Mutating Forms of Terrorism

The purpose of this research is to examine the concept and of modern-day terrorism as a manifestation of group-organization behavior. One must begin with a working definition of the term, as well as a conceptual structure and method for understanding terrorism as a product or feature of historical, social, religious, and political contexts. In that regard, White (2003) makes the point that in the modern age terrorism has "mutated" in meaning owing more or less to its sociology. A key feature of his discussion is that terrorism can be defined only with difficulty and only with reference to the historical context in which it is being articulated. That makes sense in light of traditional ideas of terrorism as "the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals to attain a political objective" ("Terrorism"). In recent years, media coverage and analytical literature on the subject demonstrates that such a definition does not capture the abundant evidence that, at a time when government policy has articulated a mission of eradicating terrorism from common contemporary experience, some individuals seem only too happy to embrace and adopt both the means and ends of terrorism. Importantly, such persons reject the option of seeking access to political change through political institutions and mechanisms. Instead, they appear to be intent on destroying such institutions to achieve media recogni

. . .
ell as the strength of a leader and/or ideology, will help that process along. Justification is essential, but it is not going to be coming from society. Only from the terrorist group does the terrorist obtain positive reinforcement for engaging in terrorist activity, which is why the terrorist needs to justify his actions if only to himself. The adoption of violence as a tactic comes when group members believe that the status quo is so intolerable that terrorist violence is acceptable. That is the "doctrine of necessity" (White, 2003, p. 25). White describes research into terrorist profiles. One theory cites three types: criminals, "crazies," and crusaders. The criminals tend to be vengeance-oriented, the mentally unbalanced are seeking a psychological payoff for terrorism, and the crusaders--the most usual terrorist type--are most likely to adopt the doctrine of necessity. Law-enforcement authorities tend to categorize terrorists in that way. One task of authorities is to identify which kind(s) are implicated in specific incidents. Why that is important can be discerned from White's discussion of the failure of the New York authorities to recognize that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was not an ordinary crime but a
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Source White, War II, Kenya Tanzania, Forms Terrorism, Syria Garamone, Egypt Shadid, Spanish Republicans, Vietnam War, Individual Behavior, Laden Adams's, white 2003, terrorist activity, white cites, warrior dreams, shadid 2001, doctrine necessity, internal discipline, conditions experience, terrorist violence, activity terrorist, potential terrorist violence,
source white, terrorist activity terrorist, source white 2003, world war ii,
Approximate Word count = 3519
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Mutating Forms of Terrorism