The purpose of this paper is to discuss the usefulness of the term "New Terrorism" in distinguishing -9/11 terrorism from the form that preceded it. Firstly, we will try to find a suitable definition of "New Terrorism" and then we will see how it is difficult to find a definition of "Terrorism". We will also analyze the term "New" in the light of the attacks of 11 September, and examine if this term describes the events that happened after the 9/11 attacks. We will also study the consequences of the policies which have been implemented as a result of the adoption of the term "New Terrorism", that is to say the War in Afghanistan and the pre-emptive strike in Iraq. We will concentrate on the case of the United States of America and examine the legitimacy of its counter terrorism measures in the light of such a notion as "New terrorism" which has been adopted by it. The consequences this term can have in a democratic system will also be touched upon.
[...] PaRogers, p.3 Rogers, R and Elworthy, op.cit. p.4. Ibid. Rogers, R and Elworthy, op.cit. p.7. Ibid. Rogers, R and Elworthy, loc. cit. Ibid. [...]
[...] Danner, M. ‘Iraq: the war of the imagination', New York Review of Books December 2006, http://www.markdanner.com/articles/show/iraq_the_war_of_the_imagination Rogers, The ‘War on Terror':Winning or Losing? Oxford Research group, Oxford, September 2003, p.11. Rogers, loc. cit. Ibid. Golun, P.S, loc. cit. Roger Paul, op.cit. [...]
[...] In well-screened secrecy, the administration has granted itself vast extra-legal powers: the power to break international treaties, violate conventions and engage in preventive wars; the power to kidnap, torture and indefinitely detain without trial anyone identified by executive fiat as an illegal combatant; the power to create a parallel secret judiciary system under direct Pentagon and White House control; the power to override the existing domestic and international legal order.”[31] Conclusion The question “How useful is the term “New Terrorism” in distinguishing -9/11 terrorism from the form that preceded it” had been discussed in this paper. First, let's recall briefly the different steps of our argumentation. In the first part, we saw how it is difficult to find a suitable definition to the term “Terrorism” and, in the same way, we have briefly analyzed the term “New”. Alexander Spencer drew our attention to the innermost intentions of the term “New”. Equally, we mentioned that the emotional shock provoked by the attacks of 11 September crystallized in the term “New”. [...]
[...] This term open the door of exaggerating considerations in policies of such states. As Philip S Golub gives us to understand “The operations of a small de- territorialised terrorist organization have been represented not has the circumscribed danger they are but as a global totalitarian threat akin to that posed by Hitler. On 16 October 2005 Bush claimed that extremists were seeking to “establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia”. Two days later his national security adviser, Stephan Hadley, told the council on foreign relations in New York that “al-Qaida hopes to rally the Muslim masses, overthrow the moderate governments of the region, and re-establish the Islamic caliphate that would rule from Spain to Indonesia and beyond”[15]. [...]
[...] pp. 11- 12. Wilkinson, op.cit. p.73. Spencer, op.cit, p.25. Galtung, J & Fisher, ‘To End Terrorism, End State Terrorism' September 2002, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/09/20_galtung_end-terrorism.htm Rogers, R and Elworthy, A never-ending war? Consequences of 11 September, Oxford Research group, Oxford, March 2002, p.1. Hawthorne, S and Winter, “Introduction” in September Feminist perspectives, Spinfex, North Melbourne p.17. Lockyer, A. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
