ABSTRACT
The definition and typology from Chapter 2 provide an essential starting point for understanding terrorism. There are other elements that can be common to various kinds of organizations that practice political violence, regardless of their religious, ethnic/national, or ideological orientation. The ends may be different, but frequently the means can be similarnot just with the initial decision to resort to the use of terrorism but in terms of the types of attacks that are undertaken and the broad strategies. Different groups can follow the same broad strategies. Groups can seek to intimidate target audiences. They can also follow strategies of attrition against a state, seek to provoke countermeasures, to spoil negotiations, or to seek to increase support at the expense of other competing groups (Kydd and Walter 2006: 51). Dissident organizations may be similar in the techniques they employ, the types of weapons that they use, and the targets that are selected. Local conditions and circumstances, however, are more likely to determine choices rather than the goals of the dissident group using violence. Available resources (financial and otherwise) may be more important in determining which weapons, tactics, or targets are preferred rather than the political goals of the organization. All of the selections ultimately are made from possibilities that almost any group with sufficient planning skills, funding, weapons, and personnel may attempt to undertake. Techniques will be discussed first. The weapons that can be used will be discussed next, including a consideration of the possibility of groups using weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs, chemical poisons, or biological agents. Clearly concerns about the possibilities for the use of these weapons in the twenty-first century have increased. Finally, the possible types of targets that can be chosen and which are chosen will be discussed. Included in this discussion will be a consideration of the possibility that democratic countries are more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than non-
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 1 2 3 24 5 6 7 8 9 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2 3 4 5
The same techniques are generally available to all dissident organizations, regardless of the type of government they are fighting or the political goals they seek. Of course, some techniques might be more effective against one government and less effective against another. A brutally repressive government may be less concerned about attacks on civilians than one that is trying to fairly represent its population. Personal attacks on individuals can take place with a variety of weapons, but the goal is to indicate to the public and to specific groups that are supporting the government that there is a level of vulnerability or risk present. These attacks do not need to involve sophisticated weapons; very simple weapons may suffice. In some cases the personal assault need not be deadly. The terrorist may only wound their chosen targets, as might occur with breaking bones or shooting people in the legs or kneecaps. Choosing to wound rather than kill targets demonstrates to the population at large that the dissidents are not out to kill people. Such attacks show that the terrorists could kill since it is more difficult to get close enough to successfully wound a target. The technique of wounding is thus a display of greater abilities and can demonstrate that the terrorist group has an even greater potential to disrupt the political life of the society than if it had simply killed an individual.
