The Position Of Suicide Terrorism In Terrorism by:Violeta Matovic
The transformation of the very content of the concept of security
, whose formulation was based on the analysis of safety risks and forms of threats to security of the people, property and the state as a whole, began internationally after the end of the Cold War. The concept of security is becoming increasingly separated from the concept of military defense as an answer to aggression, while taking on the dominant characteristic of defense from all other forms of security threats. One of those forms of security threats, not only on a global, but on a national level as well, is known as terrorism.
Terrorism, although not having an universal, generally accepted definition, implies the use of violence or threat of using violence on civilian population, by a non-sovereign subject, aimed at the state, or several states, with the aim of achieving a political goal. Activities identified directly or indirectly as being terrorism are, at the dawn of the 21st century, threatening the security of more than half of all world nations. The most generalized classification of terrorist acts, regarding the use of force, defines two categories: non-violent and violent acts. This classification should be regarded broadly, since the two types of acts are intermingled on every level of the organizer's strategically-tactical plan. Non-violent acts group includes all acts with the aim of creating conditions for executing acts of violence, and improvement of effects thereof. This group includes intelligence gathering, propaganda, lobbying, logistics, gathering of financial means, etc. Violent acts group includes all acts with the aim of causing death and destruction. One type of violent acts is a suicide attack, wherein the attacker consciously sacrifices his/her life destroying the chosen target.
Suicide attacks, by way of their specific characteristics, have attained a special status in relation to all other types of terrorist attacks. Therefore, the term "suicide terrorism", as a separate category of terrorism, has entered everyday use in daily discourse and scientific analyzing. Incomplete data shows that the period from January 1993 till May 2006 saw 726 suicide attacks worldwide, with more than 11,000 killed and more than 25,000 wounded. Only in the period from July 2nd till September 30th, 2005, 73 suicide attacks were conducted, with 11.46 killed per attack.(1)
This practical, impasse situation demanded the swiftest possible discovery of signs to recognize in advance the person prepared to commit a suicide attack. The task was tackled by the scientific elite worldwide, especially scientists from Israel and Western nations, some contracted by the government, some on own initiative. Intense efforts to solve the task at hand, multiplied many times after the New York and Washington attacks on September 11th, 2001, were not fruitful. A significant addition to the knowledge was made, but profiling the suicide terrorist was discouraged by results of many scientific studies concluding that a person like that can come from a wide range of social-economic conditions.
The leaders, as very rational actors in terrorism, guide themselves with a certain political goal, and make strategies for achieving it. The strategy includes activities, ways of conducting activities, and resources enabling the achieving of the objective. According to the terrorist strategy, we must first define the position and the role of the suicide terrorism.
The previously mentioned, most general, classification of terrorism is used by most authors as the only classification. The acts are classified into two groups, violent and non-violent, and as we have mentioned before, suicide attacks belong to the first group. This classification is not at all satisfactory when determining the position and the role of suicide terrorism in terrorism. Robert Pape, professor at the University of Chicago, Department of Political Sciences, made a more specific classification. According to Pape, terrorism can be classified into: demonstrative, destructive and suicide terrorism.
"Demonstrative terrorism", Pape explains, "is directed mainly at gaining publicity, for any or all of three reasons: to recruit more activists, to gain attention to grievances from softliners on the other side, and to gain attention from third parties who might exert pressure on the other side. In these cases, terrorists often avoid doing serious harm so as not to undermine sympathy for the political cause. Destructive terrorists seek to inflict real harm on members of the target audience at the risk of losing sympathy for their cause. Suicide terrorism is the most aggressive form of terrorism, pursuing coercion even at the expense of losing support among the terrorists' own community. In practice, suicide terrorists often seek simply to kill the largest number of people. Maximizing the number of enemy killed, alienates those in the target audience who might be sympathetic to the terrorists cause, while the act of suicide creates a debate and often loss of support among moderate segments of the terrorists' community, even if also attracting support among radical elements." (2)
This classification was criticized by the Indian scientist R. Ramasubramanian, of the New Delhi Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, as not being clear enough. He argues that the "Suicide terrorism cannot be compared with demonstrative and destructive terrorism. It can be argued that the suicide terrorism is merely an instrument or modus operandi, compared to demonstrative or destructive terrorism, which are mostly objectives. Suicide terrorism as an instrument, seeks both objectives to some extent, often aiming at enemy targets and, in some cases, mobilizing support for the terrorists' cause."(3) As a proof for this, he mentions the 9/11 suicide attack which inflicted many civilian casualties, and whose main objective was considered to be demonstrating the vulnerability of the US to terrorists.
Terrorist organizations, by the nature of their position, confront a certain nation, and no matter what their strength might be, in military, economic and intelligence matters they are always in the inferior position compared to the other side. Even when there is a sponsorship from some state, there exists a hesitation to use the full extent of the power. The support of the sponsoring state must remain secret, or at least improvable, in face of the international community. Otherwise, it would not be terrorism, but aggression. On its way from starting the fight till victory, the objective of a terrorist organization is to focus the attention of the international community on its own problem, and ensure the support of its own as large a portion as possible. This cannot be achieved if the acts do not have the publicity, and therefore do not reach the third party, here having the most important role. To gain publicity, the terrorists must direct their strategy and tactics towards prioritized demonstrating. This can be a demonstration of own existence and activity proving that the problem and idea are alive, or still alive; or a demonstration of determination, power, devotion, etc. The terrorism itself is demonstrative, and its violent actions can be classified into:
1) Extortionist, non-lethal;
2) Extortionist-destructive, which can be murderous, and suicide-oriented; and
3) Destructive, which can be murderous, suicide-oriented and suicide.
Extortionist non-lethal terrorist actions were present at the onset of creation of what we today call modern terrorism. Since the international community was unaccustomed and oversensitized to using terrorism as a means of achieving objectives, terrorists feared that civilian bloodshed would do irreparable damage to their organization. Therefore they practiced actions without serious intent to cause death. Those actions included setting up false bombs in places important for the enemy, or false reports of bombs in airborne airplanes. By using the threat of activating the supposedly set up and effective bomb, they were trying to extort their objective from the enemy. The result was mainly a short-lived unrest, and such actions are seldom used today because of their ineffectiveness although they certainly exist as a category.
Extortionist-destructive actions manifest the intention of the terrorists to have their demands fulfilled, or have their target destroyed. Murderous actions are distinguished by the fact that the planned circumstances provide a considerable measure of safety for the perpetrators. Suicide-oriented actions contain the following plan: entering - executing the mission - exiting. Executing the mission and ensuring the organizer's safety is more important than the life of an individual perpetrator, and he/she enters the mission knowing that, ready for the great probability of not returning.
Destructive actions, besides spreading fear, do not include any other objective except the destroying of the chosen target. Murderous actions include destroying enemy objects and men by any means available. Suicide-oriented actions are aimed towards deep penetration and reaching vital enemy targets and obtaining maximum damage or destruction. Unlike these, suicide actions do not include the third part of the entering - executing the mission - exiting plan. The mission accomplishment is ensured by the perpetrator bringing the means of destruction to the right place and activating it at the moment he/she estimates it will achieve the largest possible degree of destruction. Considering that the right place and time are prerequisites for the success of the mission, life of the perpetrator is considered expendable. Therefore, in suicide-oriented actions life of the perpetrator is secondary, and in suicide actions it is expendable. The organization of the attack is built on those premises.
Murderous, suicide-oriented and suicide actions, besides being dissimilar in the tactical sense, also differ on the scale of hurting the opponent. In contemporary terrorist activity, the objective of the action and the corresponding way of perpetrating the attack often do not conform to this tactical classification. The reason for that is the extremely large psychological effect produced by the suicide attack (moral supremacy over the opponent, inducing fear in large numbers of people). Therefore, the suicide attack always has the vantage point in comparison to other means of achieving the same objective. As we can see, suicide attacks are just one of the ways to cause destruction.
The problem of defining suicide terrorism is analogue to the problem of defining terrorism. From a small number of broad definitions, we would like to select those that describe it most adequately. Rohan Gunaratna, expert on the problem of terrorism, states his definition of suicide terrorism as "readiness to sacrifice one's life in the process of destroying or attempting to destroy a target to advance a political goal - the aim of the psychologically and physically war-trained terrorist is to die while destroying the enemy target." (4) The first part of this definition, besides accentuating the organizational character, does not differentiate between suicide-oriented and suicide terrorism. The non-existence of this distinction is a weakness that disregards tactical-technical diversity, and differences in time, space, objective, and finally, psychological-motivational differences of perpetrators. All mentioned factors influence the understanding of the problem, and consequently, inadequate prevention and defense. The second part of the definition excludes a big percentage of perpetrators, which cannot be classified as psychologically and physically war-trained terrorists.
Yoram Schweitzer, a world-renowned expert on the problem of terrorism, states that the suicide terrorism is "a politically-motivated violent attack perpetrated by a self-conscious individual (or individuals) who actively and consciously causes his own death by blowing himself up along with the chosen target." (5) Schweitzer's definition concentrates on the individual, and like the one before, does not address the problem of differentiating between suicide-oriented and suicide actions. Moreover, this partiality is found in the means of the attack. By definition it has to be of such type that it "blows up" the individual and the target. Granted, most suicide actions are perpetrated using some sort of explosive, but in the theoretical sense other possibilities cannot be excluded.(6)
Suicide-oriented terrorism is a violent attack on a chosen target with a primary aim of extorting concession by the attacked side, or destruction, with the perpetrator having the intention and plans to survive; but if the attack gets interrupted or obstructed he can decide to destroy himself only, or himself and the target.
Suicide terrorism is an attack where the perpetrator causes death or largest possible degree of damage to the chosen target, ensuring the extent of that by non-existence of intent to survive the action. (7)
(1) The source: The National Counter Terrorism Committee, Beograd.
(2) Pape, R. (August 2003). The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No.3, pgs. 3-4.
(3) Ramasubramanian, R. (2004) Suicide Terrorism in Sri Lanka. New Delhi, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, pg. 3.
(4) Gunaratna, R. (2000). Suicide Terrorism: A Global Threat. Jane's Intelligence Review, October 20, 2000.
Available at: URL:
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/usscole/jir001020_1_n.shtml (5) Schweitzer, Y. (2000). Suicide Terrorism: Development and Characteristic. A lecture delivered in the International Conference on Countering Suicide Terrorism at International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), Herzeliya, Israel, Feb. 21, 2000.
(6) Hebrew terrorist Baruch Goldstein entered Ibrahim's mosque in Hebron on February 25, 1994 during the prayers and fired 119 gunshots into the people. 29 people got killed, and around 150 got wounded. After the initial shock, the first cool-headed men led the assembled people, beating the attacker to death. Available at: URL:
http://www.mm.cp.ba/printert123.htmlMuhammad Nidal, a member of Hammas Izzadin el-Kassam Brigade, entered the military academy in Israel and fired an AK-47 rifle for 22 minutes, throwing hand grenades as well. He killed 10, and wounded 23 Israeli military school ensigns. Israeli soldiers killed him on the spot. MEMRI TV Monitor Project, Clip No. 980, 21. 12. 2005.
The attackers knew they were going on a one-way trip. That kind of suicide attacks was used in the tactics of militant branch of the Ismaili - Hashshashin (Assassins) sect, acting from 1090 - 1272-5.
(7) Matovic, V. (2006). Samoubilacki terorizam: Kako se postaje ''mucenik'' (Suicide terrorism: How one becomes a "martyr"). Beograd, NKZBPT, 2006. pgs. 30-37.
The National Counter Terrorism Committee
http://www.n-c-t-c.comAbout the author
The Doctor Candidate, Violeta Matovic, is a Master of Science Security from University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies, where she also finished specialist studies of counter-terrorism. She is a graduate economist, and holds the position of the Director of The National Counter-Terrorism Committee since 2004. She is the author of the "Suicide Terrorism: How One Becomes a Martyr", a book published in Serbian language in 2006, Belgrade.
Will Climate Crush Society? by:Stephen Ewings Political Marketing, Meet Marketing 2.0 by:Susan Payton Facts About the Second Most Controversial Topic in America - The First Is Abortion by:Ed Bagley Al Qaeda: Hatred and "Wink and Nod" Protection by:James H. Hyde George W. Bush's Convenient Truth by:Walter M. Brasch 16 Winston Churchill Quotes to Celebrate His Birthday by:Noel Jameson The Unknow Facts About Global Warming by:James Heimler The Bitch Labours A Few Points! by:Michael Knell The Mike Huckabee Factor by:Tania Gabrielle Bali Bombings Cover-Up: New Documentary by:Glen Clancy Who Is Bob Miller? by:Nick Carter America: The Presidents, The Politics And The Wars by:Nick Carter Administrative Government Agencies by:Donald Yates