If "terrorism" means "the use of violence for political purposes," then we must recognize that the method is far from new. Yet since the seventies, the issue of "terrorism" has risen to the forefront of global concerns, to the point of trumping other issues far more destructive, such as poverty, illiteracy, underdevelopment, and AIDS.
All continents have experienced one or more forms of terrorism. But, since the first hijacking by Palestinian militants during the September 11th attacks perpetrated by Islamist suicide bombers, the Arab and Muslim worlds are singled out as the main sources of terrorism.
The concept is blurred because the nature of terrorist actions, motives, the means used and the targets are many and varied. It raises again the question of the relationship between the political act (motivation) and the act of terror (the means), that of legitimate violence (supposedly exercised by the states) and illegitimate (exercised by individuals or organizations sub national non-state) and ethical behavior (is that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima is more ethical or more legitimate than September 11?) and the target audience (the target of terror is the main target? the real target is not she is often a country is the worldwide audience that seeks to alert, inform or influence?
This definition largely overlaps with that of Jean-Marie Balencie for which terrorism is "a sequence of violence, properly planned and highly publicized, deliberately targeting non-military objectives to create a climate of fear and insecurity , to impress the population and its influence decision makers in order to modify decision Making (assign, negotiate, pay, release, suppress) and meet the objectives (political, economic, criminal) previously defined "(Jean-Marc Balencie: "A thousand and one faces of contemporary terrorism" in international issues, French literature, no.8, 2004, p.6)
This definition is inclusive enough to cover the many facets of terrorist...