create fear. The killing of innocent victims by surprise and at random for political reasons gives terrorism a particular and heartless character. This and the spectacular drama of bombings, aircraft hijackings, and other major terrorist attacks create a unique physiological impact and sense of collective vulnerability. The fear and disruptive impact that terrorism creates, more than the modest number of casualties it causes, makes terrorism such a threat to the security and well-being of any organization (Smith, 2001:61).

At the fringes of all political processes, terrorism has always existed and probably always will (Colvard, 2002: 327). While those who suffer directly from terrorist attacks are very few but the effect they have through intimidation is huge for the public. The attacks themselves serve as propaganda by deed and “they reinforce a group’s identity, morale, and belief in their potency. They act as recruiting posters (Palmer, 2007:291).

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon but has been exceptionally difficult to define for academics, journalists, and even legislators. One reason for the difficulty has to do with the politically charged nature of the word. Terrorism is hardly a value-neutral term. Few individuals, groups, organizations, or states with the term to be applied to their activities. To apply the term is, in effect, to condemn the entity to which it becomes linked. For example, the Israeli government condemned as ‘terrorist’ virtually all the violent activities of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. In response, Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip now refer to the actions of the Israeli government is seeking to repress the uprising as manifestations of Israeli terrorism. When the United States uses military force against the Taliban and followers of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or Iraq, it does so to destroy a terrorist threat. On the other hand, spokespersons for the Taliban in the Muslim world condemn American actions as, of course, terrorism (Pedahzur and Weinberg, 2003:03).

Defining terrorism is even more difficult if confused with media reports and discussions on issues surrounding terrorism using Trotsky’s “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Trotsky, 1920: 01). It is easy to understand why some people consider Che Guevara a freedom fighter first and a terrorist last; however, the same cannot apply to Dr. Ayman-al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command, and Radovan Karajan. These persons reported the killing of civilians for political ends; the relevance of the chosen target to the ends the terrorist wishes to achieve becomes a vital factor in the differentiation of a terrorist from a freedom fighter. Terror as a weapon has found use in numerous freedom struggles; however, the activity targeted the oppressor rather than innocent civilians. Ganor (2005) describes terrorism as the intentional use, or threat to use, violence against civilian targets for the achievement of political gains. With this, the theory of Trotsky (1920) can find rebuttal in the present-day context of terrorism.

The implications are vast and a clear sight of what affects the local populace, the country, and the society that faces the threat of extremism will help shape policy that addresses identified needs of security and safety. As long as the terrorists compromise the safety of civilian residents of a country, it does not matter what freedom they are fighting for, especially when their grievance has only indirect and distant relevance to the nation in which the terrorism act gets committed.