ABSTRACT
The surge in interest in the notion of terrorism in academic and popular debate in the post-9/11 era has, as we have indicated in the introduction, enabled the term to gain wide currency as a way of describing all manner of primarily non-state threats. We suggested that the use of terrorism in a broad and allembracing manner to delineate certain kinds of actors gives rise to the idea that terrorism is itself an existential phenomenon and contributes to the disputatious nature and definitional confusion that surrounds most discussion of the subject. Popular imagery of terrorism means that many associate it with a particular form of violent insurgent activity, usually signifying indiscriminate acts of violence against civilians. We would maintain that terrorism does not, ipso facto, delineate any precise modus operandi (such as random bombings or shootings) or particular kinds of political actors (like non-state, religious, revolutionary or ethno-nationalist groups), but should more properly be regarded as a strategy or set of tactics: a means of achieving political ends, irrespective of the morality of the cause for which it is employed or the specific operations mounted.
