ABSTRACT
Some individual authorities spelled out the substance of the same word in various other ways. For instance, Crenshaw indicated that terrorism was the result of both emotional pressures and strategic choice considerations.6 Post suggested the notion of "terrorist psycho-logic" espousing that political terrorists commit violence in consequence of psychological forces. 7 Pearlstein maintained that terrorists were characterized by narcissistic personality trait disturbances traceable to childhood selfimage injuries.8 Weinberg, who introduced the role of projecti ve identification and developed the function of the defence mechanism of splitting in the paradoxical terrorist personality, underlined that terrorists with personality trait disorders would not necessarily exhibit striking psychopathology. 9
One needs to be distrustful of sweeping generalizations. For instance, the U.N. Resolution which refers to colonialism, racism and situations involving human rights is a simplistic supposition. Terrorism occurs in democracies perhaps more than in authoritarian regimes. It is discernible in homogeneous as well as in heterogeneous societies. It may grow on the basis of historical grievances or blossom on account of economic and political failures. Even economic prosperity, as in Germany, may lead to its burgeoning. Compromise on the part of the ruling government or even yielding to some demands of the terrorists, as in post-Franco Spain (1975), may not assure the finale of the fury. As Laqueur expresses categorically, terrorism can be best overpowered in root-and-branch totalitarian states which do not permit any discordance. lO
Although it is clearly difficult to use the term accurately, at least in a legal sense, the man in the street has an image in his mind. For an average person, terrorism implies a defiance of law, a violent conduct against an individual or a group of people or the representatives of an authority, planned to intimidate or coerce the latter to meet the demands underlying the terrorist act. It is violence against civilian targets and others by clandestine or at times by state-inflicted (although not necessarily state-tolerated) groups with the intention of inducing shock. On the other hand, the sprinkling of bullets from the gun of an insane person, a hunger strike, sporadic mob violence or clandestine political opposition, each discomforting to the government and some even criminal in legal terms, are not acts of terrorism. Not all forms of violence, however, are easily distinguishable from terrorism. While it is generally believed that assassins act alone but terrorists operate in teams, the murderers of Anwar-al Sadat and Indira Gandhi were acting on behalf of political groups. Although it is widely assumed that terrorists function in urban areas, some Latin American groups and the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) have been active in rural regions as well. Describing targeting non-combatants as part of terrorism, some specialists characterized it as wanton attacks on innocent citizens. While those who occupy a building with diplomatic immunity may take anyone who may be there as hostage, the assassinations of Sadat and Indira were the result of carefully selected targets.
