A History of Terrorism

241 Pages·2001·12.15 MB·English

by  Walter Laqueur

./i 02 rv o Q LI g):2D
,-J2_t c2:3 3 ~ )-l(
Ma~EON
Con

2,IBLIOTECA
28 DC iZ£:i)S
__I I _ .._~_ ....' ..-.--....­
N.- ,<3/ C;-2,5'
Introdu
Introdu
Third printing 2002
New material this edition copyright © 2001 by Transaction Publishers, New 1 The OJ:
Brunswick, New Jersey. Originally published in 1977 by Little, Brown & Co. 2 The PI:
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. 3 The Sc
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
4 Interpi
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any informa­
tion storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the pub­ 5 Terror
lisher:All inquiries should be addressed to Transaction Publishers, Rutgers-The Conelu
State University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903.
Notes
This book is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standard
Abbre..
for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.
Bibliog
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2001027546
Index
ISBN: 0-7658-0799-8 .
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Laqueur, Walter, 1921­
A history of terrorism I Walter Laqueur ; with a new introduction by the author.
p. em.

Originally published: New York: Little, Brown, 1997.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-7658-0799-8 (alk. paper)

I. Terrorism-History. 2. Terrorism. 3. Title.
HV6431 .L348 2001
303. 6'25'09-dc21 2001027546
Contents

Introduction to the Transaction Edition
VII

Introductory Note
XV

N"ew 1 The Origins 3

2 The Philosophy of the Bomb 21

ions. 3 The Sociology of Terrorism 79

any
4 Interpretations ofTerrorism 133

rma­
pub­ 5 Terrorism Today 175

-The Conclusion
215

Notes
235

dard
Abbreviations
253

Bibliography
257

Index
265

ltbor.
7546
Introduction to the Transaction Edition
The history of terrorism goes back a very long time, but the very fact
that there is such a history, has frequently been ignored or even alto­
gether suppressed. This has to do mainly with the fact that terrorism
did not appear at all times with equal intensity, there were periods
relatively free of it. As a result, when it reappeared after a period of
relative calm there was the tendency to regard it as a new phenomenon,
without precedent. Perhaps there was also an inclination to regard its
history (if it had one) as of relatively little importance compared with
the story of its current sociological background. The psychological
study of terrorism was never much in fashion, certainly not in twenti­
eth century, when it was frowned upon, partly because of political
correctness (the idea that some groups of people could be more aggres­
sive than others was thought to be not just misguided but abhorrent).
But this left a number of crucial questions open: why among people
sharing the same convictions did some turn to terrorism whereas others
did not? There were also, admittedly, certain objective obstacles that
made such psychological studies on a broad basis very difficult indeed.
The present work appeared first in 1977 and, together with its com­
panion volume, Guerrilla (now Guerrilla Waifare), it was translated
into seven languages and became a standard text. I tried to show that
the study of the history of terrorism was not an idle pursuit but helped
to shed some light on certain problems such as the conditions under
which terrorism tended to occur and the circumstances in which it pros­
pered or failed. The study of the history of terrorism is not a magic
viii TERRORISM
wand, a key to all the mysteries of contemporary terrorism, but, in the
the fasbiol
absence of other satisfactory explanations, it did provide some useful
rilla and.
insights.
an equival
The book was also among the first to show that there has been a
fair to all ]
tradition of terrorist doctrine, at the latest since the early nineteenth
dom of.
century. Students of terrorism were familiar with Bakunin and Nechaev,
fighter, tel
but the writings of Karl Heinzen and Johann Most (both German by
"terrorist"
origin, both immigrants to the Untied States) had been forgotten, even
the image
though their teachings anticipated, in many ways, the fashionable ter­
preference
rorist thinkers of the 1960s such as Frantz Fanon, Marighela, or Regis
eoces betw
Debray.
used both ,
The history of terrorism does not offer clear-cut lessons simply be­
clearly reo
cause conditions varied so much from age to age and from country to
some of.
country. But certain patterns clearly emerged, among them the fact
their conde
that terrorism, throughout history, has seldom been politically effec­
grave ofth
tive, that it frequently brought about the opposite of what it wanted to
WhatI 11
achieve (that is to say, greater repression rather than liberation), that
the time; i=
Marxism had been more right than wrong in its assumption that mass
taken place
action was more likely to succeed than the exploits of a few, however
which mon
desperate or courageous.
The Mis
Such findings were not universally welcomed at the time and some
were found
of the objections deserve to be recalled even a quarter of a century
predominaJI
later. Some were opposed to the very idea of studying the history of
lbat COIDDII
terrorism (from below), for was it not true that many more people had
produce the
been killed, more cruelty committed, and more damage caused by ter­
sympathetil
rorist actions committed by governments in peace and particularly in
circles lbat
time of war? This attempt to obliterate the dividing lines between vari­
cia) or natia
ous kinds of violence, or at least to belittle their importance, caused
hence the 0
nothing but confusion and mischief. That dictatorial governments had
ism would
caused the death of more people than terrorists was undisputed simply
tionary pba
because government possessed infinitely more means of coercion and
beings and
destruction. But what is to be gained by more or less equating (to give
standing.
but one example) the Nazi extermination of the Jews with the activities
It goes 111
of the Russian terrorists of the nineteenth century?
history pun
Such obfuscation was not limited to concerned political scientists; it
torical persg
was perhaps even more widespread among the media and the present
past than iD
book, hard as it tried, was not very successful in its battle against the
peared not
indiscriminate use of labels, deliberate or out of ignorance. It has been
under condi:
INTRODUCTION TO THE TRANSACTION EDITION ix
It, in the
the fashion among the media for a long time to regard the terms guer­
e useful
rilla and terrorist as synonyms, or to use the term "urban guerrilla" as
an equivalent for terrorism. The media tried to show that they were
; been a
fair to all parties concerned and since, according to the common wis­
neteenth
dom of the time, one man's terrorist was another person's freedom
ilechaev,
fighter, terms had to be chosen that were not offensive to any side;
rman by
"terrorist" was a loaded term and had negative implications, whereas
en, even
the image of a "guerrilla" was more positive and was therefore given
able ter­
preference. As I tried to show in this book, there were crucial differ­
or Regis
ences between the two even though some extreme movements have
used both guerrilla and terrorist tactics. These differences were more
nply be­
clearly recognized by the terrorists themselves than by the media and
iuntry to some of the political scientists. Guevara and Debray were scathing in
the fact
their condemnation of "urban" terrorism which, they argued was the
ly effec­
grave of the revolutionary movement.
ranted to
What I wrote about these profound differences was certainly true at
on), that
the time; it is less true today with the important changes that have
hat mass
taken place in the character of terrorism during the last decade about
however
which more will be said presently.
The misunderstandings about the nature of terrorism in the 1970s
IDd some
were founded, in part, on political reasons. At the time, terrorism was :
l century predominantly left wing in inspiration and it did not come as a surprise
ustory of that commentators belonging to the same political persuasion would
.ople had
produce theoretical explanations which were, at the very least, not un­
:d by ter­
sympathetic as far as terrorists were concerned. It was argued in these
:ularly in
circles that terrorism always occurred where there was oppression, so­
een vari­
cial or national, that the terrorists had genuine, legitimate grievances­
e, caused
hence the conclusion that once the grievances were eradicated, terror­
tents had
ism would also disappear. Terrorism, in brief, was seen as a revolu­
:d simply
tionary phenomenon; it was carried out by poor and desperate human
rcion and beings and had, therefore, to be confronted with sympathetic under­
~ (to give standing.
activities
It goes without saying that there have been terrorist movements in
eenrury?
history pursuing liberation from tyrannical regimes, but seen in his­
entists: it
torical perspective these groups have been less prominent in the recent
e present
past than in earlier periods. Terrorism, more frequently than not, ap­
~ainst the peared not under the most oppressive regimes but, on the contrary,
has been
under conditions of relative freedom. History shows, furthermore, that
,

x TERRORISM
terrorism was by no means the exclusive domain of the revolutionary
BIDY.....
left and that it had been exercised at least as often by the extreme right, ....rdip.
fascist, or proto-fascist movements. In fact, the predominantly left­ mri.sm bcea­
wing terrorism of the 1970s was replaced by a terrorism that had noth­ SuudlnstJu
ing whatsoever in common with the traditional ideals of the left and similar'? W.
this put the theorists of the time in an embarrassing situation. They its sources r
could hardly argue any longer that one person's terrorist was another's fringes of a!
freedom fighter and that the demands of the neo-fascists were legiti­ Judaism, 3D
mate ("remove the third world immigrants and you will remove terror­ groups (fro
ism"). among othc
It took a decade or even longer to be generally accepted that slogans detected? '\i
and revolutionary phraseology could not be taken at face value, not in ism which;
Europe and America and even less so in the third world. As late as ever before
1998, a German author published a psychological study of terrorism Writing :;
that was entirely based on interviews with left-wing terrorists, even to escape tt:
though such people were exceedingly rare at the time. But such ignor­ the noise it
ing of obvious realities was no longer as typical as it had been twenty even thougl
years earlier. By and large, silence fell in the field of terrorism theory to a large e::
building where once there had been great activity, enthusiasm, prom­ by Deed" h
ise, and expectations. It was gradually accepted that it had been pro­ also clear, I
foundly mistaken to base far-reaching generalizations on fleeting phe­ was likely I
nomenon such as the Baader Meinhof group, the Italian Red Brigades, edented des
and their comrades in arms in some other countries. The mistakes went This idea b;
beyond the issue of political identification; there had been a failure to and, as so 0­
understand that, in view of the great differences between conditions it took perb
and traditions from country to country, theory construction about cau­ This refe
sation and etiology was a futile enterprise. It had no practical impact chemical, t:
on policy, it was ignored in the academic world and as a result it faded cyberterrori
away. amount of c
Looking back from the vantage point of the year 2000 on the terror­ fects such a
ist experience of several decades, it became obvious that the terrorist only their d
groups that endured were nationalist and religious fanatical in charac­ This coin
ter and that the use of categories like "left wing" or right wing" or to be sure, i
"revolutionary" to explain them did nothing to help an understanding tory have St
of their motives. Quite often this was the terrorism of ethnic minori­ curred towa
ties, but almost equally often it was terrorism of one minority against sons, but it .
another (as in the former Yugoslavia), or of the majority against a (often sectai
minority living in its midst (as, for instance, in Egypt). This raised ism in vario
INTRODUCTION TO THE TRANSACTION EDITION xi
oary many important questions concerning the sources of fanaticism, ethnic
ight, and religious,(and the mixture of the two), why, for instance, had ter­
left­ rorism been far more rampant in a country like Sri Lanka than in other
IOth­ Southeast Asian countries confronted by ethnic problems that were quite
: and similar? Was suicide terrorism mainly a religious phenomenon or were
fhey its sources more complex? Religion-inspired terrorism appeared on the
her's fringes of all major (and some minor) religions including Christianity,
sgiti­ Judaism, and even Buddhism, but it was more frequent among Islamic
:rror- groups (from the Philippines to Central Asia and West Africa) than
among other religions; was this mere accident or could a pattern be
'gans detected? What was the role (and the future) of state-sponsored terror­
lot in ism which assumed a more important role in the 1980s and 90s than
te as ever before?
srisrn Writing about terrorism for more than twenty years, it was difficult
even to escape the conclusion that, by and large, terrorism was futile, that
gnor­ the noise it created was in inverse ratio to the political effect it had,
renty even though it was, of course, understood, that terrorism was always,
seory to a large extent, about public relations and propaganda ("Propaganda
rom- by Deed" had been the slogan in the nineteenth century). But it was
pro­ also clear, even twenty years ago, that the time might come (indeed
phe­ was likely to come) when technological progress would put unprec­
ades, edented destructive power into the hands of a small group of people.
went This idea had occurred to writers of science fiction much earlier on,
Ire to and, as so often, the fantasies of SF eventually came true, even though
llions it took perhaps a little longer than originally anticipated.
.cau­ This refers to the weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological,
npact chemical, but also to the vulnerability of contemporary society to
faded cyberterrorism. And it concerns not just the number of victims and the
amount of damage likely to be caused but also the psychological ef­
error­ fects such as panic that might ensue once the new weapons, or even
rorist only their threat, come into play.
arac­ This coincides with a world-wide upsurge in fanaticism. Fanaticism,
g" or to be sure, is not exactly a new phenomenon; moderate people in his­
iding tory have seldom, if ever, opted for terrorism. The upsurge that oc­
.oori­ curred towards the end of the twentieth century had a variety of rea­
rainst sons, but it was, above all, connected to the impact of radical religion
ost a (often sectarian in character) and a growth in the intensity of national­
aised ism in various parts of the world. If the revolver and the invention of
xii TERRORISM
dynamite had been, as the nineteenth-century terrorists had seen it, the Enlightenn:
great equalizers, enabling them to challenge the powers that be, the
specific rill
new weapons of the late twentieth century offered the prospect to small
gers, one a
groups of people (or even individuals) of avenging themselves and
rilla and te
causing havoc among their enemies.
The charac
But would not the very destructiveness of these weapons inhibit ter­
the mystic:
rorists from using them, for there was always the likelihood that they
outside the
would not just kill their enemies but also their friends, and probably
tance.
more of the latter than the former? But such an idea was based on the What ba
assumption that terrorism had a rational kernel, that it pursued certain
extent to tb
distinct political aims. This had been true in the past and why should it
ously diffic
not be true in future? But such assumptions ignored the fact that the
enon. This
smaller the group of terrorists the less rational it was likely to be, and
between all
that destruction, per se, could well be the target of individuals con­ be. These c
vinced that not only the society surrounding them was sinful but that ics sucb as.
the world at large was not worth surviving and that a few chosen indi­
cyber-attac
viduals had the holy duty to speed up its destruction.
vidual mot
At the present time, we witness merely the dawn of this new era.
unsatisfacn
Apart from a few amateurish attempts, we have not yet seen deter­
demarcatio
mined attempts to engage in terrorism using weapons of mass destruc­
the growio
tion.
come toenc
It might take longer than some have feared for this new trend to
be replaces
unfold, and it is more than likely that, out of ten such attempts that
reason is d
will be made, nine will miserably fail. But given the magnitude of the
replace it.
dangers, even the prospect that only one out of many such attacks will
succeed is a daunting one and should be taken very seriously indeed.
All this does not mean that in the years and decades to come all
terrorism will go nuclear or biological, the great majority probably
will not. Nationalist/separatist terrorism is likely to continue and so
will the paranoid terrorism of the extreme right. The terrorism of the
far left may get a new lease on life by adopting relatively new causes
such as the fight against globalism or for animal liberation.
The terms we have been using to describe these phenomena have
become more outdated and indeed misleading every year. "Right wing,"
in traditional parlance, signifies the preservation of the existing order
and the traditional values of society, whereas the new breed in America
and elsewhere has striven, on the contrary, to destroy them. "Left wing"
has been attached to the party of revolution but also to the ideas of the
_._-­
INTRODUCTION TO THE TRANSACTION EDITION xiii
l it. the Enlightenment. But it would be exceedingly difficult to point to any
:Je,the specific right- or left-wing elements in the thinking of the Tamil Ti­
»small gers, one of the most successful violent movements using both guer­
es and rilla and terrorist tactics, and the same is true for virtually all others.
The characteristic features of these groups are their fanaticism, often
bit ter­ the mystical element in their thinking, their ideological orientation
at they outside the religious or nationalist kernel is not of decisive impor­
obably tance.
on the What has been said about "left" and "right" is also true to a large
certain extent to the term "terrorism." Even though terrorism has been notori­
lOuld it ously difficult to define, it was until fairly recently a distinct phenom­
bat the enon. This is less and less the case as time passes and the borderline
i»e, and between all kinds acts of violence becomes far less clear than it used to
Is con­ be. These days the journals on terrorist studies are likely to cover top­
lOt that ics such as the smuggling of nuclear materials, of narco terrorism, of
:0 indi­ cyber-attacks, of millenarian inspiration, and, last but not least, indi­
vidual motivation rather than ideological purpose. All of this is very
~w era. unsatisfactory for orderly people eager to have clear definitions and
I deter­ demarcations as in some of the natural sciences, but it merely reflects
estruc­ the growing disorder in a disorderly world. The term terrorism has
come to encompass such wide varieties of violent activities that it should
rend to be replaced by another term. If this has not happened yet, the only
[)ls that reason is that no one so far has provided a better term, or terms, to
~ of the replace it.
:ks will
adeed. Washington June 2001.
»me all
nbably
and so
l of the
causes
ta have
wing,"
g order
.merica
t wing"
s of the