Question

Which of the following categories of terrorist groups carried out the most lethal attacks (in terms of casualties) between 1968-2005?

Select one:

a. Nationalist/separatist

b. Religious

c. Leftist ideology

d. Rightist ideology

Answer 1

B.religious

Major terrorist campaigns date back to the Jewish Zealots’ struggle against the Roman Empire from 48 AD to 70 AD; the Hindu Thugs’ brutal attacks against innocent travelers in India from 600 AD to 1836 AD; and the Assassins’ actions against the Christian crusaders in the Middle East from 1090 AD to 1956 AD (Bloom, 2005; Rapoport, 1984). In fact, the Thugs may have murdered over eight hundred people a year during their twelve-century existence (Hoffman, 2006, 82-83), making them twice as deadly on an annual basis as the modern era of terrorism (1968-2006). Some form of terrorism has characterized civilization for the last two thousand years. Each of the two recent globalization periods has been associated with transnational terrorism that has international implications. In the earlier era of globalization starting in 1878 and ending in 1914, the anarchists waged a terrorist campaign that culminated in World War I. More recently, leftists and fundamentalists utilized transnational terrorism to capture headlines during the current era of globalization from the last third of the twentieth century to the present day.

During the modern era of transnational terrorism, terrorists crossed borders and, in some instances, staged incidents in foreign capitals to focus world attention on their cause or grievance. Some high-profile attacks – e.g., Black September’s abduction of Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympics, Hezbollah’s suicide bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut on 23 October 1983, Hindu extremists’ downing of Air India flight 182 on 23 June 1985, the downing of Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December 1988, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center on 26 February 1993, and the near-simultaneous hijackings on 11 September 2001 (henceforth, 9/11) – made the world acutely aware of the potential threats posed by today’s resourceful terrorists. The attacks on 9/11 struck at the financial and security symbols of America and, in so doing, highlighted the vulnerability to terrorism of even the most powerful nation on earth. Because it is human nature to overspend on unlikely catastrophic events, it is likely that terrorists have succeeded in getting the world to overspend on counterterrorism, while ignoring much more pressing problems for a world besieged with exigencies involving health, the environment, conflict, and governance. Terrorism is a tactic of asymmetric conflict, deployed by the weak for a strategic advantage against a strong opponent.

Transnational terrorism presents a unique challenge that differs fundamentally from the other global crises studied by the Copenhagen Consensus. First, the number of lives lost or ruined by transnational terrorism is rather minor compared with other challenges considered by the Copenhagen Consensus. On average only 420 people are killed and another 1249 are injured each year from transnational terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, the public in rich countries views transnational terrorism as one of the greatest threats. This is rather ironic since over 30,000 people die on US highways annually, yet highway safety is not as much of a public concern. Second, protective or defensive counterterrorism measures may merely deflect attacks to softer targets. For example, the installation of metal detectors in airports in January 1973 decreased skyjackings, but increased kidnappings and other hostage missions; the fortifications of US embassies reduced embassy assaults, but increased assassinations of diplomatic officials (Enders and Sandler, 1993, 2006a). Unlike other challenges, countermeasures may have unintended harmful consequences: strong offensive measures against terrorists can lead to backlash attacks as new grievances are created. Third, guarding against transnational terrorism can utilize resources at an alarming rate without greatly reducing the risks. In contrast, terrorists require moderate resources to create great anxiety in a targeted public. Fourth, transnational terrorism poses a real dilemma for liberal democracies: responding too fully compromises democratic principles and gains support for the terrorists, whereas responding too meekly loses constituency support and exposes the government’s failure to protect lives and property (Wilkinson, 1986, 2001). Thus, government actions can become the root of future attacks. Fifth, terrorism can assume more deadly forms involving chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks. The signs of such threats are beginning to emerge (Ivanova and Sandler, 2006, 2007). Sixth, evaluating solutions or actions against terrorism is particularly difficult owing to counterfactuals – e.g., the incidence of terrorism without these actions – that are hard to identify. Typically, only the benefit or cost side of a solution is readily known.