Thursday, October 8, 2009

Mauricio Garcés


Amante de los juegos de azar. Hombre que supo aprovechar la oportunidad de convertirse en todo un playboy del séptimo arte. Personaje que solía decirle a las mujeres: "Te voy a hacer pedazos", Mauricio Garcés se convirtió en un icono de las féminas, aunque para él solamente existió una: su madre.

En entrevista con La Jornada, su hermano el fotógrafo Edmundo Féres Yázbek y, su primo, el actor Víctor Grayeb, consideran que el encanto de Mauricio Garcés, a quien también llamaban el zorro plateado, “radicaba en lo desvergonzado que era, no había diferencia entre la persona y el personaje, siempre era el mismo. Es el único ídolo mexicano que ha trascendido sin haber sido cantante; está a la altura de Pedro Infante, Jorge Negrete o Tin Tan. Sus películas se siguen trasmitiendo en la televisión con rating impresionante y los jóvenes lo han revalorado”.

Mauricio Féres Yázbek nació el 16 de diciembre de 1926 en Tampico, Tamaulipas, fue el galán seductor, maduro y sofisticado de alta sociedad; de estilo inigualable y que hizo popular las frases «Las traigo muertas...», «¡Arrrroz!» y «Debe ser horrible tenerme y después perderme...».




Inicialmente su carrera estaba enfocada al género dramático y de suspenso, interpretando versiones serias de galanes en películas como La estrella vacía o series de televisión tales como Gutierritos y tuvo su propia serie de televisión Cita Ponds. Asimismo, hizo teatro en obras como Vidas privadas, No me manden flores y Vidita negra (que posteriormente filmaría en película), La Luna azul y otras más.
La versión cómica del personaje de galán otoñal, elegante y mundano que lo hiciese tan famoso fue desarrollándose a lo largo de estas etapas de su carrera al ir interpretando en varias ocasiones papeles similares en películas cuya temática se iba haciendo cada vez más ligera y cómica. Este personaje finalmente queda plenamente desarrollado en Don Juan 67. Para este film la productora Angélica Ortiz (madre de la actriz Angélica María), contrató a Mauricio para interpretar el papel estelar en 1966. Don Juan 67 fue la primera de una serie de comedias fílmicas en las que interpretó a su alter-ego Mauricio Galán al lado de las más bellas actrices de la época como Maura Monti , Silvia Pinal , Zulma Faiad , Elsa Aguirre , Rossy Mendoza , Nora Larraga "Karla" , Amedeé Chabott , Irlanda Mora , Barbara Angely , Marcela López Rey , Isela Vega entre otras. El matrimonio es como el demonio (1967), Click, fotógrafo de modelos (1968), El criado malcriado (1968), Departamento de soltero (1969), Fray Don Juan (1969) y Modisto de señoras (1969) son algunos de los títulos más populares de la extensa filmografía del "zorro plateado". A principios de los 70s incursiona en la televisión en el programa La Hora De Mauricio Garces (1970) acompanado de los excelentes actores Enrique Rambal , Rafael Banquells , Emílio Brillas y Mónica Serna ,quien estelarizo a su lado en teatro la obra No Me manden Flores, un gran éxito de la época y al año siguiente en canal 8,estelariza el programa Los Solteros al lado de Jóse Galvez. En 1972,decide dejar el cine por no encontrar libretos para todos los publicos,siendo esto algo que el manejaba a la perfección,la picardía pero a la vez filmes que todos podían ver,no como el don juan,pero si en un papel cómico estelarizó en 1978 la película No Tiene La Culpa El Indio al lado de Chucho Salinas y Yolanda Liévana ese año también estelariza en teatro la obra Hola Charly al lado de Claudia Islas y en 1980 retorna al personaje del don juan con la cinta El Satiro al lado de Alberto Rojas el caballo y Patricia Rivera. En 1980 también empieza una mancuerna exitosa a lado de Manuel (El Loco) Valdés en el programa El Show del Loco Valdés y al año siguiente relevan a Verónica Castro en la conducción del programa Noche A Noche Todavía en sus últimos años hizo esporádicas apariciones en programas televisivos y anuncios comerciales. En la última década de su vida, su salud se ve afectada por su adicción al tabaco muriendo de enfisema pulmonar en 1989.


Aproximarse a sus cintas es también acercarse a un glamour que ya no existe, una época de un encanto irreversible (incluso en su ingenuidad en el tópico de lo sexual). Si los que son fanáticos de la cintas de Woody Allen lo saben todo acerca del amor, las películas del llamado zorro plateado son irrebatibles cátedras del más divertido cinismo y desvergonzado machismo con el ingenio verbal de Garcés ("mira lo que te encontraste sin escarbar, ¡suertudota!" o la conocidísima "¡arroooz!"), además de, por su puesto, lecciones inmortalizadas sobre cómo dejar semidesnuda a una mujer en menos de diez segundos -sin ninguna clase de titubeos- a les mamacits más libres de artificios físicos que jamás existieron.
Por lo pronto quedan sus películas. Y si hubiera oportunidad de preguntar a Mauricio Garcés si se encuentra sorprendido por la devoción que existe hacia su personaje, lo más seguro es que no le provocaría ninguna sorpresa. Sabio, como todo buen zorro, Garcés ya lo había dicho muy bien hace años: "debe ser terrible tenerme y después perderme".

Fannie Kauffman "Vitola"


Fannie Kauffman nació en Toronto, Canadá el 11 de Abril de 1927, pero por casualidades del destino su familia emigraría a Cuba apenas con 10 meses de nacida, a los ocho años de su propia voz anunció que le llamó la atención la artisteada, su mayor ilusión era ser cantante de ópera y comenzó cantando opereta, pero por su figura y las gesticulaciones que hacía al cantar provocaba carcajadas en la gente, ella se moría porque en verdad no le gustaba esa reacción, a los once años empezó a estudiar actuación, y dejo el canto y el baile.

Hubo una vez un concurso de radio en Cuba, al que gracias a sus padres ella pudo participar y lo gano, en el programa había dos grandes cómicos cubanos, Agapito y Timoteo y el maestro Abel Barrios, ella eligió su mote, "Vitola" de la marca de unos puros muy finos y que hacía alusión a su delgadez cual si fuera un puro.

Cuando cumplió 21 años, cual edad del destino, probó fortuna en la ciudad de México, D.F. el año 1943, allí debutó en el teatro Arbéu, debido a su capacidad y al talento y carisma que la dotaba fue llamada para participar en la película "Se acabaron las mujeres" de Ramon Peon, pero sería su interpretación de la Nena en "El Rey del Barrio" que abriría la puerta para proyectos en nuestro cine mexicano para nuestra querida Vitola.

En una entrevista realizada por "El Universal" en el 2007, se redacta como fue su inicio con Tin Tan:

Al poco tiempo de su llegada a la ciudad de México, Fanny cumplió los 23 años de edad. Un buen día, Tin Tan fue a verla al Arbéu. Había entrado al Arbéu de incognito y de inmediato pidió que le ofrecieran un contrato para filmar con él, Vitola:"¡ah, cómo recuerdo aquel momento en que me propusieron trabajar en El rey del barrio! Fue la primera película que Tin Tan y yo hicimos juntos ¡ y pensar que se volvió filme clásico del cine mexicano!". Casi desde un principio Germán Valdés y Fanny Kauffman hicieron clic, se convirtieron en pareja perfecta, permitiendo con ello filmar juntos un gran número de películas, "nuestra amistad fue mucho muy grande. Era muy lindo, pero no sólo conmigo, con todo el mundo. Un gran compañero como no ha habido otro, créanmelo. También recuerda mucho a Adalberto Martínez Resortes y a Pedro Infante con quien filmó También de dolor se canta, ambos, dice, "fueron unos compañerazos, inolvidables". La actriz siente nostalgia de aquel tiempo que le tocó vivir, "y de todos los productores, camarógrafos, directores y desde luego de mis compañeros actores. "Vivíamos como en otro mundo a no ser que yo venga de otro mundo por eso veo hoy las cosas tan distintas. Todo muy revuelto, complejo. Está para llorar".

El Santo El Enmascarado de Plata


Para muchos un ídolo del cuadrilatero, para otros una superestrella, para unos mas todo un personaje de la cultura mexicana, pero la verdad es que "El Santo", alusion al adjetivo de gracia y cualidades divinas, le quedo como anillo al dedo a este personaje que siempre fue un divino misterio, los que lo conocían sabian que no era alcoholico, era muy respetuoso con las mujeres, caballero y además gladiador a favor del bien, todos recordaremos al ídolo de la generacion de los nacidos entre 1950 y 1960, SANTO!.

Rodolfo Guzman "El Santo" nació en Tulancingo, Hidalgo, El 23 de Septiembre de 1917, fue el quinto de siete hijos. Rodolfo llegó a la Ciudad de México en los años 1920, cuando su familia se asentó en el barrio de Tepito. En un inicio practicó Béisbol y fútbol americano, pero después se interesó por la lucha. Aprendió Jūjitsu y luego lucha grecorromana; no se ha establecido cuándo comenzó exactamente su carrera de lucha como competidor, ya sea que fuese en la Arena Peralvillo Cozumel el 28 de abril de 1934 (usando su verdadero nombre), o en el Deportivo Islas, en la colonia Guerrero de la ciudad de México en 1935. Pero durante la segunda mitad de la década de 1930 se estableció como un luchador, usando los nombres de: Rudy Guzmán, El Hombre Rojo, El enmascarado,el incògnito, El Demonio Negro, El Murciélago II. Este último nombre fue una copia de otro famoso luchador de esa época, y después de un reclamo por el nombre por parte del Murciélago original, Jesús Velásquez, la Comisión Mexicana de Boxeo y de Lucha declaró que Guzmán no podría utilizar ese nombre. Cabe señalar que Bobby Arreola, había desenmascarado a Rodolfo Guzmán cuando empleaba el nombre del Mirciélago II.

En los inicios de 1940, Guzmán se casó con María de los Ángeles Rodríguez Montaño (Maruca), una unión que produciría diez hijos: Alejandro, María de los Ángeles, Héctor Rodolfo, Blanca Lilia, Víctor Manuel, Miguel Ángel, Silvia Yolanda, María de Lourdes, Mercedes y Jorge Guzmán Rodríguez, El Hijo del Santo.

En 1942 su entrenador, don Jesús Lomelí, estaba armando un nuevo equipo de luchadores, todos con vestimentas plateadas, y quería que Rodolfo fuera parte de este equipo. Él le sugirió tres nombres: El Santo, El Diablo, o El Ángel, y Rodolfo eligió el primero. El 26 de abril luchó en la Arena México por primera vez como Santo. Cabe mencionar que en un inicio combatía en el bando de los Rudos (lo cual no le favorecía para obtener el apoyo del público, ya que en la época la gente apoyaba en mayor medida a los técnicos); posteriormente se cambió al bando técnico. Bajo su nuevo nombre rápidamente desarrolló su propio estilo, y su agilidad y versatilidad lo hicieron muy popular, también cabe mencionar que como parte de su entrenamiento a mediados de la década de 1950 comenzó a entrenar en la arena coliseo de Guadalajara Jalisco, en el plantel de Cuauhtémoc El Diablo Velasco fundador de la primera escuela de lucha libre profesional con quien pulió su estilo y forma de luchar.

Apartir de 1952, el artista y editor José Guadalupe Cruz comenzó a publicar la historieta Santo, el Enmascarado de plata, convirtiéndolo en el primer personaje luchador de la historieta mexicana, cosa que también hicieron Black Shadow, Huracán Ramírez, El Solitario y Tinieblas, usando la misma técnica creada por José G. Cruz (color sepia y fotomontaje en fondos dibujados). La historieta se publicó hasta los años ochenta. En los primeros años era el propio luchador quien posaba para las fotos de la historieta, pero luego de unos años (y algunos problemas legales) fue sustituído por un actor musculoso y el personaje se tuvo que diferenciar del original sin emplear mallas y sumando una "S" sobre un círculo negro en la frente de la máscara.

En los finales de los años 50, Fernando Osés, luchador y actor, invitó a Guzmán a trabajar en películas, propuesta que aceptó, aunque sin abandonar su carrera en la lucha libre, compaginando ambas actividades. Fernando Osés y Enrique Zambrano escribieron libretos para las dos primeras películas de Santo, Santo contra el Cerebro del Mal y Santo contra los Hombres Infernales, ambas estrenadas en 1958, y dirigidas por Joselito Rodríguez. La filmación se llevó a cabo en Cuba, y el rodaje terminó un día antes que Fidel Castro entrara en La Habana y declarase la victoria de la revolución cubana.

Aun cuando ambas películas tenían un bajo presupuesto y fueron altamente improvisadas, tuvieron gran aceptación por parte del pueblo mexicano y se convirtieron rápidamente en éxitos de taquilla, abriendo camino para más películas de Santo.

El estilo de las películas que protagonizó Santo fue esencialmente el mismo durante las 52 películas que protagonizó, con argumentos donde actuaba como superhéroe luchando contra criaturas sobrenaturales, científicos locos, o el crimen organizado. Con un tono similar a las películas y series de televisión clase B de los EE.UU. (B-movies fueron las películas que se caracterizaron por un muy bajo presupuesto y argumentos fantásticos, en la década de los 60), quizás muy similar a la serie de Batman de 1960.

En México, para las generaciones recientes, su película más famosa es El Santo contra las Momias de Guanajuato, al menos así conocida popularmente, ya que su nombre verdadero es Las Momias de Guanajuato y es una película protagonizada por Mil Máscaras y Blue Demon en la que Santo únicamente hace una presentación estelar al final. Para el público más conocedor de la figura cinematográfica tanto en México como en el extranjero, la película más conocida es Santo vs. las Mujeres Vampiro (1962). En esta película la inversión en la producción fue más alta, y dio una pauta para introducir un origen y la creación de su mitología, estableciendo que él era el último en una línea de luchadores contra el mal.

Aunque las tentativas de crear un estilo de horror gótico generalmente se consideraron menos que acertadas, y la película se considera más como una comedia (involuntaria) que un filme de horror en la actualidad, éste fue un enorme éxito en taquilla, y se exportó a muchos países. En ciertos círculos de Europa, las películas del Santo fueron consideradas verdaderas "joyas" de un supuesto "cine surrealista mexicano", junto con las películas del célebre actor y director Juan Orol; pues suponen que la ingenuidad y el extremo descuido con que son facturadas son algo totalmente intencional.

Santo jamás perdió su máscara plateada en combate y se creó el mito de que nunca se quitaba su máscara. Se retiró de los encordados en 1982. A principios de los años 80, se presentó en el programa "Contrapunto" de Jacobo Zabludovsky, donde el presentador logró lo que nadie pudo hacer en el cuadrilátero: despojar de su máscara a "El Santo", dejando ver por primera vez parte de su verdadera identidad. Murió de un infarto al miocardio después de una actuación en el teatro blanquita, unos días después de haberse quitado la máscara y mostrar su rostro en el programa de Jacobo Zabludosky; este no era el primer infarto que sufría, ya que algunos años antes sufrió uno mientras se desarrollaba una lucha en contra de los Misioneros de la Muerte.

Miroslava


Miroslava Šternová Beka, nombre completo de esta musa magnifica de nuestro cine, nació el 26 de febrero de 1926 (el mismo año que nació Marilyn Monroe) pero en Praga.

La vida de Miroslava fue un ir y venir de tragedias. La primera llegó cuando era apenas una niña y, junto a sus padres, tuvo que huir de su tierra natal, Checoslovaquia, hacia México, para escapar de las persecuciones de los nazis. La segunda muy poco después, en 1942, cuando su primer amor murió en la guerra. La tercera, la muerte de su madre, enferma de cáncer, cuando ella aún no tenía ni 20 años. La cuarta, su primer y último matrimonio, que apenas duró un año porque (decían las malas lenguas) su marido tenía a otro hombre como amante...A mediados de los 50, sin embargo, parecía que la suerte empezaba a cambiarle. Rodó su mejor película, una obra maestra que pasaría a los anales del cine y que merece ser vista de cualquier forma y con cualquier causa : Ensayo de un crimen, de Luis Buñuel, en la cual -y he ahí una de las razones fundamentales de su posterior leyenda, por lo que verán- una figura de cera representando el cadáver de Miroslava entra en un horno crematorio y se derrite mientras su enamorado, el protagonista del film, la mira. Mientras rodaba la película conoció a su gran amor, Luis Miguel Dominguín (Ava Gardner, otra de sus conquistas, ya la hemos visto por aquí), que le prometió amor eterno y matrimonio.Todo fue irreal. Meses después, Miroslava se enteró de que Luis Miguel, sin decirle nada, había contraído matrimonio con la italiana Lucía Bosé, que por aquella época -casualidades de la vida- acababa de estrenar una película también con Luis Buñuel. El estado anímico de Miroslava se vino abajo. Nueve días después de consumada la traición de Dominguín, el ama de llaves de Miroslava y la actriz cubana Ninón Sevilla, que vivía cerca, encontraron su cadáver tumbado en la cama. En la mano, una foto en la que posaba con Dominguín y la abuela de éste; lo más cerca que estuvo de compartir vida conyugal con él. A escasos metros, varias cajas de barbitúricos. En la mesilla de noche, cartas de suicidio a su padre y su hermano :Papá: perdóname y olvida, no puedo seguir. No tengo valor, gracias por todo y perdóname que no tenga suficiente voluntad para vivir, te quiere, tu Bumbulka'Escribe y envía el regalo (una campanita de plata) a Luis Miguel Dominguin (Nervión 25, Madrid) y que sea feliz...Maquillada en la muerte por Dolores Camarillo, su maquilladora habitual, en el funeral todo el mundo quedó sorprendido de la enorme belleza de Miroslava aún muerta. Al día siguiente, como si su última película hubiera sido una cruel premonición, su cuerpo sin vida fue incinerado bajo la supervisión precisamente de Ernesto Alonso, el actor que había interpretado también al protagonista de Ensayo de un crimen, ante el estado anímico del padre de Miros, Oskar Stern. Fue entonces cuando Miroslava se convirtió en leyenda, en la diva del cine mexicano.Y como diva tuvo otras muertes rumoreadas, al menos en la teoría de público y prensa :- Una teoría decía que Miroslava había sido una espía y que fue mandada asesinar por el servicio de contraespionaje inglés por medio de Martha Aurelia Hernández, su asistenta personal y, según algunos decían, su amante lesbiana y que moriría días después de la muerte de Miroslava, según la versión oficial, tirándose a las vías del tren; según la versión del rumor, asesinada ante su arrepentimiento por otro integrante del servicio de contraespionaje. Esta versión parte de la anécdota que vivió Miroslava junto a Dominguín cuando aún eran novios, en 1954 : las autoridades franquistas acusaron de forma descabellada a Miroslava de ser espía -¡cielos, era checa!- y sólo pudo entrar en España bajo el aval del torero.- Otra, que había muerto en realidad unos días antes en un accidente de avión junto a su amante el millonario Jorge Pasquel, que efectivamente murió de tal manera el 8 de marzo, y luego depositada, por alguna razón extraña, en su cama para hacer fingir un suicidio. Esta versión fue refutada por la policía pocos días después, cuando hizo saber a la prensa acerca de las cartas de suicidio que la actriz había dejado.

Who is Satanas?


Satan in the Old Testament
The name Satan is derived from a root meaning 'to oppose' or 'to be or to act as an adversary.' In some cases, he is not necessarily malevolent and he may have even been sent by the Lord to prevent worse harm (such as in Numbers). Examples of passages using this early interpretation include:

"But God was incensed at his going; so an angel of the LORD placed himself in his was as an adversary [Hebrew: satan]" - Numbers 22:22

"He shall not march down with us to the battle, or else he may become an adversary [Heb: satan] in battle." - 1 Samuel 29:4

"Appoint a wicked man over him; may an accuser [Heb: satan] stand at his right side. - Psalm 109:6

Satan possesses no real demonic qualities in the OT writings. He is mentioned as a distinct personality in 3 passages. These passages are thought to be post-exilic and are dated between 519 and 300 BCE.

"He further showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right to accuse him." - Zechariah 3:1

Here, "Satan" becomes an official title of a distinct personality, although in the Hebrew, the article before Satan indicates a common rather than a proper noun as "the satan".

"One day the divine beings presented themselves before the LORD, and the satan (Heb: ha-satan) came along with them. The LORD said to the Adversary, 'Where have you been?' Satan answered the LORD, 'I have been roaming all over the earth.' The LORD said to Satan, "Have you noticed my servant Job?" - Job 1:6-8

The Book of Job describes Job as a pious, God-fearing man who had many sons and daughters and was quite wealthy. One day, Satan asks God for permission to tempt Job to see just how loyal to God Job was. God granted Satan permission to do whatever he wanted, so long as he didn't take Job's life.

Very soon, messengers informed Job that Sabeans have stole his oxen, lightning has killed his sheep, Chaldeans have stole his camels, and his sons and daughters were killed while dining in their oldest brother's home.

When Job still wouldn't denounce God, Satan again asks permission to inflict Job with boils. He does, and Job is overcome with sorrow and grief. His friends try to console him and ask him to repent for surely he must have done something wicked for God to bestow such bad fortunes on him. Job swears he is innocent and asks God to explain. Finally, God answers, not by justifying his actions but by appealing to his own omniscience and power. Job is content with this and his trust in God is restored.

In this passage, the Satan is the servant of God, whose job is not only to accuse man, but he also urges God to test Job. He does nothing without the permission of God. He appears along with the other 'ben Elohim' (sons of God) implying that he is one of the angel-ministers of Yahweh. Also, this passage shows that while he acts in accordance with God's permission, he seems as if he would be pleased if he could prove that Job wasn't as loyal to God as God claimed. Despite this, he remains an angel. (For a later version of this story, see Satan and the Testament of Job

"Satan arose against Israel and incited David to number Israel." - 1 Chronicles 21:1

This passage is a later version of the passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 "The anger of the LORD again flared up against Israel; and He incited David against them, saying, 'Go and number Israel and Judah.'" While the author attributes the census to Satan, he insists that David was personally responsible for his actions and therefore guilty of breaking God's law. Satan's substitution for the Lord indicates that he was thought of as the destructive power of God.

In Early Jewish Apocryphal Writings
Rabbinic Literature gives two accounts for the origin of Satan. The first is that Satan was created on the sixth day at the same time as Eve. This ties in with the tradition that Satan played some part in the fall of man. The second and more prevalent tradition is that Satan is one of the fallen angels. Satan is identified with Sammael and his deeds.

In T.B. Baba Bathra (16a), Satan is identified with the Yetzer ha Ra, which is the 'evil impulse' in man. The Talmud distinguishes between the personified Satan outside man, and the Yetzer ha Ra that exists within man. It is this evil impulse within man that allows Satan the opportunity to work his will against man.

Rabbinic writings also foreshadow the destruction of Satan. T.B. Succah (52a) talks of the destruction of the evil angel, while the Yalkut Jesaj (359) implies that Satan will be overthrown at a future time by the Messiah, referring to Psalm 36:9.

The general belief is that there are a class of satans with a chief Satan. For example, in 1 Enoch, there are 5 Satans. The first and second are said to have been responsible for leading astray the angels and for bringing them down to earth, where they sinned with the daughters of men (69:4), while the third brought about the fall of Adam and Eve (69:6). The satans are allowed to access heaven in order to accuse men, but they are not confined to heaven.

Satan's Fall (Part 1)
Before the New Testament, there were many powers of evil, with Satan existing alongside other demon chiefs. Satan did not become the one supreme evil power until NT literature. Many of these apocryphal books were written between the beginning of the first century BCE and the end of the first century CE.

"By the envy of the devil death entered into the world,
And they that belong to his realm experience it."
- Book of Wisdom 2:24

This passage usually is interpreted to refer to the temptation and fall of Eve. The following passages describe this encounter. (It may also be noted that this passage could also be interpreted as referring to Cain because according to Genesis, physical death did not enter the world until Cain murdered Abel.)

2 Enoch explains that the angels were created on the second day of creation and were assigned to various positions. One of the angels, called Satanel, rebelled because he thought he could become more powerful than God. God, therefore, threw him out of heaven.

"But one from the order of the archangels deviated, together with the division that was under his authority. He thought up the impossible idea,that he might place his throne higher than the clouds which are above the earth, and that he might become equal to my power. And I hurled him out from the height, together with his angels. And he was flying around in the air, ceaselessly, above the Bottomless." - 2 Enoch 29:4-5

In his jealousy, Satanail decided to lead Adam astray, even though he was aware of his own sinfulness. When his plan worked, God cursed evil and ignorance, implying that it is through man's ignorance of his own nature that is the root of sin, not Satanail.

"And the devil understood how I wished to create another world, so that everything could be subjected to Adam on the earth, to rule and reign over it. The devil is of the lowest places. And he will become a demon, because he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was Satanail. In this way he became different from the angels. His nature did not change, (but) his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed. And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam. In such a form he entered paradise, and corrupted Eve. But Adam he did not contact. But on account of (her) nescience I cursed them. But those whom I had blessed previously, them I did not curse; (and those whom I had not blessed previously, even them I did not curse) - neither mankind I cursed, nor the earth, nor any other creature, but only mankind's evil fruit-bearing." - 2 Enoch 31:3-7.

Satan's Fall (Part 2)
The Apocalypsis Mosis 16 tells of how Satan used the serpent as a vessel to lead astray Adam and Eve. The serpent tells him that he fears the Lord's wraith, but Satan convinces him that he only has to be a vessel - it will be Satan speaking through him.

"And the devil spake to the serpent saying, Rise up, come to me and I will tell thee a word whereby thou mayst have profit." And he arose and came to him. And the devil saith to him: "I hear that thou art wiser than all the beasts, and I have come to counsel thee. Why dost thou eat of Adam's tares and not of paradise? Rise up and we will cause him to be cast out of paradise, even as we were cast out through him." The serpent saith to him, "I fear lest the Lord be wroth with me." The devil saith to him: "Fear not, only be my vessel and I will speak through thy mouth words to deceive him." -Apocalypsis Mosis 16

This book then mentions that it was the devil that spoke through Eve that led Adam astray.

"For, when he came, I opened my mouth and the devil was speaking, and I began to exhort him and said, "Come hither, my lord Adam, hearken to me and eat of the fruit of the tree of which God told us not to eat of it, and thou shalt be as a God." - Apocalypsis Mosis 21:3

A similar account of the fall of Satan takes place in the Books of Adam and Eve. These books give an account of how Satan tempted and brought about the fall of Adam and Eve. In the beginning, Satan is represented as being an angel of God. It then explains that when Adam was formed in God's image, Michael commanded the angels to worship him. Satan refused to do so because Adam was inferior and younger then himself. He claimed that Adam should worship him. Because of this, Satan and the other angels who refused to worship Adam were banished from heaven. Satan then decided to bring about the ruin of Adam and Eve. There is no reference to the Watchers or the union of angels with women.

"And with a heavy sigh, the devil spake: 'O Adam! all my hostility, envy, and sorrow is for thee, since it is for thee that I have been expelled from my glory, which I possessed in the heavens in the midst of the angels and for thee was I cast out in the earth.' Adam answered, 'What dost thou tell me? What have I done to thee or what is my fault against thee? Seeing that thou hast received no harm or injury from us, why dost thou pursue us?' The devil replied, 'Adam, what dost thou tell me? It is for thy sake that I have been hurled from that place. When thou wast formed. I was hurled out of the presence of God and banished from the company of the angels. When God blew into thee the breath of life and thy face and likeness was made in the image of God, Michael also brought thee and made (us) worship thee in the sight of God; and God the Lord spake: Here is Adam. I have made thee in our image and likeness.' And Michael went out and called all the angels saying: 'Worship the image of God as the Lord God hath commanded.' And Michael himself worshipped first; then he called me and said: 'Worship the image of God the Lord.' And I answered, 'I have no (need) to worship Adam.' And since Michael kept urging me to worship, I said to him, 'Why dost thou urge me? I will not worship an inferior and younger being (than I). I am his senior in the Creation, before he was made was I already made. It is his duty to worship me.' When the angels, who were under me, heard this, they refused to worship him. And Michael saith, 'Worship the image of God, but if thou wilt not worship him, the Lord God will be wrath with thee.' And I said, 'If He be wrath with me, I will set my seat above the stars of heaven and will be like the Highest.' And God the Lord was wrath with me and banished me and my angels from our glory; and on thy account were we expelled from our abodes into this world and hurled on the earth. And straightway we were overcome with grief, since we had been spoiled of so great glory. And we were grieved when we saw thee in such joy and luxury. And with guile I cheated thy wife and caused thee to be expelled through her (doing) from thy joy and luxury, as I have been driven out of my glory." - Vita Adae et Evae 12-16

These later accounts (Vita Adae et Evae 12-16 and Apocalypsis Mosis) give a much more highly developed concept of Satan, that is close to the presentation of Satan in the New Testament. He appears as the great enemy of mankind and God, and is directly associated with the fall of Adam and Eve (which isn't the prominent teaching of the New Testament, although Paul does mention it briefly in 2 Corinthians 11:3). The Apocalypsis Mosis also is one of the only books to develop the idea that the Devil can take possession of a person (the other being the the Book of Tobit in which Asmodeus appears to take possession of Sarah).

Satan In Hellenistic Writings
In the Greek translation of the Bible (the Septuagint) written in Alexandria, the word satan was translated as diabolos on many occasions. In Hebrew, satan simply means accuser. In the Greek as diabolos, the word obtained a negative connotation to mean false accuser or slanderer.

Satan in the Gospels
In the New Testament, Satan emerges as the principle power of evil, although there are still traces of earlier powers of evil such as in the Synoptic gospels, Beelzebub, and in Paul's letters, Beliar (2 Cor 6:15).

In Mark 3:22ff. the Scribes say of Jesus "'He is possessed by Beelzebub,' and 'By the prince of demons he drives out demons.'" Jesus then rebuts the statement by asking "How can Satan drive out Satan?" This rebuttal seems to identify Beelzebub with Satan, however it can be noted that there may be two concepts here with Jesus identifying Satan with the prince of demons and Beelzebub being a separate identity.

Both Matthew 12:24 and Luke 11:15 specify Beelzebub as the prince of demons, however in Jesus' rebuttal, He mentions both Satan and Beelzebub, implying the two are identical terms.

The first reference to Satan is in the temptation of Jesus. Mark says that Jesus was 'tempted of Satan,' while Matthew and Luke say that He was 'tempted of the devil.' (Mk 1:13, Mt 4:1-11, Lk 4:2-13) The terminology used throughout the NT generally consists of identifying Satan with the devil and the evil one. The parable of the sower demonstrates this. Mark 4:15 uses 'Satan,' while Luke 8:12 uses 'the devil,' and Matthew 13:19 uses 'the evil one.' This parable of how Satan comes and 'takes away the word which has been sown in them' (Mk 4:15) is very similar to the parable in the Book of Jubilees where the prince, Mastema (identified with Satan), sent ravens and other birds to devour the seed which had been sown. (11:11ff.)

The Gospels speak of both demons and Satan as being able to possess an individual. An example of an evil spirit taking possession is the case of the woman who had a spirit of infirmity' for eighteen years, which was attributed to her being 'bound' by Satan (Lk 13:11ff.) Here, the condition of the woman is regarded as being caused by demon possession, with Satan as the chief of evil spirits. It is most often portrayed in the Gospels that when a demon takes possession of an individual, it is usually by force and the demonized are not regarded as willful sinners or as excessively wicked people. However, when Satan is said to enter into a person, the possession is not forceful, and the man is held accountable for allowing Satan to influence him. Examples include when Jesus addressed Peter by saying 'Get behind me, Satan.' (Mk 8:33, Mt 16:23) and in Luke 22:3 and John 13:2, which both portray the betrayal of Judas as an effect of Satan entering into Judas.

Also, only a few passages in the Synoptic Gospels mention the final destruction of Satan. Luke 10:18 describes Jesus saying 'I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.' This may refer to either the original fall of Satan from heaven or it may imply that Jesus believed that the success of His disciples casting out demons could symbolize a complete overthrow of Satan. The most direct allusion in the Gospels is that found in Matthew 25:41 where at the last judgment, Jesus will say to the wicked 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'
[back to top]

Satan in Acts of the Apostles
In the book of Acts, the terms, 'Satan' and 'the Devil' are used synonymously to portray the chief power of evil. Acts regards Satan as an instigator of falsehood and deceit in the story of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1ff) This agrees with the statement in John which says that the devil tells lies.

"He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character because he is a liar and the father of lies. - John 8:44

Acts also makes reference to Satan as the head of the kingdom of evil. When Paul spoke to king Agrippa, he told the king of how Jesus wanted him to preach to the Gentiles in order "to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" (26:18).

History of Terrorism


Terrorist acts or the threat of such action have been in existence for millennia. Despite having a history longer than the modern nation-state, the use of terror by governments and those that contest their power remains poorly understood. While the meaning of the word terror itself is clear, when it is applied to acts and actors in the real world it becomes confused. Part of this is due to the use of terror tactics by actors at all levels in the social and political environment. Is the Unabomber, with his solo campaign of terror, a criminal, terrorist, or revolutionary?

Can he be compared to the French revolutionary governments who coined the word terrorism by instituting systematic state terror against the population of France in the 1790s, killing thousands? Are either the same as revolutionary terrorist groups such as the Baader-Mienhof Gang of West Germany or the Weather Underground in the United States?

So we see that distinctions of size and political legitimacy of the actors using terror raise questions as to what is and is not terrorism. The concept of moral equivalency is frequently used as an argument to broaden and blur the definition of terrorism as well. This concept argues that the outcome of an action is what matters, not the intent. Collateral or unintended damage to civilians from an attack by uniformed military forces on a legitimate military target is the same as a terrorist bomb directed deliberately at the civilian target with the intent of creating that damage.

Simply put, a car bomb on a city street and a jet fighter dropping a bomb on a tank are both acts of violence that produce death and terror. Therefore (at the extreme end of this argument) any military action is simply terrorism by a different name. This is the reasoning behind the famous phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It is also a legacy of legitimizing the use of terror by successful revolutionary movements after the fact.

The very flexibility and adaptability of terror throughout the years has contributed to the confusion. Those seeking to disrupt, reorder or destroy the status quo have continuously sought new and creative ways to achieve their goals. Changes in the tactics and techniques of terrorists have been significant, but even more significant are the growth in the number of causes and social contexts where terrorism is used.

Over the past 20 years, terrorists have committed extremely violent acts for alleged political or religious reasons. Political ideology ranges from the far left to the far right. For example, the far left can consist of groups such as Marxists and Leninists who propose a revolution of workers led by a revolutionary elite. On the far right, we find dictatorships that typically believe in a merging of state and business leadership.

Nationalism is the devotion to the interests or culture of a group of people or a nation. Typically, nationalists share a common ethnic background and wish to establish or regain a homeland.

Religious extremists often reject the authority of secular governments and view legal systems that are not based on their religious beliefs as illegitimate. They often view modernization efforts as corrupting influences on traditional culture.

Special interest groups include people on the radical fringe of many legitimate causes; e.g., people who use terrorism to uphold antiabortion views, animal rights, radical environmentalism. These groups believe that violence is morally justifiable to achieve their goals.

Terror in Antiquity: 1st -14th Century AD
The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men , they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open, and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada.

The Assassins were the next group to show recognizable characteristics of terrorism, as we know it today. A breakaway faction of Shia Islam called the Nizari Ismalis adopted the tactic of assassination of enemy leaders because the cult's limited manpower prevented open combat. Their leader, Hassam-I Sabbah, based the cult in the mountains of Northern Iran. Their tactic of sending a lone assassin to successfully kill a key enemy leader at the certain sacrifice of his own life (the killers waited next to their victims to be killed or captured) inspired fearful awe in their enemies.

Even though both the Zealots and the Assassins operated in antiquity, they are relevant today: First as forerunners of modern terrorists in aspects of motivation, organization, targeting, and goals. Secondly, although both were ultimate failures, the fact that they are remembered hundreds of years later, demonstrates the deep psychological impact they caused.

Early Origins of Terrorism: 14th -18th Century
From the time of the Assassins (late 13th century) to the1700s, terror and barbarism were widely used in warfare and conflict , but key ingredients for terrorism were lacking. Until the rise of the modern nation state after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the sort of central authority and cohesive society that terrorism attempts to influence barely existed. Communications were inadequate and controlled, and the causes that might inspire terrorism (religious schism, insurrection, ethnic strife) typically led to open warfare. By the time kingdoms and principalities became nations, they had sufficient means to enforce their authority and suppress activities such as terrorism.

The French Revolution provided the first uses of the words "Terrorist" and "Terrorism". Use of the word "terrorism" began in 1795 in reference to the Reign of Terror initiated by the Revolutionary government. The agents of the Committee of Public Safety and the National Convention that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as 'Terrorists". The French Revolution provided an example to future states in oppressing their populations. It also inspired a reaction by royalists and other opponents of the Revolution who employed terrorist tactics such as assassination and intimidation in resistance to the Revolutionary agents. The Parisian mobs played a critical role at key points before, during, and after the Revolution. Such extra-legal activities as killing prominent officials and aristocrats in gruesome spectacles started long before the guillotine was first used.

Entering the Modern Era: The 19th Century
During the late 19th century, radical political theories and improvements in weapons technology spurred the formation of small groups of revolutionaries who effectively attacked nation-states. Anarchists espousing belief in the "propaganda of the deed" produced some striking successes, assassinating heads of state from Russia, France, Spain, Italy, and the United States. However, their lack of organization and refusal to cooperate with other social movements in political efforts rendered anarchists ineffective as a political movement. In contrast, Communism's role as an ideological basis for political terrorism was just beginning, and would become much more significant in the 20th century.

Another trend in the late 19th century was the increasing tide of nationalism throughout the world, in which the nation (the identity of a people) and the political state were combined. As states began to emphasize national identities, peoples that had been conquered or colonized could, like the Jews at the times of the Zealots, opt for assimilation or struggle. The best-known nationalist conflict from this time is still unresolved - the multi-century struggle of Irish nationalism. Nationalism, like communism, became a much greater ideological force in the 20th century.

The terrorist group from this period that serves as a model in many ways for what was to come was the Russian Narodnya Volya (Peoples Will). They differed in some ways from modern terrorists, especially in that they would sometimes call off attacks that might endanger individuals other than their intended target. Other than this quirk, we see many of the traits of terrorism here for the first time; clandestine, cellular organization; impatience and inability for the task of organizing the constituents they claim to represent; and a tendency to increase the level of violence as pressures on the group mount.

The Early 20th Century
The first half of the 20th century saw two events that influenced the nature of conflict to the present day. The effects of two World Wars inflamed passions and hopes of nationalists throughout the world, and severely damaged the legitimacy of the international order and governments.

Nationalism on the Rise
Nationalism intensified during the early 20th century throughout the world. It became an especially powerful force in the subject peoples of various colonial empires. Although dissent and resistance were common in many colonial possessions, and sometimes resulted in open warfare, nationalist identities became a focal point for these actions.

Gradually, as nations became closely tied to concepts of race and ethnicity, international political developments began to support such concepts. Members of ethnic groups whose states had been absorbed by others or had ceased to exist as separate nations saw opportunities to realize nationalist ambitions. Several of these groups chose terror as a method to conduct their struggle and make their situation known to world powers they hoped would be sympathetic. In Europe, both the Irish and the Macedonians had existing terrorist campaigns as part of their ongoing struggle for independence, but had to initiate bloody uprisings to further their cause. The Irish were partially successful, the Macedonians failed.

Damaged Legitimacy

The "total war" practices of all combatants of WWII provided further justification for the "everybody does it" view of the use of terror and violations of the law of war. The desensitization of people and communities to violence that started in World War I accelerated during World War II. The intensity of the conflict between starkly opposed ideologies led to excesses on the part of all participants. New weapons and strategies that targeted the enemies' civilian population to destroy their economic capacity for conflict exposed virtually every civilian to the hazards of combatants. The major powers' support of partisan and resistance organizations using terrorist tactics was viewed as an acceptance of their legitimacy. It seemed that civilians had become legitimate targets, despite any rules forbidding it.

Cold War Developments
The bi-polar world of the Cold War changed perception of conflicts the world over. Relatively minor confrontations took on significance as arenas where the superpowers could compete without risking escalation to full nuclear war. Warfare between the East and the West took place on the peripheries, and was limited in scope to prevent escalation. During the immediate postwar period, terrorism was more of a tactical choice by leaders of nationalist insurgencies and revolutions. Successful campaigns for independence from colonial rule occurred throughout the world, and many employed terrorism as a supporting tactic. When terrorism was used, it was used within the framework of larger movements, and coordinated with political, social, and military action. Even when terrorism came to dominate the other aspects of a nationalist struggle, such as the Palestinian campaign against Israel, it was (and is) combined with other activities.

Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union provided direct and indirect assistance to revolutionary movements around the world. Many anti-colonial movements found the revolutionary extremism of communism attractive. Leaders of these "wars of national liberation" saw the advantage of free weapons and training. They also realized that the assistance and patronage of the Eastern Bloc meant increased international legitimacy. Many of these organizations and individuals utilized terrorism in support of their political and military objectives. The policy of the Soviet Union to support revolutionary struggles everywhere, and to export revolution to non-communist countries, provided extremists willing to employ violence and terror as the means to realize their ambitions.

The Internationalization of Terror
The age of modern terrorism might be said to have begun in 1968 when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an El Al airliner en route from Tel Aviv to Rome. While hijackings of airliners had occurred before, this was the first time that the nationality of the carrier (Israeli) and its symbolic value was a specific operational aim. Also a first was the deliberate use of the passengers as hostages for demands made publicly against the Israeli government. The combination of these unique events, added to the international scope of the operation, gained significant media attention. The founder of PFLP, Dr. George Habash observed that the level of coverage was tremendously greater than battles with Israeli soldiers in their previous area of operations. "At least the world is talking about us now."

Another aspect of this internationalization is the cooperation between extremist organizations in conducting terrorist operations. Cooperative training between Palestinian groups and European radicals started as early as 1970, and joint operations between the PFLP and the Japanese Red Army (JRA) began in 1974. Since then international terrorist cooperation in training, operations, and support has continued to grow, and continues to this day. Motives range from the ideological, such as the 1980s alliance of the Western European Marxist-oriented groups, to financial, as when the IRA exported its expertise in bomb making as far afield as Colombia

Current State of Terrorism
The largest act of international terrorism occured on September 11, 2001 in a set of co-ordinated attacks on the United States of America where Islamic terrorists hijacked civilian airliners and used them to attack the World Trade Center towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. Other major terrorist attacks have also occured in New Delhi (Indian Parliament attacked); Bali car bomb attack; London subway bombings; Madrid train bombings and the most recent attacks in Mumbai (hotels, train station and a Jewish outreach center). The operational and strategic epicenter of Islamic terrorism is now mostly centred in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There is clearly a wide choice of definitions for terrorism. Despite this, there are elements in common among the majority of useful definitions. Common threads of the various definitions identify terrorism as:

• Political
• Psychological
• Coercive
• Dynamic
• Deliberate

Political

A terrorist act is a political act or is committed with the intention to cause a political effect. Clausewitz' statement that "war is a continuation of policy by other means" is taken as a truism by terrorists. They merely eliminate the intermediate step of armies and warfare, and apply violence directly to the political contest.


Psychological

The intended results of terrorist acts cause a psychological effect ("terror"). They are aimed at a target audience other than the actual victims of the act. The intended target audience of the terrorist act may be the population as a whole, some specific portion of a society (an ethnic minority, for example), or decision-making elites in the society's political, social, or military populace.

Coercive

Violence and destruction are used in the commission of the act to produce the desired effect. Even if casualties or destruction are not the result of a terrorist operation, the threat or potential of violence is what produces the intended effect. For example, a successful hostage taking operation may result in all hostages being freed unharmed after negotiations and bargaining. Regardless of the outcome, the terrorist bargaining chips were nothing less than the raw threat of applying violence to maim or kill some or all of the hostages. When the threat of violence is not credible, or the terrorists are unable to implement violence effectively, terrorism fails.

Dynamic

Terrorist groups demand change, revolution, or political movement. The radical worldview that justifies terrorism mandates drastic action to destroy or alter the status quo. Even if the goals of a movement are reactionary in nature, they require action to "turn back the clock" or restore some cherished value system that is extinct. Nobody commits violent attacks on strangers or innocents to keep things "just the way they are."

Deliberate

Terrorism is an activity planned and intended to achieve particular goals. It is a rationally employed, specifically selected tactic, and is not a random act. Since the victims of terrorist violence are often of little import, with one being as good for the terrorists' purposes as another, victim or target selection can appear random or unprovoked. But the target will contain symbolic value or be capable of eliciting emotional response according to the terrorists' goals. Remember that the actual target of terrorism is not the victim of the violence, but the psychological balance

Media Exploitation

Terrorism's effects are not necessarily aimed at the victims of terrorist violence. Victims are usually objects to be exploited by the terrorists for their effect on a third party. In order to produce this effect, information of the attack must reach the target audience. So any terrorist organization plans for exploitation of available media to get the message to the right audiences. Victims are simply the first medium that transmits the psychological impact to the larger target audience. The next step in transmission will depend on what media is available, but it will be planned, and it will frequently be the responsibility of a specific organization within the terrorist group to do nothing else but exploit and control the news cycle.

Some organizations can rely on friendly or sympathetic news outlets, but this is not necessary. News media can be manipulated by planning around the demands of the "news cycle", and the advantage that control of the initiative gives the terrorist. Pressures to report quickly, to "scoop" competitors, allow terrorists to present claims or make statements that might be refuted or critically commented on if time were available. Terrorists often provide names and details of individual victims to control the news media through its desire to humanize or personalize a story. For the victims of a terrorist attack, it is a certainty that the impact on the survivors (if there are any) is of minimal importance to the terrorists. What is important is the intended psychological impact that the news of their death or suffering will cause in a wider audience.

Operations in Permissive Societies

Terrorists conduct more operations in societies where individual rights and civil legal protections prevail. While terrorists may base themselves in repressive regimes that are sympathetic to them, they usually avoid repressive governments when conducting operations wherever possible. An exception to this case is a repressive regime that does not have the means to enforce security measures. Governments with effective security forces and few guaranteed civil liberties have typically suffered much less from terrorism than liberal states with excellent security forces. Al Qaeda has shown, however, that they will conduct operations anywhere.

Illegality of Methods

Terrorism is a criminal act. Whether the terrorist chooses to identify himself with military terminology (as discussed under insurgencies below), or with civilian imagery ("brotherhood", "committee", etc.), he is a criminal in both spheres. The violations of civil criminal laws are self-evident in activities such as murder, arson, and kidnapping regardless of the legitimacy of the government enforcing the laws. Victimizing the innocent is criminal injustice under a dictatorship or a democracy. If the terrorist claims that he is justified in using such violence as a military combatant, he is a de facto war criminal under international law and the military justice systems of most nations.

Preparation and Support

It's important to understand that actual terrorist operations are the result of extensive preparation and support operations. Media reporting and academic study have mainly focused on the terrorists' goals and actions, which is precisely what the terrorist intends. This neglects the vital but less exciting topic of preparation and support operations. Significant effort and coordination is required to finance group operations, procure or manufacture weapons, conduct target surveillance and analysis, and deliver trained terrorists to the operational area. While the time and effort expended by the terrorists may be a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts spent to defend against them, terrorist operations can still involve large amounts of money and groups of people. The need for dedicated support activities and resources on simple operations are significant, and get larger the greater the sophistication of the plan and the complexity of the target.

If no single definition of terrorism produces a precise, unambiguous description, we can approach the question by eliminating similar activities that are not terrorism, but that appear to overlap. For the U.S. military, two such related concepts probably lead to more confusion than others. Guerilla warfare and insurgencies are often assumed to be synonymous with terrorism. One reason for this is that insurgencies and terrorism often have similar goals. However, if we examine insurgency and guerilla warfare, specific differences emerge.

A key difference is that an insurgency is a movement - a political effort with a specific aim. This sets it apart from both guerilla warfare and terrorism, as they are both methods available to pursue the goals of the political movement.

Another difference is the intent of the component activities and operations of insurgencies versus terrorism. There is nothing inherent in either insurgency or guerilla warfare that requires the use of terror. While some of the more successful insurgencies and guerilla campaigns employed terrorism and terror tactics, and some developed into conflicts where terror tactics and terrorism became predominant; there have been others that effectively renounced the use of terrorism. The deliberate choice to use terrorism considers its effectiveness in inspiring further resistance, destroying government efficiency, and mobilizing support. Although there are places where terrorism, guerilla warfare, and criminal behavior all overlap, groups that are exclusively terrorist, or subordinate "wings" of insurgencies formed to specifically employ terror tactics, demonstrate clear differences in their objectives and operations. Disagreement on the costs of using terror tactics, or whether terror operations are to be given primacy within the insurgency campaign, have frequently led to the "urban guerilla" or terrorist wings of an insurgency splintering off to pursue the revolutionary goal by their own methods.

The ultimate goal of an insurgency is to challenge the existing government for control of all or a portion of its territory, or force political concessions in sharing political power. Insurgencies require the active or tacit support of some portion of the population involved. External support, recognition or approval from other countries or political entities can be useful to insurgents, but is not required. A terror group does not require and rarely has the active support or even the sympathy of a large fraction of the population. While insurgents will frequently describe themselves as "insurgents" or "guerillas", terrorists will not refer to themselves as "terrorists" but describe themselves using military or political terminology ("freedom fighters", "soldiers", "activists"). Terrorism relies on public impact, and is therefore conscious of the advantage of avoiding the negative connotations of the term "terrorists" in identifying themselves.

Terrorism does not attempt to challenge government forces directly, but acts to change perceptions as to the effectiveness or legitimacy of the government itself. This is done by ensuring the widest possible knowledge of the acts of terrorist violence among the target audience. Rarely will terrorists attempt to "control" terrain, as it ties them to identifiable locations and reduces their mobility and security. Terrorists as a rule avoid direct confrontations with government forces. A guerilla force may have something to gain from a clash with a government combat force, such as proving that they can effectively challenge the military effectiveness of the government. A terrorist group has nothing to gain from such a clash. This is not to say that they do not target military or security forces, but that they will not engage in anything resembling a "fair fight", or even a "fight" at all. Terrorists use methods that neutralize the strengths of conventional forces. Bombings and mortar attacks on civilian targets where military or security personnel spend off-duty time, ambushes of undefended convoys, and assassinations of poorly protected individuals are common tactics.

Insurgency need not require the targeting of non-combatants, although many insurgencies expand the accepted legal definition of combatants to include police and security personnel in addition to the military. Terrorists do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, or if they do, they broaden the category of "combatants" so much as to render it meaningless. Defining all members of a nation or ethnic group, plus any citizen of any nation that supports that nation as "combatants" is simply a justification for frightfulness. Deliberate de-humanization and criminalization of the enemy in the terrorists' mind justifies extreme measures against anyone identified as hostile. Terrorists often expand their groups of acceptable targets, and conduct operations against new targets without any warning or notice of hostilities.

Ultimately, the difference between insurgency and terrorism comes down to the intent of the actor. Insurgency movements and guerilla forces can adhere to international norms regarding the law of war in achieving their goals, but terrorists are by definition conducting crimes under both civil and military legal codes. Terrorists routinely claim that were they to adhere to any "law of war" or accept any constraints on the scope of their violence, it would place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the establishment. Since the nature of the terrorist mindset is absolutist, their goals are of paramount importance, and any limitations on a terrorist's means to prosecute the struggle are unacceptable.

Is there a difference between terrorism and the use of specific tactics that exploit fear and terror by authorities normally considered "legitimate"? Nations and states often resort to violence to influence segments of their population, or rely on coercive aspects of state institutions. Just like the idea of equating any act of military force with terrorism described above, there are those who equate any use of government power or authority versus any part of the population as terrorism. This view also blurs the lines of what is and is not terrorism, as it elevates outcomes over intentions. Suppression of a riot by law enforcement personnel may in fact expose some of the population (the rioters) to violence and fear, but with the intent to protect the larger civil order. On the other hand, abuse of the prerogative of legitimized violence by the authorities is a crime.

But there are times when national governments will become involved in terrorism, or utilize terror to accomplish the objectives of governments or individual rulers. Most often, terrorism is equated with "non-state actors", or groups that are not responsible to a sovereign government. However, internal security forces can use terror to aid in repressing dissent, and intelligence or military organizations perform acts of terror designed to further a state's policy or diplomatic efforts abroad.

A government that is an adversary of the United States may apply terror tactics and terrorism in an effort to add depth to their engagement of U.S. forces. Repression through terror of the indigenous population would take place to prevent internal dissent and insurrection that the U.S. might exploit. Military special operations assets and state intelligence operatives could conduct terrorist operations against U.S. interests both in theater and as far abroad as their capabilities allow. Finally, attacks against the U.S. homeland could be executed by state sponsored terrorist organizations or by paid domestic proxies. Three different ways that states can engage in the use of terror are:

• Governmental or "State" terror
• State involvement in terror
• State sponsorship of terrorism

Governmental or "State" terror: Sometimes referred to as "terror from above", where a government terrorizes its own population to control or repress them. These actions usually constitute the acknowledged policy of the government, and make use of official institutions such as the judiciary, police, military, and other government agencies. Changes to legal codes permit or encourage torture, killing, or property destruction in pursuit of government policy. After assuming power, official Nazi policy was aimed at the deliberate destruction of "state enemies" and the resulting intimidation of the rest of the population. Stalin's "purges" of the 1930s are examples of using the machinery of the state to terrorize a population. The methods he used included such actions as rigged show trials of opponents, punishing family or friends of suspected enemies of the regime, and extra-legal use of police or military force against the population.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own Kurdish population without any particular change or expansion of policies regarding the use of force on his own citizens. They were simply used in an act of governmental terror believed to be expedient in accomplishing his goals.

State involvement in terror: These are activities where government personnel carry out operations using terror tactics. These activities may be directed against other nations' interests, its own population, or private groups or individuals viewed as dangerous to the state. In many cases, these activities are terrorism under official sanction, although such authorization is rarely acknowledged openly. Historical examples include the Soviet and Iranian assassination campaigns against dissidents who had fled abroad, and Libyan and North Korean intelligence operatives downing airliners on international flights.

Another type of these activities is "death squads" or "war veterans": unofficial actions taken by officials or functionaries of a regime (such as members of police or intelligence organizations) against their own population to repress or intimidate. While these officials will not claim such activities, and disguise their participation, it is often made clear that they are acting for the state. Keeping such activities "unofficial" permits the authorities deniability and avoids the necessity of changing legal and judicial processes to justify oppression. This is different than "pro-state" terror, which is conducted by groups or persons with no official standing and without official encouragement. While pro-state terror may result in positive outcomes for the authorities, their employment of criminal methods and lack of official standing can result in disavowal and punishment of the terrorists, depending on the morality of the regime in question.

State sponsorship of terrorism: Also known as "state supported" terrorism, when governments provide supplies, training, and other forms of support to non-state terrorist organizations. One of the most valuable types of this support is the provision of safe haven or physical basing for the terrorists' organization. Another crucial service a state sponsor can provide is false documentation, not only for personal identification (passports, internal identification documents), but also for financial transactions and weapons purchases. Other means of support are access to training facilities and expertise not readily available to groups without extensive resources. Finally, the extension of diplomatic protections and services, such as immunity from extradition, diplomatic passports, use of embassies and other protected grounds, and diplomatic pouches to transport weapons or explosives have been significant to some groups.

An example of state sponsorship is the Syrian government's support of Hamas and Hizballah in Lebanon. Syrian resources and protection enable the huge training establishments in the Bek'aa Valley. On a smaller, more discreet scale, the East German Stasi provided support and safe-haven to members of the Red Army Faction (RAF or Baader Meinhof Gang) and neo-fascist groups that operated in West Germany. Wanted members of the RAF were found resident in East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Terrorists have long found refuge in countries and in many cases worked hand in hand with the local governments. Today several countries continue to attract terrorists for training and consipiring their attacks. The host countries do not try to disassociate themselves fully from their ties to terrorism and in some cases continue to provide tacit support and use terror to accomplish broader objectives. Some of the countries with significant terrorist operations include:

Afghanistan
Afghanistan became the hotbed of Islamic terror activities in the mid-1990s. With the radical Taliban government establishing control, several radical Islamic (mostly Sunni) terror organizations used Afghanistan as their training and operational base. Al Qaeda was the broad umbrella organization that recruited terrorists from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia and around the world, training them in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of the terrosist groups still operating in the region include Al Qaeda, Al-Jihad, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Islamic Group, Armed Islamic Group, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Iran
Iran has long been an active sponsor of Islamic terrorism, including accusations of it supporting subversive activities in Iraq. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Several terrorist groups including Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC have been provided funding, safehaven, training, and weapons in Iran.

Iraq
Since the US led invasion of Iraq, the country has fallen into a violent spiral. The presence of US troops has attracted Islamic terrorists from the Middle-East and around the world. Al-Qaeda is believed to have established a toe-hold in the country along with various splinter groups. Some of the other terror organizations active in Iraq include Ansar al-Islam, Al-Faruq Brigades, Al-Mahdi Army, Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front (JAMI), Jamaat al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad, Jaysh Muhammad and Kurdistan People’s Congress (KHK).

Pakistan
Pakistan has long been a staging ground and planning centre for Islamic terrorists operating in South Asia. After the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom, thousands of terrorists were either killed or driven out of Afghansistan, mostly finding refuge in Pakistan. Pakistan and its secret service (ISI) have also been accused of training and funding several terrorist groups operating in Indian Kashmir. To many the links are clear, since the the terrorist groups based in Pakistan operate in plain sight and have a distinct Indian focus. More recently, groups aligned with Al Qaeda and based in Pakistan have been responsbile for numerous terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. Some of these terror groups include Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Al Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Jaferia, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Al Badr, Harkat ul-Ansar, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, Jamaat ul-Fuqra and Muslim United Army.

Syria
Even as Syria continues to reduce its presence in Lebanaon, it also continues to fund and host Palestinian and possibly Iraqi terrorist organizations. HAMAS, the PIJ, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine continue to operate from Syria.

Sudan
The African country of Sudan been a training hub and safe haven for members of several of the more violent international terrorist and radical Islamic groups of the last decade. Among the terror groups known to have operated from Sudan are Hezbollah (Party of God), Palestine Islamic Jihad, Abu Nidal Organization, HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) and several smaller Islamic insurgent groups operating regionally in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, and Tunisia.

Ideology and motivation will influence the objectives of terrorist operations, especially regarding the casualty rate. Groups with secular ideologies and non-religious goals will often attempt highly selective and discriminate acts of violence to achieve a specific political aim. This often requires them to keep casualties at the minimum amount necessary to attain the objective. This is both to avoid a backlash that might severely damage the organization, and also maintain the appearance of a rational group that has legitimate grievances. By limiting their attacks they reduce the risk of undermining external political and economic support. Groups that comprise a "wing" of an insurgency, or are affiliated with aboveground, sometimes legitimate, political organizations often operate under these constraints. The tensions caused by balancing these considerations are often a prime factor in the development of splinter groups and internal factions within these organizations.

In contrast, religiously oriented and millenarian groups typically attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible. Because of the apocalyptic frame of reference they use, loss of life is irrelevant, and more casualties are better. Losses among their co-religionists are of little account, because such casualties will reap the benefits of the afterlife. Likewise, non-believers, whether they are the intended target or collateral damage, deserve death, and killing them may be considered a moral duty. The Kenyan bombing against the U.S. Embassy in 1998 inflicted casualties on the local inhabitants in proportion to U.S. personnel of over twenty to one killed, and an even greater disparity in the proportion of wounded (over 5000 Kenyans were wounded by the blast; 95% of total casualties were non-American ). Fear of backlash rarely concerns these groups, as it is often one of their goals to provoke overreaction by their enemies, and hopefully widen the conflict.

The type of target selected will often reflect motivations and ideologies. For groups professing secular political or social motivations, their targets are highly symbolic of authority; government offices, banks, national airlines, and multinational corporations with direct relation to the established order. Likewise, they conduct attacks on representative individuals whom they associate with economic exploitation, social injustice, or political repression. While religious groups also use much of this symbolism, there is a trend to connect it to greater physical devastation. There also is a tendency to add religiously affiliated individuals, such as missionaries, and religious activities, such as worship services, to the targeting equation.

Another common form of symbolism utilized in terrorist targeting is striking on particular anniversaries or commemorative dates. Nationalist groups may strike to commemorate battles won or lost during a conventional struggle, whereas religious groups may strike to mark particularly appropriate observances. Many groups will attempt to commemorate anniversaries of successful operations, or the executions or deaths of notable individuals related to their particular conflict. Likewise, striking on days of particular significance to the enemy can also provide the required impact. Since there are more events than operations, assessment of the likelihood of an attack on a commemorative date is only useful when analyzed against the operational pattern of a particular group or specific members of a group's leadership cadre.

The Intent of Terrorist Groups

A terrorist group commits acts of violence to -

* Produce widesrpead fear
* Obtain worldwide, national, or local recognition for their cause by attracting the attention of the media
* Harass, weaken, or embarrass government security forces so that the the government overreacts and appears repressive
* Steal or extort money and equipment, especially weapons and ammunition vital to the operation of their group
* Destroy facilities or disrupt lines of communication in order to create doubt that the government can provide for and protect its citizens
* Discourage foreign investments, tourism, or assistance programs that can affect the target country’s economy and support of the government in power
* Influence government decisions, legislation, or other critical decisions
* Free prisoners
* Satisfy vengeance
* Turn the tide in a guerrilla war by forcing government security forces to concentrate their efforts in urban areas. This allows the terrorist group to establish itself among the local populace in rural areas

Terrorism has become a part of modern life. Hijackings, bombings, and assassinations on different continents of the world may seem like isolated attacks, but they reflect an easy reliance on violence as a way to promote social, political, and religious change. They are elements of a pervasive end justifies the means philosophy being followed to its most perverse conclusions.

International terrorism has become the scourge of all democratic governments. These democratic governments are accustomed to dealing within a legal structure, often find it difficult to deal with criminals and terrorists that routinely operate outside of the law. However, deterrence is just as much a part of justice as proper enforcement of the laws. Democratic governments that do not deter criminals inevitably spawn vigilantism as normally law-abiding citizens who have lost confidence in the criminal justice system take the law into their own hands. A similar backlash is beginning to emerge as a result of the inability of western democracies to defend themselves against terrorists. However, lack of governmental resolve is only part of the problem.

Terrorists thrive on media exposure, and news organizations around the world have been all too willing to give terrorists what they crave, publicity. If the news media gave terrorists the minuscule coverage their numbers and influence would decline. But, when hijackings and bombings are given prominent media attention, governments start feeling pressure from their citizens to resolve the crisis and eventually capitulate to terrorists’ demands. Encouraged by their latest success, terrorists usually try again -Winston Churchill Recent successes have made terrorists hungry for more attacks. News commentators have been unwilling to call terrorism what it is, Blind criminal violence. They soften their barbaric acts by arguing that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This illusion is simply not true. Terrorists are not concerned about human rights and human dignity.

In fact, they end up destroying human rights in their alleged fight for human rights. A relatively new term for terrorism has been coined, new warfare. Yet, terrorists turn the notion of war on its head. Innocent citizens become targets in the devastating terrorist attacks. How do we define a terrorist? Is a terrorist a common criminal? If terrorists are mere criminals, then with reference to the Bible, they should be dealt with by their host governments. In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul says; He who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behaviour, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid: for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil This passage of scripture helps us make an important distinction we will use in our analysis of terrorism. It shows us that criminals are those who do evil and threaten the civil peace. But, any outside threat to the existence of the country is not a criminal threat but an act of war, which is also to be dealt with by the government. In other words, criminals threaten the state from within. Foreign armies threaten the state from outside. These evildoers should live in fear of government. However, terrorists do not live in fear of the governing authorities in the countries where they live. Their governments do not think of them as breaking civilian laws and thus do not prosecute them. Let us look over an imaginary situation. If an anti-Syrian terrorist group was based somewhere in North America, we would prosecute those terrorists as enemies of our countries.

This North American based terrorist group would be illegal because it would be engaging in activities reserved for the governments of the North American countries. Why wouldn’t the Middle Eastern governments prosecute these terrorists? It’s simple, because the terrorists often carry out the policies and desires of such host governments. The assumption that is made after studying a case like this is that both the terrorist groups and their host nations are truly enemies of the North American governments. After studying this imaginary case, it is possible to see that both the terrorist groups and their host nations are truly enemies of North American government and people. When they capture and kill innocent civilians for military and foreign policy purposes, it is not simply civilian murder but, military warfare. What the world is facing is a new type of military aggressor. As explained earlier, terrorists are not common criminals to be tried in civil courts. They are military targets who must be stopped since they are armed and military enemies of the governments whom they oppose. In the same way that it took traditional armies some time to learn how to combat guerrilla warfare, so it is taking Western governments time to realise that the rules for warfare have been revised in the case of terrorism. Diplomatic efforts have failed to convince.

Meetings and negotiations haven't been able to strike fear in the hearts of terrorists. When we fight terrorism we need to realise we are talking about war. Military warfare is different from civilian peacekeeping. In civilian peacekeeping, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A citizen can be arrested and detained before trial but must be released unless guilt is proven. Military warfare is different. A trial is not held for each military action. In a sense, in a just war, a trial of sorts is held before any action is taken. Discussion and debates among government officials usually occur before war is declared. Fact-finding studies, presentations, testimonies, and other kinds of forethought go into a declaration of war. In a sense, when the use of the military is involved, the trial period comes before anyone is confronted or arrested. But once war is declared, there are no more trials until the enemy is defeated. And every one who aids and abets the enemy is guilty by association. At present, terrorism is a one-sided war that the target governments are loosing. Soldiers and citizens are being killed in the war. Unfortunately, the target governments are not treating terrorism like the war it is. If we take the United States as an example, the limited war powers granted to the president by Congress are not powerful enough and are not used in a systematic way to defeat the enemy. If we are to win the war against terrorism, we must realise that it is war. Until we see it as military aggression, we will be unsuccessful in ending terrorism in this decade. If we continue on with the example of the United States, The ability of these groups to carry out their agenda is not the issue.

The fundamental issue is how U.S. government leaders should deal with this new type of military strategy. Terrorists have held American diplomats hostage for years, blown up military compounds, and hijacked aeroplanes and cruise ships. Although some hostages have been released, many others have been killed, and the U.S. has been unsuccessful at punishing more than a small number of terrorists. Even though international diplomacy has been the primary means used by The United States against terrorism, we should consider what other means may be appropriate. In the past American leaders have responded to military aggression in a variety of ways short of declaring war. The U.S. Constitution grants the following powers to Congress: To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high Seas, and offences against the law of nations; to declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. Terrorist acts fall into at least two of the congressional provisions for dealing with attacks on the nations. They are: (1) to punish offenses against the law of nations, and (2) to declare war. In either case, there are strong constitutional grounds for taking action against terrorists. The difficulty comes in clearly identifying the enemy and being willing to risk offending many Arab nations whom we consider allies. Congress must identify the enemy and call that group a military target. Once that has happened, many of the other steps fall into place with less difficulty. It can be seen that, through diplomatic channels we must make two things very clear to the leaders of the host country. First, they should catch and punish the terrorist groups as civilian criminals.

Or, second, they should extradite the enemy soldiers to an international court for trial. If the host country fails to act on these two requests, we should make it clear that we see it as in complicity with the terrorist groups. By failing to exercise their civil responsibility, these countries leave themselves open to the consequences of allowing military forces hostile to the target government, to remain within their borders. Although diplomacy has its place, it is easy to see that diplomacy and negotiation do not strike fear in the hearts of terrorists. In most cases, diplomatic efforts have failed to bring terrorists to justice. It has been shown that Romans 13 acknowledges the government's right to bear the sword to protect its citizens from criminal threats within the country and military threats outside the country. We have also shown that military action is sanctioned by Congress to punish piracies and felonies and to punish offence against the law of nations. With these facts as background, we should now focus on the issue of just punishment. The principle here is that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. A judge could not chop off a man's hand merely because he scratched another man's hand in a fight. The punishment should be burn for burn and wound for wound. In saying this, it does not mean that the target government should not go off and start to bomb the host countries’ cities if the do not do anything to stop a terrorist group that had for examples sake, kidnapped the target government’s governmental officials.

However, just and proportional punishment also means that we should not apply too light a punishment. Countries that harbour terrorists and refuse to punish or extradite them should be pressured. Punishment could come in the form of economic embargoes, import-export restrictions, the serving of diplomatic relations, or even military actions. Any excessive reaction in a situation like this would not only be unjust, bit it would also fuel the fires of an even stronger retaliation from the host country. In the most desperate cases, a strike force of counterterrorists might be necessary where the threat is both real and imminent. This however, should be considered only as an option of last resort. Some examples of such actions are, in 1989, an Israeli special forces team successfully captured a man by the name of Sheik Obeid, and no doubt put a dent in the terrorist network by bringing one of its leaders to justice. Another example is, in 1985, United States Air Force planes were able to force down an Egyptian airliner to prevent the escape of another terrorist leader. These are acts which should be done rarely and carefully. But, they may be appropriate means to bring about justice.

In conclusion, terrorism must be recognised as a new type of military aggression that requires governmental action. It involves an undeclared war and government officials must take the same sort of actions that they would if threatened by a hostile country. There must be changes in order to prevent further terrorist aggression in this decade and in the future. There has to be a line drawn if we are too completely eradicate this modern scourge of terrorism.

The most common types of terrorist incidents include:

Bombings
Bombings are the most common type of terrorist act. Typically, improvised explosive devices are inexpensive and easy to make. Modern devices are smaller and are harder to detect. They contain very destructive capabilities; for example, on August 7, 1998, two American embassies in Africa were bombed. The bombings claimed the lives of over 200 people, including 12 innocent American citizens, and injured over 5,000 civilians. Terrorists can also use materials that are readily available to the average consumer to construct a bomb.

Kidnappings and Hostage-Takings
Terrorists use kidnapping and hostage-taking to establish a bargaining position and to elicit publicity. Kidnapping is one of the most difficult acts for a terrorist group to accomplish, but, if a kidnapping is successful, it can gain terrorists money, release of jailed comrades, and publicity for an extended period. Hostage-taking involves the seizure of a facility or location and the taking of hostages. Unlike a kidnapping, hostage-taking provokes a confrontation with authorities. It forces authorities to either make dramatic decisions or to comply with the terrorist’s de- mands. It is overt and designed to attract and hold media attention. The terrorists’ intended target is the audience affected by the hostage’s confinement, not the hostage.

Armed Attacks and Assassinations
Armed attacks include raids and ambushes. Assassinations are the killing of a selected victim,usually by bombings or small arms.Drive-by shootings is a common technique employed by unsophisticated or loosely organized terrorist groups. Historically, terrorists have assassinated specific individuals for psychological effect.

Arsons and Firebombings
Incendiary devices are cheap and easy to hide. Arson and firebombings are easily conducted by terrorist groups that may not be as well-organized, equipped, or trained as a major terrorist organization. An arson or firebombing against a utility, hotel, government building, or industrial center portrays an image that the ruling government is incapable of maintaining order.

Hijackings and Skyjackings
Hijacking is the seizure by force of a surface vehicle, its passengers, and/or its cargo. Skyjacking is the taking of an aircraft, which creates a mobile, hostage barricade situation. It provides terrorists with hostages from many nations and draws heavy media attention. Skyjacking also provides mobility for the terrorists to relocate the aircraft to a country that supports their cause and provides them with a human shield, making retaliation difficult.

Other Types of Terrorist Incidents
In addition to the acts of violence discussed above, there are also numerous other types of violence that can exist under the framework of terrorism. Terrorist groups conduct maimings against their own people as a form of punishment for security violations, defections, or informing. Terrorist organizations also conduct robberies and extortion when they need to finance their acts and they don’t have sponsorship from sympathetic nations. Cyberterrorism is a new form of terrorism that is everincreasing as we rely on computer networks to relay information and provide connectivity to today’s modern and fast-paced world. Cyberterrorism allows terrorists to conduct their operations with little or no risk to themselves. It also provides terrorists an opportunity to disrupt or destroy networks and computers. The result is interruption of key government or business-related activities. This type of terrorism isn’t as high profile as other types of terrorist attacks, but its impact is just as destructive.

Historically, terrorist attacks using nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons have been rare. Due the extremely high number of casualties that NBC weapons produce, they are also referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, a number of nations are involved in arms races with neighboring countries be- cause they view the development of WMD as a key de- terrent of attack by hostile neighbors. The increased development of WMD also increases the potential for terrorist groups to gain access to WMD. It is believed that in the future terrorists will have greater access to WMD because unstable nations or states may fail to safeguard their stockpiles of WMD from accidental losses, illicit sales, or outright theft or seizure. Determined terrorist groups can also gain access to WMD through covert independent research efforts or by hiring technically skilled professionals to construct the WMD.

The most common types of terrorist incidents include:

Bombings
Bombings are the most common type of terrorist act. Typically, improvised explosive devices are inexpensive and easy to make. Modern devices are smaller and are harder to detect. They contain very destructive capabilities; for example, on August 7, 1998, two American embassies in Africa were bombed. The bombings claimed the lives of over 200 people, including 12 innocent American citizens, and injured over 5,000 civilians. Terrorists can also use materials that are readily available to the average consumer to construct a bomb.

Kidnappings and Hostage-Takings
Terrorists use kidnapping and hostage-taking to establish a bargaining position and to elicit publicity. Kidnapping is one of the most difficult acts for a terrorist group to accomplish, but, if a kidnapping is successful, it can gain terrorists money, release of jailed comrades, and publicity for an extended period. Hostage-taking involves the seizure of a facility or location and the taking of hostages. Unlike a kidnapping, hostage-taking provokes a confrontation with authorities. It forces authorities to either make dramatic decisions or to comply with the terrorist’s de- mands. It is overt and designed to attract and hold media attention. The terrorists’ intended target is the audience affected by the hostage’s confinement, not the hostage.

Armed Attacks and Assassinations
Armed attacks include raids and ambushes. Assassinations are the killing of a selected victim,usually by bombings or small arms.Drive-by shootings is a common technique employed by unsophisticated or loosely organized terrorist groups. Historically, terrorists have assassinated specific individuals for psychological effect.

Arsons and Firebombings
Incendiary devices are cheap and easy to hide. Arson and firebombings are easily conducted by terrorist groups that may not be as well-organized, equipped, or trained as a major terrorist organization. An arson or firebombing against a utility, hotel, government building, or industrial center portrays an image that the ruling government is incapable of maintaining order.

Hijackings and Skyjackings
Hijacking is the seizure by force of a surface vehicle, its passengers, and/or its cargo. Skyjacking is the taking of an aircraft, which creates a mobile, hostage barricade situation. It provides terrorists with hostages from many nations and draws heavy media attention. Skyjacking also provides mobility for the terrorists to relocate the aircraft to a country that supports their cause and provides them with a human shield, making retaliation difficult.

Other Types of Terrorist Incidents
In addition to the acts of violence discussed above, there are also numerous other types of violence that can exist under the framework of terrorism. Terrorist groups conduct maimings against their own people as a form of punishment for security violations, defections, or informing. Terrorist organizations also conduct robberies and extortion when they need to finance their acts and they don’t have sponsorship from sympathetic nations. Cyberterrorism is a new form of terrorism that is everincreasing as we rely on computer networks to relay information and provide connectivity to today’s modern and fast-paced world. Cyberterrorism allows terrorists to conduct their operations with little or no risk to themselves. It also provides terrorists an opportunity to disrupt or destroy networks and computers. The result is interruption of key government or business-related activities. This type of terrorism isn’t as high profile as other types of terrorist attacks, but its impact is just as destructive.

Historically, terrorist attacks using nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons have been rare. Due the extremely high number of casualties that NBC weapons produce, they are also referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, a number of nations are involved in arms races with neighboring countries be- cause they view the development of WMD as a key de- terrent of attack by hostile neighbors. The increased development of WMD also increases the potential for terrorist groups to gain access to WMD. It is believed that in the future terrorists will have greater access to WMD because unstable nations or states may fail to safeguard their stockpiles of WMD from accidental losses, illicit sales, or outright theft or seizure. Determined terrorist groups can also gain access to WMD through covert independent research efforts or by hiring technically skilled professionals to construct the WMD.

There are many different categories of terrorism and terrorist groups that are currently in use. These categories serve to differentiate terrorist organizations according to specific criteria, which are usually related to the field or specialty of whoever is selecting the categories. Also, some categories are simply labels appended arbitrarily or redundantly, often by the media. For example, every terrorist organization is by definition "radical", as terror tactics are not the norm for the mainstream of any group.

Separatist. Separatist groups are those with the goal of separation from existing entities through independence, political autonomy, or religious freedom or domination. The ideologies separatists subscribe to include social justice or equity, anti-imperialism, as well as the resistance to conquest or occupation by a foreign power.


Ethnocentric. Groups of this persuasion see race as the defining characteristic of a society, and therefore a basis of cohesion. There is usually the attitude that a particular group is superior because of their inherent racial characteristics.

Nationalistic. The loyalty and devotion to a nation, and the national consciousness derived from placing one nation's culture and interests above those of other nations or groups. This can find expression in the creation of a new nation, or in splitting away part of an existing state to join with another that shares the perceived "national" identity.

Revolutionary. Dedicated to the overthrow of an established order and replacing it with a new political or social structure. Although often associated with communist political ideologies, this is not always the case, and other political movements can advocate revolutionary methods to achieve their goals.

Political. Political ideologies are concerned with the structure and organization of the forms of government and communities. While observers outside terrorist organizations may stress differences in political ideology, the activities of groups that are diametrically opposed on the political spectrum are similar to each other in practice.

Religious. Religiously inspired terrorism is on the rise, with a forty-three percent increase of total international terror groups espousing religious motivation between 1980 and 1995. While Islamic terrorists and organizations have been the most active, and the greatest recent threat to the United States, all of the major world religions have extremists that have taken up violence to further their perceived religious goals. Religiously motivated terrorists see their objectives as holy writ, and therefore infallible and non-negotiable

Social. Often particular social policies or issues will be so contentious that they will incite extremist behavior and terrorism. Frequently this is referred to as "single issue" or "special interest" terrorism. Some issues that have produced terrorist activities in the United States and other countries include animal rights, abortion, ecology/environment, and minority rights.

Domestic. These terrorists are "home-grown" and operate within and against their home country. They are frequently tied to extreme social or political factions within a particular society, and focus their efforts specifically on their nation's socio-political arena.

International or Transnational. Often describing the support and operational reach of a group, these terms are often loosely defined, and can be applied to widely different capabilities. International groups typically operate in multiple countries, but retain a geographic focus for their activities. Hezbollah has cells worldwide, and has conducted operations in multiple countries, but is primarily concerned with events in Lebanon and Israel.

Transnational groups operate internationally, but are not tied to a particular country, or even region. Al Qaeda is transnational; being made up of many nationalities, having been based out of multiple countries simultaneously, and conducting operations throughout the world. Their objectives affect dozens of countries with differing political systems, religions, ethnic compositions, and national interests.

Terrorism is continually changing. While at the surface it remains "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear…" it is rapidly becoming the predominant strategic tool of our adversaries. As terrorism evolves into the principal irregular warfare strategy of the 21st century, it is adapting to changes in the world socio-political environment. Some of these changes facilitate the abilities of terrorists to operate, procure funding, and develop new capabilities. Other changes are gradually moving terrorism into a different relationship with the world at large.

In order to put these changes into context, it will be necessary to look at the historical evolution of terrorism, with each succeeding evolution building upon techniques pioneered by others. This evolution is driven by ongoing developments in the nature of conflict and international relations. It is also necessary to consider some of the possible causes of future conflicts, in order to understand the actors and their motivations. Finally, we examine how terrorism will be integrated into this evolution of conflict, and what that will mean for U.S. military forces.

When describing the evolution of terrorism and the use of terror through history, it is essential to remember that forms of society and government in the past were significantly different than they are today. Modern nation-states did not exist in their present form until 1648 (Treaty of Westphalia), and the state's monopoly on warfare, or inter-state violence, is even more recent. The lack of central governments made it impossible to use terror as a method of affecting a political change, as there was no single dominant political authority. Also, the absence of central authority meant that the game of warfare was open to many more players. Instead of national armies, a variety of non-sovereign nobility, mercenaries, leaders of religious factions, or mercantile companies participated in warfare. Their involvement in warfare was considered to be perfectly legitimate. This is in contrast to the modern era, where nations go to war, but private participation is actually illegal.

Early Theories of Terrorism
Early practitioners of terrorism, such as the Zealots and the Assassins did not leave any particular philosophy or doctrine on their use of terrorism. With the exception of spectacular failures such as Guy Fawkes' religiously inspired attempt to assassinate King James I and both Houses of Parliament in England, terrorism did not separate itself or progress beyond the normal practices of warfare at that time. As political systems became more sophisticated, and political authority was viewed as less of a divine gift and more as a social construct, new ideas about political conflict developed.

The period of warfare and political conflict that embroiled Europe after the French Revolution provided inspiration for political theorists during the early 1800s. Several important theories of social revolution developed during this time (see text box on the next page for summaries of the key revolutionary thinkers). The link between revolutionary violence and terror was developed early on. Revolutionary theories rejected the possibility of reforming the system and demanded its destruction. This extremism laid the groundwork for the use of unconstrained violence for political ends.

Two ideologies that embraced violent social change were Marxism, which evolved into communism, and anarchism. Both were utopian; they held that putting their theories into practice could produce ideal societies. Both advocated the complete destruction of the existing system. Both acknowledged that violence outside the accepted bounds of warfare and rebellion would be necessary. Communism focused on economic class warfare, and assumed seizure of state power by the working class (proletariat) until the state was no longer needed, and eventually disposed of. Anarchism advocated more or less immediate rejection of all forms of governance. The anarchist's belief was that after the state is completely destroyed, nothing will be required to replace it, and people could live and interact without governmental coercion. In the short term, communism's acceptance of the need for organization and an interim coercive state made it the more successful of the two ideologies. Anarchism survived into the modern era and retains attraction for violent extremists to this day.

20th Century Evolution of Terrorism
In the early years of the 20th Century nationalism and revolutionary political ideologies were the principal developmental forces acting upon terrorism. When the Treaty of Versailles redrew the map of Europe after World War I by breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and creating new nations, it acknowledged the principle of self-determination for nationalities and ethnic groups. This encouraged minorities and ethnicities not receiving recognition to campaign for independence or autonomy. However, in many cases self-determination was limited to European nations and ethnic groups and denied others, especially the colonial possessions of the major European powers, creating bitterness and setting the stage for the long conflicts of the anti-colonial period.

In particular, Arab nationalists felt that they had been betrayed. Believing they were promised post-war independence, they were doubly disappointed; first when the French and British were given authority over their lands; and then especially when the British allowed Zionist immigration into Palestine in keeping with a promise contained in the Balfour Declaration.

Since the end of World War II, terrorism has accelerated its development into a major component of contemporary conflict. Primarily in use immediately after the war as a subordinate element of anti-colonial insurgencies, it expanded beyond that role. In the service of various ideologies and aspirations, terrorism sometimes supplanted other forms of conflict completely. It also became a far-reaching weapon capable of effects no less global than the intercontinental bomber or missile. It has also proven to be a significant tool of diplomacy and international power for states inclined to use it.

The seemingly quick results and shocking immediacy of terrorism made some consider it as a short cut to victory. Small revolutionary groups not willing to invest the time and resources to organize political activity would rely on the "propaganda of the deed" to energize mass action. This suggested that a tiny core of activists could topple any government through the use of terror alone. The result of this belief by revolutionaries in developed countries was the isolation of the terrorists from the population they claimed to represent, and the adoption of the Leninist concept of the "vanguard of revolution" by tiny groups of disaffected revolutionaries. In less developed countries small groups of foreign revolutionaries such as Che Guevara arrived from outside the country, expecting to immediately energize revolutionary action by their presence.

As a conflict method that has survived and evolved through several millennia to flourish in the modern information age, terrorism continues to adapt to meet the challenges of emerging forms of conflict, and exploit developments in technology and society. Terrorism has demonstrated increasing abilities to adapt to counter-terrorism measures and political failure. Terrorists are developing new capabilities of attack and improving the efficiency of existing methods. Additionally, terrorist groups have shown significant progress in escaping from a subordinate role in nation-state conflicts, and becoming prominent as international influences in their own right. They are becoming more integrated with other sub-state entities, such as criminal organizations and legitimately chartered corporations, and are gradually assuming a measure of control and identity with national governments.

Adaptive Capabilities of Terror Groups
Terrorists have shown the ability to adapt to the techniques and methods of counter-terror agencies and intelligence organizations over the long term. The decentralization of the network form of organization is an example of this. Adopted to reduce the disruption caused by the loss of key links in a chain of command, a network organization also complicates the tasks of security forces, and reduces predictability of operations.

Terrorists have also been quick to use new technologies, and adapt existing ones to their uses. The debate over privacy of computer data was largely spurred by the specter of terrorists planning and communicating with encrypted data beyond law enforcement's ability to intercept or decode this data. To exchange information, terrorists have exploited disposable cellular phones, over the counter long-distance calling cards, Internet cafes, and other means of anonymous communications. Embedding information in digital pictures and graphics is another innovation employed to enable the clandestine global communication that modern terrorists require.

Terrorists have also demonstrated significant resiliency after disruption by counter-terrorist action. Some groups have redefined themselves after being defeated or being forced into dormancy. The Shining Path of Peru (Sendero Luminosa) lost its leadership cadre and founding leader to counter-terrorism efforts by the Peruvian government in 1993. The immediate result was severe degradation in the operational capabilities of the group. However, the Shining Path has returned to rural operations and organization in order to reconstitute itself. Although not the threat that it was, the group remains in being, and could exploit further unrest or governmental weakness in Peru to continue its renewal.

In Italy, the Red Brigades (Brigate Rossi) gradually lapsed into inactivity due to governmental action and a changing political situation. However, a decade after the supposed demise of the Red Brigades, a new group called the Anti-Capitalist Nuclei emerged exhibiting a continuity of symbols, styles of communiqués, and potentially some personnel from the original Red Brigade organization. This ability to perpetuate ideology and symbology during a significant period of dormancy, and re-emerge under favorable conditions demonstrates the durability of terrorism as a threat to modern societies.

Increasing Capabilities of Terrorists
Terrorists are improving their sophistication and abilities in virtually all aspects of their operations and support. The aggressive use of modern technology for information management, communication and intelligence has increased the efficiency of these activities. Weapons technology has become more increasingly available, and the purchasing power of terrorist organizations is on the rise. The ready availability of both technology and trained personnel to operate it for any client with sufficient cash allows the well-funded terrorist to equal or exceed the sophistication of governmental counter-measures.

Likewise, due to the increase in information outlets, and competition with increasing numbers of other messages, terrorism now requires a greatly increased amount of violence or novelty to attract the attention it requires. The tendency of major media to compete for ratings and the subsequent revenue realized from increases in their audience size and share produces pressures on terrorists to increase the impact and violence of their actions to take advantage of this sensationalism.

Today, most experts believe that certain parts of the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan are turning out to be the main power centers for terrorism. Decades of lawlessness and corruption have seen Islamic terrorist groups fill the power vaccum in this region and continue to turn out an alarming number of religiously motivated terrorists.