The terrorist attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 clearly marks a qualitatively new level of sheer destructiveness. A distinct question, however, and possibly even more important in the long run, is whether that attack, and other recent terrorist attacks, represent a qualitatively new type of terrorism, in terms of who carries it out, for what motives, and with what objectives.
This question had already been considered by students of terrorism, who saw a new pattern emerging of deadlier attacks on behalf of vaguer causes (Lesser et al., 1999). In the wake of the September 11 attack, these ideas have been reported to a much wider public (e.g., Greenberg, 2001). The argument for regarding "new terrorism" as essentially distinct from "classical" terrorism is based on such factors as the terrorists' failure to claim responsibility for actions, or to associate them (and the threat of future actions) with specific demands that might plausibly be met.
In this model, a classical terrorist act might, for example, might be taking hostages and demanding the release of a prisoner, or killing a number of people, claiming responsibility, and threatening further actions if a particular policy (such as occupation of a territory) is not discontinued. Such classical terrorism is typically associated with a political resistance movement. Actions by the Provisional IRA, for example, fall into this category. In contrast, new terrorism makes no claims and issues no demands (or only very broad and general ones), but seems aimed instead at the general disruption of the target society. The sarin chemical attack on the Tokyo subway by the Aum Shinrikyo movement is characteristic of such new terrorism.
p2ln17--I. Definitions of Terrorism
Although the word terrorism is in common use, it has proven to be exceptionally difficult to define. The difficulty is both conceptual and political. We want a definition that fit...