A Basic Study of Threat and Threat Groups

(Eifel Tower after the Paris Massacre. Courtesy of XtoF, Wikemedia Commons)

      Let me ask you this—do you know anything about the Abu Nidal Organization, the Black September, the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, and the Venezuelan-born Illich Ramirez Sanchez aka Carlos the Jackal? If you answered "Yes" to this question, I would think then that you are from the old generation.

            If you recalled the intermittent campaigns of terror in Europe and in the Middle East in the 1960s and the 1970s,  you would surely agree the al-Qaeda attacks in the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon Building were unprecedented in the annals of terrorism compared to the pre-9/11 era.  

            Now, if you answered "No" to the above question, I would assume that you are from the 1980s,  1990s or from the early 2000s. You—from the younger generations—who have a slightest idea about terrorism, have now become aware of the horrible consequences of ideological extremism gone berserk after  the Paris Massacre and the San Bernardino Carnage.

            In light of the recent terror activities in France and the United States, those who seek to understand the intricacies of threats and threat groups would find this topic informative because this article discusses the various types of terrorism.

            Terrorism is a relative term, as other people would say. We heard so much about the truism “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” People in the United States might condemn Usama bin-Laden as a terrorist, but to some people in the Muslim world, he was glorified like a hero ala Che Guevarra. (Regan 2005).

            Robert S. Barbers defined terrorism as a “cause, attempt, or threat of destruction of properties or death by showing terror to the public, disturbing peace and order internationally or domestically due to ideological, political, religious, ethnic or cultural belief.” (Barbers 2004).

            The Federal Bureau of Investigation defined terrorism as “a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals.” (Cooper 1995).

            Another definition of terrorism is “the use of covert violence by a group for political ends and is usually directed against a government, but is also used against other ethnic groups, classes or parties. The aims and objectives may vary from the redress of specific grievances to the overthrow of a government and the seizure of power, or to the liberation of a country from foreign rule.” (Lacquer 1977).

            The definitions of terrorism entail conceptual and syntactical. It is not surprising that alternative concepts with more positive connotations—guerrilla movements, underground movements, national liberation movements, commandos—are often used to describe and characterize the activities of terrorist organizations, thus establishing their activities on a more positive and legitimate foundations. (Ganor 2005).

             In the past decades, numerous terror groups came into existence to advance their struggle either for economic, political, or religious battles. Security experts have categorized these groups into six major types, namely: the nationalist-terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, left-wing terrorism, right-wing terrorism, anarchist-terrorism, and religious-terrorism. (CFR 2004).

1.      Nationalist-Terrorism is a “form of terrorism through, which participants attempt to form an independent state against what they consider an occupying, imperial, or otherwise illegitimate state.” (Wikepedia 2005). The nationalist-terrorists are individuals who resort to terrorism as a means of achieving independence from foreign control. These groups include the Basque Separatists-ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna), which fought for independence from Spain; the Irish Republican Army, which fought against the British rule; and the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, which wages war against the Turkish government.

2.   State-Sponsored-Terrorism refers to foreign government providing “supplies, training and other forms of support to non-state terrorist organizations. One of the most valuable types of this support is the provision of safe haven or physical basing for the terrorists' organization.” (Terrorism-Research 2005). The groups belonging to the state-sponsored terrorism are the Japanese Red Army, which was once financed by Libya; and the ANO, which was once bankrolled by Saddam Hussein before his defeat in Operation Iraqi Freedom. (U.S. Department of State 2004).

3.    Left-Wing Terrorism “seeks to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism or anarchism. Extreme cases of radical environmentalism verge on ecoterrorism, which is pushed primarily by left-wing radicals” (Wikepedia 2005). The BMG and the Brigada Rossi (Red Brigade) are examples of groups associated with left-wing terrorism. The Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army (CPP/NPA) falls under this category also and has been fighting for the eradication of the capitalist society of the Philippines since 1969.

4.     Right-Wing Terrorism, also called as neo-fascist terrorism, is known for their “reactionary violence to what is seen as perceived threats to a group's value system. Right-wing terrorist ideology tends to be a belief in a religious, political, or ethnonational superiority while often supporting the status quo” (Wikepedia 2005). The Ku Klux Klan, the South Africa’s Warriors of the Boer Nation, and Russia’s Skiff are groups that engage in right-wing terrorism.

5.    Anarchist-Terrorism has originated in the late 1800s, and through the years has developed into a different philosophical idea. Anarchism “in its most general meaning, is the belief that the rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. The word anarchy, as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a stateless society with voluntary social harmony” (Wikepedia 2005). Through the years, the real meaning of anarchist-terrorism has changed, and its definition evolved into something new that now carries a violent connotation. The present-time anarchists are identified with violent demonstrations and they have been constant protesters in the World Trade Organization meetings. Anarchists co-exist with eco-terrorists, and eco-terrorism is a neologism from anarchist-terrorism. Some  of the anarchist-inspired groups are the Animal Rights Militia and also  the Green Anarchists, which was formerly known as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). 

6.    Religious-Terrorists “use violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purpose.” (Wikepedia 2005). The Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo of Japan, the al-Qaeda (AQ) network and its affiliates, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the Abu Sayyaf Group, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are examples of organizations engage in religious-terrorism. The suicidal mindset of the religious-terrorists deepens the degree of concern of their existence because of their religious adherence to jihad (holy war). Their willingness to die for their cause make them dangerous as exemplified by the suicidal operations of al-Qaeda on 9/11 and of ISIS attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. The heavenly rewards—72 virgins and 80,000 servants—are incentives to the Islamist recruits to engage in martyrdom. (Warraq 2002).

            In recent years, there was a gradual and steady shift of mode of attacks from conventional to a more sophisticated form of terrorism using biological and chemical weapons. For instance, the religious-terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo used a chemical weapon-like Sarin (deadly nerve agent) and Botulin Toxin in the 1990s to spread terror in Japan. (Olson 1999). Security experts consider religious-terrorism as the most dangerous kind compared to the other types of terrorism because the religious members are the ones most likely to procure or develop weapons of mass destruction and use them in pursuit of their messianic or apocalyptic visions. (Hudson 1999). Associated Press reports indicated that ISIS has a branch dedicated to creating chemical weapons. (AP 2015).

            The modern day terrorists are no longer confined in one geographical area as exemplified by the operations of JI and AQ networks in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. (CFR 2004). Past terrorist events suggest that the AQ network is also active in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. For instance, The bombings in London on July 7, 2005, has confirmed the overseas infrastructure of AQ network in Europe, which was reported supervised by one Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, a British national of Syrian-descent. (Fielding and Walsh 2005). JI, AQ, and ISIS are transnational terrorists, which means, “involving or operating in several nations or nationalities.” (WordNet 2.0 2005).

            After the 9/11 attacks, the emergence of transnational-terrorists and the imminent danger they present to global security did not escape the attention of the United Nations (UN). On its proactive stance, the UN prodded its members under the UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1378 to work closely with one another in the global war on terror. The call to form security alliances was answered favorably by the democratic nations around the world as they looked up to the United States for leadership. 

Then and Now: The Goals and Objectives of Terrorism

(US Embassy building in Dar Es Salaam after the 1998 bombing. Courtesy of  WikimediaCommons.)

          After the Friday the 13th massacre in Paris, people wonder why certain extreme religious groups (or political groups) resort to violent acts and destroy properties in the pursuit of their goals and objectives. Only a handful of terrorists carried the attacks, but the carnage had resulted in the death of 130 innocent people. To understand why those committed individuals would carry such terroristic acts, the reader must understand what terrorism is all about. 

          Terrorism is a relative term as some people would say.  We heard so much about the truism “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”  People in the United States branded Usama bin-Laden as a terrorist, but those in the Muslim world regarded him as a hero ala Che Guevarra. (Regan 2005).

          There is no precise meaning of terrorism and political scientists define it in many forms, depending on what side of the political spectrum they belong. 

        However, terrorism—even if defined with a political slant or with a positive overture---has always resulted in the deaths of innocent people and the destruction of public and private properties.    

          Dr. James M. Smith, former Director of the United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), once said, “Terrorism is a physical attack intended to produce a psychological effect.”  (Smith 2003).  On the other hand, Gorski said, “Terrorism intends to cause a chronic state of psychological vulnerability and instability in the targeted population.  Death and destruction are merely a mean to achieve these ends.”  (Gorski 2002).

          By and large, terrorism is a form of psychological warfare that intends to diminish the will of the people and influence their collective frame of mind against the established government.

          Given the preceding, the terrorists seek to cause "political, social and economic disruption, and for this purpose frequently engage in planned or indiscriminate murder.”  (Lacquer 1977).

          A terrorist leader once said, "A terrorist is like a bee and the government is like a man;  when the bee keeps stinging his target on the various parts of his body, the man will attempt to slap the bee from every direction until he loses control of himself. "             

       In their fight, the terrorists want the democratic government to act recklessly to their bloody handiwork.  The goal is to pressure the government to impose draconian measures that would lead to the curtailment of civil liberties and constitutional rights of the people.  For example, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States government had enforced stringent controls in the airport and harbors in an attempt to ferret out suspected terrorists and to stop them from inflicting further damages to the homeland.  But then again, the 19 al-Qaeda members had different objective on their minds, which was to “use violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purpose.” (Wikepedia 2005).

            The imposition of rigid security measures and the limitation of movements in public places had received unfavorable response and condemnation from progressive groups.  For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union decried the post 9/11 security controls as “blatant discrimination and state-sanctioned bigotry to outright physical brutality,” which allegedly targeted the people of Arab-descent living in the United States.  (Porter 2002).  The terrorists' goal is to portray the United States government as helpless and incapable of protecting the security and well-being of its citizens. And by sowing terror and creating destruction, the terrorists hope to stir up the government to use unpopular extra-legal measures (e.g., martial law) and anticipate the citizenry to rise up.

          Augusto Angcanan Jr., a retired Filipino police general, suggests a positive way to deal with terrorism, and he shares his opinion in the following statement.  Angcanan said, “Terrorism is the means to an end, not an end in itself.  Let alone, terrorism can accomplish nothing in terms of political goals; it can only aim at obtaining a response that will achieve those goals for it.  Said another way, terrorist violence is aimed not so much on the target upon which the initial act is committed but to much wider audience who will view and interpret the act.  The success of terrorism is due in large part to the miscomprehension of the strategy by its opponents, which is a failure to focus on the critical issue of how to respond properly to provocations and threats.  Brutality and repression are induced responses that will alienate the government from the masses, thus set the stage for revolution.  In dealing with the problem of terrorism, paramount is the rule of law and our respect for human rights.”  (Angcanan 2005).                

         Terrorists do not place a demarcation line between themselves and their targets because they consider everyone and anything as front-line targets.  There are no women, children, and old folks in their psychotic eyes.  Buildings and structures--whether private or public-- are not exempt for destruction if it would advance their struggle.  In this regard, they would kill and destroy in an indiscriminate fashion and in vicious disregard of human lives and properties.  Terrorists sow terror acts in the hearts and minds of the people as means to advance their ultimate cause whether for political, religious, or economic reasons.  

          From the 1960s up to the 1980s, the struggle for worldwide revolution and transformation of social order were the dominant themes of the decades.  The battle was between Capitalism and Communism. It was the United States of America versus the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.  The fight was against two competing political ideologies.  It was also a war of attrition between the State of Israel and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization.

          For three decades, some communist-leaning groups and PLO factions came into existence, and the rest was history.  Each group had its own objectives yet had similarity in its protracted war against the United States and the free world—the use of terrorism as a form of weapon to fight its target-government enemies. Groups like the Black September, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Baader-Meinhoff, and Brigada Rossi made their political statements through assassinations, bombings, hijackings, and kidnappings.  Their ilks come and go, but history shows these terror groups hardly ever grab hold of power and always fail to accomplish their ultimate aspiration.  (Lacquer 1977).   

          After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the battle had shifted from political to religious issues with the creation of transnational religious terror groups like al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, and the recent Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  It appears the definitions above of terrorism no longer apply to these current crops of terrorist groups. Or are they still?  
          The communist leaning groups fought for political and societal causes and not for a religious war like what the world is facing right now.  The old-era terrorists killed their targets, not themselves. Now, the modern terrorists not only kill innocent people but also themselves. Strapping their bodies with bombs and blowing up themselves in public are now common occurrence whether in the urban areas like Paris or in the rural spots like Kabul.

          The terrorists of the past always bargained with the Western governments to achieve their goals and to raise global awareness to their cause (e.g., PFLP clamoring for a Palestinian state).  This isn’t true with the  current terror groups nowadays. ISIS didn't bargain with the United States when it beheaded the American journalist Steven Sotloff, and neither talked with the United Kingdom when it killed British aid worker David Haines.  Boko Haram members kidnapped hundreds of girls and they too didn’t negotiate with the Nigerian government. Instead, the group killed their victims unmercifully.  The Taliban didn't seek a trade with the Pakistani government when it killed 132 people in Peshawar.

          The genocides of Christians in Iraq and Syria by ISIS are testaments that the goals and objectives of terrorism have clearly changed.  Today, all the Islamist-terrorists wanted is to kill infidels and demolish all landmarks that symbolize Christianity and Western civilization. And asking the American government and the European Union for concessions or telling the free world to capitulate to their demands is not their game anymore.

          To know the current crop of Islamist-terrorists better is to understand the pronouncement of Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah Leader, when he said: “We are not fighting so the enemy will offer us something.  We are fighting to wipe out the enemy."  sDg.