Rebels, insurgents, paramilitaries, separatists, militants, guerrillas, insurrectionists, fundamentalists... are these all terrorists? Or does terrorism claim its own exclusive niche? The exasperating inability to define terrorism is betrayed in the UN 2006 Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy - "we, the States Members of the United Nations...strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes".
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Counter-terrorism
Counter-terrorism (also spelled counterterrorism) refers to the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, militaries, police departments and corporations adopt in response to terrorist threats and/or acts, both real and imputed.
The tactic of terrorism is available to insurgents and governments. Not all insurgents use terror as a tactic, and some choose not to use it because other tactics work better for them in a particular context. Individuals, such as Timothy McVeigh, may also engage in terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing.
If the terrorism is part of a broader insurgency, counter-terrorism may also form a part of a counter-insurgencydoctrine, but political, economic, and other measures may focus more on the insurgency than the specific acts of terror. Foreign internal defense (FID) is a term used by several countries[citation needed] for programs either to suppress insurgency, or reduce the conditions under which insurgency could develop.
Counter-terrorism includes both the detection of potential acts and the response to related events.
The tactic of terrorism is available to insurgents and governments. Not all insurgents use terror as a tactic, and some choose not to use it because other tactics work better for them in a particular context. Individuals, such as Timothy McVeigh, may also engage in terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing.
If the terrorism is part of a broader insurgency, counter-terrorism may also form a part of a counter-insurgencydoctrine, but political, economic, and other measures may focus more on the insurgency than the specific acts of terror. Foreign internal defense (FID) is a term used by several countries[citation needed] for programs either to suppress insurgency, or reduce the conditions under which insurgency could develop.
Counter-terrorism includes both the detection of potential acts and the response to related events.
Counter-terrorism tactical units
Today, many countries have special units designated to handle terrorist threats. Besides various security agencies, there are elite tactical units, also known as special mission units, whose role is to directly engage terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks.
Such units perform both in preventive actions, hostage rescue and responding to on-going attacks. Countries of all sizes can have highly trained counter-terrorist teams. Tactics, techniques and procedures for manhunting are under constant development.
Most of these measures deal with terrorist attacks that affect an area, or threaten to do so. It is far harder to deal with assassination, or even reprisals on individuals, due to the short (if any) warning time and the quick exfiltration of the assassins. Of course, if the assassination is done by a suicide bomber, exfiltration becomes moot.
These units are specially trained in tactics and are very well equipped for CQB with emphasis on stealth and performing the mission with minimal casualties. The units include take-over force (assault teams), snipers, EOD experts, dog handlers and intelligence officers. SeeCounter-intelligence and counter-terrorism organizations for national command, intelligence, and incident mitigation.
The majority of counter-terrorism operations at the tactical level, are conducted by state, federal and national law enforcement agencies orintelligence agencies. In some countries, the military may be called in as a last resort. Obviously, for countries whose military are legally permitted to conduct police operations, this is a non-issue, and such counter-terrorism operations are conducted by their military.
See Counter-intelligence for command, intelligence and warning, and incident mitigation aspects of counter-terror.
Such units perform both in preventive actions, hostage rescue and responding to on-going attacks. Countries of all sizes can have highly trained counter-terrorist teams. Tactics, techniques and procedures for manhunting are under constant development.
Most of these measures deal with terrorist attacks that affect an area, or threaten to do so. It is far harder to deal with assassination, or even reprisals on individuals, due to the short (if any) warning time and the quick exfiltration of the assassins. Of course, if the assassination is done by a suicide bomber, exfiltration becomes moot.
These units are specially trained in tactics and are very well equipped for CQB with emphasis on stealth and performing the mission with minimal casualties. The units include take-over force (assault teams), snipers, EOD experts, dog handlers and intelligence officers. SeeCounter-intelligence and counter-terrorism organizations for national command, intelligence, and incident mitigation.
The majority of counter-terrorism operations at the tactical level, are conducted by state, federal and national law enforcement agencies orintelligence agencies. In some countries, the military may be called in as a last resort. Obviously, for countries whose military are legally permitted to conduct police operations, this is a non-issue, and such counter-terrorism operations are conducted by their military.
See Counter-intelligence for command, intelligence and warning, and incident mitigation aspects of counter-terror.
Command and control
In North America and other continents, for a threatened or completed terrorist attack, the Incident Command System (ICS) is apt to be invoked to control the various services that may need to be involved in the response. ICS has varied levels of escalation, such as might be needed for multiple incidents in a given area (e.g., the 2005 bombings in London or the 2004 Madrid train bombings, or all the way to a National Response Plan invocation if national-level resources are needed. National response, for example, might be needed for a nuclear, biological, radiological, or large chemical attack.
Damage mitigation
Fire departments, perhaps supplemented by public works agencies, utility providers (e.g., gas, water, electricity), and heavy construction contractors, are most apt to deal with the physical consequences of an attack.
Local security
Again under an incident command model, local police can isolate the incident area, reducing confusion, and specialized police units can conduct tactical operations against terrorists, often using specialized counter-terrorist tactical units. Bringing in such units will normally involve civil or military authority beyond the local level.
Damage mitigation
Fire departments, perhaps supplemented by public works agencies, utility providers (e.g., gas, water, electricity), and heavy construction contractors, are most apt to deal with the physical consequences of an attack.
Local security
Again under an incident command model, local police can isolate the incident area, reducing confusion, and specialized police units can conduct tactical operations against terrorists, often using specialized counter-terrorist tactical units. Bringing in such units will normally involve civil or military authority beyond the local level.
Planning for response to terrorism
Police, fire, and emergency medical response organizations have obvious roles. Local firefighters and emergency medical personnel (often called "first responders") have plans for mitigating the effects of terrorist attacks, although police may deal with threats of such attacks.
Target-hardening
Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark, or reducing the damage of attacks. One method is to place Jersey barrier or other sturdy obstacles outside tall or politically sensitive buildings to prevent car and truck bombing.
Aircraft cockpits are kept locked during flights, and have reinforced doors, which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening. Englishtrain stations removed their waste bins in response to the Provisional IRA threat, as convenient locations for depositing bombs.
Scottish stations removed theirs after the 7th of July bombing of London as a precautionary measure. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority purchased bomb-resistant barriers after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
A more sophisticated target-hardening approach must consider industrial and other critical industrial infrastructure that could be attacked. Terrorists need not import chemical weapons if they can cause a major industrial accident such as the Bhopal disaster or the Halifax explosion. Industrial chemicals in manufacturing, shipping, and storage need greater protection, and some efforts are in progress. To put this risk into perspective, the first major lethal chemical attack in WWI used 160 tons of chlorine. Industrial shipments of chlorine, widely used in water purification and the chemical industry, travel in 90 or 55 ton tank cars.
To give one more example, the North American electrical grid has already demonstrated, in the Northeast Blackout of 2003, its vulnerability to natural disasters coupled with inadequate, possibly insecure, SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) networks. Part of the vulnerability is due to deregulation leading to much more interconnection in a grid designed for only occasional power-selling between utilities. A very few terrorists, attacking key power facilities when one or more engineers have infiltrated the power control centers, could wreak havoc.
Equipping likely targets with containers (i.e., bags) of pig lard has been utilized to discourage attacks by Islamist suicide bombers. The technique was apparently used on a limited scale by British authorities in the 1940s. The approach stems from the idea that Muslims perpetrating the attack would not want to be "soiled" by the lard in the moment prior to dying. The idea has been suggested more recently as a deterrent to suicide bombings in Israel. However, the actual effectiveness of this tactic is probably limited as it is possible that a sympathetic Islamic scholar could issue a fatwa proclaiming that a suicide bomber would not be polluted by the swine products.
Target-hardening
Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark, or reducing the damage of attacks. One method is to place Jersey barrier or other sturdy obstacles outside tall or politically sensitive buildings to prevent car and truck bombing.
Aircraft cockpits are kept locked during flights, and have reinforced doors, which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening. Englishtrain stations removed their waste bins in response to the Provisional IRA threat, as convenient locations for depositing bombs.
Scottish stations removed theirs after the 7th of July bombing of London as a precautionary measure. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority purchased bomb-resistant barriers after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
A more sophisticated target-hardening approach must consider industrial and other critical industrial infrastructure that could be attacked. Terrorists need not import chemical weapons if they can cause a major industrial accident such as the Bhopal disaster or the Halifax explosion. Industrial chemicals in manufacturing, shipping, and storage need greater protection, and some efforts are in progress. To put this risk into perspective, the first major lethal chemical attack in WWI used 160 tons of chlorine. Industrial shipments of chlorine, widely used in water purification and the chemical industry, travel in 90 or 55 ton tank cars.
To give one more example, the North American electrical grid has already demonstrated, in the Northeast Blackout of 2003, its vulnerability to natural disasters coupled with inadequate, possibly insecure, SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) networks. Part of the vulnerability is due to deregulation leading to much more interconnection in a grid designed for only occasional power-selling between utilities. A very few terrorists, attacking key power facilities when one or more engineers have infiltrated the power control centers, could wreak havoc.
Equipping likely targets with containers (i.e., bags) of pig lard has been utilized to discourage attacks by Islamist suicide bombers. The technique was apparently used on a limited scale by British authorities in the 1940s. The approach stems from the idea that Muslims perpetrating the attack would not want to be "soiled" by the lard in the moment prior to dying. The idea has been suggested more recently as a deterrent to suicide bombings in Israel. However, the actual effectiveness of this tactic is probably limited as it is possible that a sympathetic Islamic scholar could issue a fatwa proclaiming that a suicide bomber would not be polluted by the swine products.
US objectives
The George W. Bush administration defined the following objectives in the War on Terrorism:
1. Defeat terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations
2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations
3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists
1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism
2. Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism
3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism
4. Work with willing and able states
5. Enable weak states
6. Persuade reluctant states
7. Compel unwilling states
8. Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists
9. Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens
4. Diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit
1. Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism
2. Win the war of ideals
5. Defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad
1. Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security
2. Attain domain awareness
3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad
4. Integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad
5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability
1. Defeat terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations
2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations
3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists
1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism
2. Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism
3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism
4. Work with willing and able states
5. Enable weak states
6. Persuade reluctant states
7. Compel unwilling states
8. Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists
9. Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens
4. Diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit
1. Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism
2. Win the war of ideals
5. Defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad
1. Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security
2. Attain domain awareness
3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad
4. Integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad
5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability
War on Terrorism
Led by Osama Bin Laden, a radical Islamist trained by the US during the 1980s to conduct guerilla attacks against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan , Al-Qaeda formed a large base of operations in Afghanistan, which had been ruled by the Islamist extremist regime of the Taliban since 1996.
Following the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. President Bill Clintonlaunched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the US asserted were associated with al-Qaeda. Although others have questioned the Sudan plant's use as a chemical warfare plant The strikes failed to kill al-Qaeda'a leaders or their Taliban supporters (targets included a civilian pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that produced much of the region's malariadrugs and around 50% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs ).
Next came the 2000 millennium attack plots which included an attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. In October 2000 the USS Cole bombingoccurred, followed in 2001 by the September 11 attacks.
By 2003, 12 major conventions and protocols were designed to combat terrorism. These were as well, adopted and ratified by a number of states to becomeinternational law. These conventions require states to co-operate on principal issues regarding unlawful seisure of aircraft for example, the physical protection of nuclear materials and freezing assets of militant networks.
In 2005 the Security Council also adopted resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism and the obligations of countries to comply with international human rights laws. Although both resolutions require mandatory annual reports on counterterrorism activities by adopting nations, the United States and Israel have both declined to submit reports.
Historical usage of phrase
The phrase "War on Terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the attempts by European governments, and eventually the US government, to stop attacks by anarchists against leaders and officials. (See, for example, The New York Times, April 2, 1881.)
For example, on 24 January 1878, Russian Marxist Vera Zasulich shot and wounded a Russian police commander who was known to torture suspects. She threw down her weapon without killing him, announcing;"I am a terrorist, not a killer."
The phrase "war on terrorism" gained currency when it was used to describe the efforts by the British colonial government to end a spate of attacks by Zionist Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s. The British proclaimed a "War on Terrorism" against Zionist groups such as Irgun and Lehi, and anyone perceived to be cooperating with them.
The Zionist attacks, Arab attacks and revolts, and the subsequent British crackdown hastened the British evacuation from Palestine. The phrase was also used frequently by US President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, to describe his campaigns against Libya and Nicaragua.
On September 20, 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of congress, President George W. Bush launched his war on terror when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." Bush did not say when he expected this would be achieved. (Previous to this usage, after stepping off the presidential helicopter on Sunday, September 16, 2001, Bush stated in an unscripted and controversial comment: "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." Bush later apologized for this remark due to the negative connotations the word crusade has to people of Muslim faith. The word crusade was not used again).
US President Barack Obama has rarely used the term, but in his inaugural address on January 20, 2009, he stated "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." It is likely that the phrase will fall into disuse, as one referring to failed concepts and strategies of his predecessor. In March 2009 the Defense Department officially changed the name of operations from "Global War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operation" (OCO).
Following the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. President Bill Clintonlaunched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the US asserted were associated with al-Qaeda. Although others have questioned the Sudan plant's use as a chemical warfare plant The strikes failed to kill al-Qaeda'a leaders or their Taliban supporters (targets included a civilian pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that produced much of the region's malariadrugs and around 50% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs ).
Next came the 2000 millennium attack plots which included an attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. In October 2000 the USS Cole bombingoccurred, followed in 2001 by the September 11 attacks.
By 2003, 12 major conventions and protocols were designed to combat terrorism. These were as well, adopted and ratified by a number of states to becomeinternational law. These conventions require states to co-operate on principal issues regarding unlawful seisure of aircraft for example, the physical protection of nuclear materials and freezing assets of militant networks.
In 2005 the Security Council also adopted resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism and the obligations of countries to comply with international human rights laws. Although both resolutions require mandatory annual reports on counterterrorism activities by adopting nations, the United States and Israel have both declined to submit reports.
Historical usage of phrase
The phrase "War on Terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the attempts by European governments, and eventually the US government, to stop attacks by anarchists against leaders and officials. (See, for example, The New York Times, April 2, 1881.)
For example, on 24 January 1878, Russian Marxist Vera Zasulich shot and wounded a Russian police commander who was known to torture suspects. She threw down her weapon without killing him, announcing;"I am a terrorist, not a killer."
The phrase "war on terrorism" gained currency when it was used to describe the efforts by the British colonial government to end a spate of attacks by Zionist Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s. The British proclaimed a "War on Terrorism" against Zionist groups such as Irgun and Lehi, and anyone perceived to be cooperating with them.
The Zionist attacks, Arab attacks and revolts, and the subsequent British crackdown hastened the British evacuation from Palestine. The phrase was also used frequently by US President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, to describe his campaigns against Libya and Nicaragua.
On September 20, 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of congress, President George W. Bush launched his war on terror when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." Bush did not say when he expected this would be achieved. (Previous to this usage, after stepping off the presidential helicopter on Sunday, September 16, 2001, Bush stated in an unscripted and controversial comment: "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." Bush later apologized for this remark due to the negative connotations the word crusade has to people of Muslim faith. The word crusade was not used again).
US President Barack Obama has rarely used the term, but in his inaugural address on January 20, 2009, he stated "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." It is likely that the phrase will fall into disuse, as one referring to failed concepts and strategies of his predecessor. In March 2009 the Defense Department officially changed the name of operations from "Global War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operation" (OCO).
Operation
Car bombs and detonators function in a diverse manner of ways, and there are numerous variables in the operation and placement of the bomb within the vehicle. Earlier and less advanced car bombs were often wired to the car's ignition system, but this practice is now considered more laborious and less effective than other more recent methods, as it required a greater amount of work for a system that could often be quite easily defused. While it is more common nowadays for car bombs to be fixed magnetically to the underside of the car, the underneath of passenger/driver's seat, or inside of the mudguard, detonators triggered by the opening of the vehicle door or by pressure applied to the brakes or accelerating pedals are also used.
Bombs operating by the former method of affixation to the underside of the car more often than not make use of a device called a tilt fuse. A small tube designed of glass or plastic, the tilt fuse is not dissimilar to a medical tablet tube. One end of the fuse will be filled with mercury, while the other open end is wired with the ends of an open circuit to an electrical firing system. Naturally, when the tilt fuse moves or is jerked, the supply of mercury will flow to the top of the tube and close the circuit. Thus, as the vehicle goes through the regular bumping and dipping that comes with driving over a terrain, the circuit is completed and the bomb or explosive is allowed to function.
As a safety mechanism to protect the bomber, the placer of the bomb may rig a timing device incorporated with the circuit to activate the circuit only after a certain time period, therefore ensuring that the bomber will not accidentally activate the bomb before he or she is able to get clear of the blast radius.
Aircraft hijacking
Aircraft hijacking (also known as skyjacking and sky jacking) is the unlawful seizure of an aircraft either by an individual or by a group. In most cases, the pilot is forced to fly according to the orders of the hijackers. However, there have been cases where the hijackers have flown the aircraft themselves. In at least one case, a plane was hijacked by the official pilot.
Unlike the hijacking of land vehicles or ships, skyjacking is usually not perpetrated in order to rob the cargo. Most aircraft hijackings are committed to use the passengers as hostages. Motives vary from demanding the release of certain inmates (notably IC-814) to highlighting the grievances of a particular community (notably AF 8969). Hijacking may also be carried out so as to use the aircraft as a weapon to target a particular location (notably September 11, 2001 attacks). Other hijackers may hold the hostages for ransom.
Most hijackings for hostages result in a series negotiation between the hijackers and the authorities, followed by some form of settlement. However, these settlements do not always meet the hijackers' original demands. If the hijackers show no sign of surrendering, armed special forces may be used by authorities to rescue the hostages (notably Operation Entebbe).
History
The first recorded aircraft hijack took place on February 21, 1931 in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards, flying a Ford Tri-Motor, was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one group member a lift to Lima. However, most hijackings have not been so farcical.
Between 1948 and 1957, there were 15 hijackings all over the world, an average of a little more than one per annum. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48—an annual average of about five. There was an explosive increase to 38 in 1968 and 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation. During the third 10-year period between 1968 and 1977, there were 414 hijackings—an annual average of 41.
The increase since 1958 could be attributed to the following factors:
* The use by the USA's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of inspired hijackings as a weapon of destabilisation against the Fidel Castro regime which had seized power in Cuba in January, 1959. The hijackers inspired or instigated by the CIA did not make any political demands as a price for releasing the aircraft and passengers. They just forced the pilot to fly to either the US naval base at Guantanamo in Cuba or to the US and sought political asylum after condemning the communist regime at a press conference arranged by the CIA. The US did not return the planes to Cuba. Instead, these were ordered to be seized by US courts as compensation for the properties of US businessmen nationalised by the Castro regime.
* The retaliatory hijackings inspired or instigated by the Cuban intelligence, involving either US or non-US aircraft carrying a large number of US nationals. Like the CIA, the Cuban intelligence used these hijackings purely as a psychological weapon to have the US discredited.
* The emulation of the CIA's covert action technique by the Taiwanese intelligence in its psychological warfare against People's Republic of China by inspiring or instigating hijackings from the mainland to Taiwan.
* The beginning of the extensive use of hijackings as a weapon of national liberation or ideological struggle by the various Palestinian organisations and ideological groups supporting the Palestinian cause such as the Red Army Faction of West Germany and Japanese Red Army after the Arab-Israeli war of July, 1967. The targets of their hijackings were mainly Israeli nationals.
* The use of hijackings as a weapon of struggle by other political, religious or ideological organisations or political dissident groups in the rest of the world. Some of these were supported by foreign intelligence agencies such as the support of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan to various anti-Indian groups since 1971, while others were not.
The second Nixon Administration, which came to office in 1973, ordered the discontinuance by the CIA of the use of hijacking as a covert action weapon against the Castro regime. The Cuban intelligence followed suit. The same year, the two countries reached an agreement for the prosecution or return of the hijackers and the aircraft to each other's country. The Taiwanese intelligence also followed the CIA's example-vis-а-vis China.
These measures plus the improvement in Israel's relations with Egypt and Jordan, the renunciation of terrorism by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the on-going peace talks between the PLO and Israel, the collapse of the communist states in East Europe, which reduced the scope for sanctuaries for terrorists, and the more cautious attitude of countries such as Libya and Syria after the US declared them State-sponsors of international terrorism, the collapse of ideological terrorist groups such as the Red Army Faction and the tightening of civil aviation security measures by all countries have arrested and reversed the steep upward movement of hijackings.
However, the situation has not returned to the pre-1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be disturbingly high -an average of 18 per annum during the 10-year period between 1988 and 1997, as against the pre-1968 average of five.
Dealing with hijackings
Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal.
September 11 presented a unique situation because it involved suicide hijackers who could fly an aircraft. The "Common Strategy" tactic was not designed to handle suicide hijackings. This resulted in the hijackers exploiting a weakness in the civil aviation security system. Since then the "Common Strategy" policy is no longer used.
Since the September 11th attacks, the situation for passengers and hijackers has changed. As in the case of United Airlines Flight 93, where an airliner crashed into a field during a fight between passengers and hijackers, passengers now have to calculate the risks of passive cooperation, not only for themselves but also for those on the ground. Future hijackers most likely will encounter greater resistance from passengers and flight crews, making a successful hijacking more unlikely. An example of active passenger resistance occurred when passengers of American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001 helped prevent Richard Reid from igniting explosives hidden in his shoe. Flight attendants and pilots now receive extensive anti-hijacking and self-defense training designed to thwart a hijacking.
Informing air traffic control
To communicate to air traffic control that an aircraft is being hijacked, a pilot under duress should squawk 7500 or vocally, by radio communication, transmit "(Aircraft callsign); Transponder seven five zero zero." This should be done when possible and safe. An air traffic controller who suspects an aircraft may have been hijacked may ask the pilot to confirm "squawk (or transponder) seven five zero zero." If the aircraft is not being hijacked, the pilot should not squawk 7500 and should inform the controller accordingly. A pilot under duress may also elect to respond that the aircraft is not being hijacked, but then neglect to change to a different squawk code. In this case the controller would make no further requests and immediately inform the appropriate authorities. A complete lack of a response would also be taken to indicate a possible hijacking. Of course, a loss of radio communications may also be the cause for a lack of response, in which case a pilot would usually squawk 7600 anyway.
Shooting down aircraft
Several states have stated that they would shoot down hijacked commercial aircraft if it can be assumed that the hijackers intend to use the aircraft in a 9/11-style attack, despite killing innocent passengers onboard. According to reports, US fighter pilots have been training to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners should it become necessary. Other countries such as Poland and India have enacted laws or decrees that allow the shooting down of hijacked planes.
Germany
In a widely regarded decision by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, in February 2006, it struck down a law - "Luftsicherheitsgesetz" or "Air security law" - claiming such preventive measures were unconstitutional and would essentially be state-sponsored murder, even if such an act would save many more lives on the ground. The main reasoning behind this decision was that the state would effectively be taking the lives of innocent hostages in order to avoid a terrorist attack. The Court also ruled that the Minister of Defense is constitutionally not entitled to act in terrorism matters, as this is the duty of the state and federal police forces. See the German Wikipedia entry, or
The President of Germany, Horst Köhler, himself urged judicial review of the constitutionality of the Luftsicherheitsgesetz after he signed it into law in 2005.
Unlike the hijacking of land vehicles or ships, skyjacking is usually not perpetrated in order to rob the cargo. Most aircraft hijackings are committed to use the passengers as hostages. Motives vary from demanding the release of certain inmates (notably IC-814) to highlighting the grievances of a particular community (notably AF 8969). Hijacking may also be carried out so as to use the aircraft as a weapon to target a particular location (notably September 11, 2001 attacks). Other hijackers may hold the hostages for ransom.
Most hijackings for hostages result in a series negotiation between the hijackers and the authorities, followed by some form of settlement. However, these settlements do not always meet the hijackers' original demands. If the hijackers show no sign of surrendering, armed special forces may be used by authorities to rescue the hostages (notably Operation Entebbe).
History
The first recorded aircraft hijack took place on February 21, 1931 in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards, flying a Ford Tri-Motor, was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one group member a lift to Lima. However, most hijackings have not been so farcical.
Between 1948 and 1957, there were 15 hijackings all over the world, an average of a little more than one per annum. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48—an annual average of about five. There was an explosive increase to 38 in 1968 and 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation. During the third 10-year period between 1968 and 1977, there were 414 hijackings—an annual average of 41.
The increase since 1958 could be attributed to the following factors:
* The use by the USA's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of inspired hijackings as a weapon of destabilisation against the Fidel Castro regime which had seized power in Cuba in January, 1959. The hijackers inspired or instigated by the CIA did not make any political demands as a price for releasing the aircraft and passengers. They just forced the pilot to fly to either the US naval base at Guantanamo in Cuba or to the US and sought political asylum after condemning the communist regime at a press conference arranged by the CIA. The US did not return the planes to Cuba. Instead, these were ordered to be seized by US courts as compensation for the properties of US businessmen nationalised by the Castro regime.
* The retaliatory hijackings inspired or instigated by the Cuban intelligence, involving either US or non-US aircraft carrying a large number of US nationals. Like the CIA, the Cuban intelligence used these hijackings purely as a psychological weapon to have the US discredited.
* The emulation of the CIA's covert action technique by the Taiwanese intelligence in its psychological warfare against People's Republic of China by inspiring or instigating hijackings from the mainland to Taiwan.
* The beginning of the extensive use of hijackings as a weapon of national liberation or ideological struggle by the various Palestinian organisations and ideological groups supporting the Palestinian cause such as the Red Army Faction of West Germany and Japanese Red Army after the Arab-Israeli war of July, 1967. The targets of their hijackings were mainly Israeli nationals.
* The use of hijackings as a weapon of struggle by other political, religious or ideological organisations or political dissident groups in the rest of the world. Some of these were supported by foreign intelligence agencies such as the support of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan to various anti-Indian groups since 1971, while others were not.
The second Nixon Administration, which came to office in 1973, ordered the discontinuance by the CIA of the use of hijacking as a covert action weapon against the Castro regime. The Cuban intelligence followed suit. The same year, the two countries reached an agreement for the prosecution or return of the hijackers and the aircraft to each other's country. The Taiwanese intelligence also followed the CIA's example-vis-а-vis China.
These measures plus the improvement in Israel's relations with Egypt and Jordan, the renunciation of terrorism by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the on-going peace talks between the PLO and Israel, the collapse of the communist states in East Europe, which reduced the scope for sanctuaries for terrorists, and the more cautious attitude of countries such as Libya and Syria after the US declared them State-sponsors of international terrorism, the collapse of ideological terrorist groups such as the Red Army Faction and the tightening of civil aviation security measures by all countries have arrested and reversed the steep upward movement of hijackings.
However, the situation has not returned to the pre-1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be disturbingly high -an average of 18 per annum during the 10-year period between 1988 and 1997, as against the pre-1968 average of five.
Dealing with hijackings
Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal.
September 11 presented a unique situation because it involved suicide hijackers who could fly an aircraft. The "Common Strategy" tactic was not designed to handle suicide hijackings. This resulted in the hijackers exploiting a weakness in the civil aviation security system. Since then the "Common Strategy" policy is no longer used.
Since the September 11th attacks, the situation for passengers and hijackers has changed. As in the case of United Airlines Flight 93, where an airliner crashed into a field during a fight between passengers and hijackers, passengers now have to calculate the risks of passive cooperation, not only for themselves but also for those on the ground. Future hijackers most likely will encounter greater resistance from passengers and flight crews, making a successful hijacking more unlikely. An example of active passenger resistance occurred when passengers of American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001 helped prevent Richard Reid from igniting explosives hidden in his shoe. Flight attendants and pilots now receive extensive anti-hijacking and self-defense training designed to thwart a hijacking.
Informing air traffic control
To communicate to air traffic control that an aircraft is being hijacked, a pilot under duress should squawk 7500 or vocally, by radio communication, transmit "(Aircraft callsign); Transponder seven five zero zero." This should be done when possible and safe. An air traffic controller who suspects an aircraft may have been hijacked may ask the pilot to confirm "squawk (or transponder) seven five zero zero." If the aircraft is not being hijacked, the pilot should not squawk 7500 and should inform the controller accordingly. A pilot under duress may also elect to respond that the aircraft is not being hijacked, but then neglect to change to a different squawk code. In this case the controller would make no further requests and immediately inform the appropriate authorities. A complete lack of a response would also be taken to indicate a possible hijacking. Of course, a loss of radio communications may also be the cause for a lack of response, in which case a pilot would usually squawk 7600 anyway.
Shooting down aircraft
Several states have stated that they would shoot down hijacked commercial aircraft if it can be assumed that the hijackers intend to use the aircraft in a 9/11-style attack, despite killing innocent passengers onboard. According to reports, US fighter pilots have been training to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners should it become necessary. Other countries such as Poland and India have enacted laws or decrees that allow the shooting down of hijacked planes.
Germany
In a widely regarded decision by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, in February 2006, it struck down a law - "Luftsicherheitsgesetz" or "Air security law" - claiming such preventive measures were unconstitutional and would essentially be state-sponsored murder, even if such an act would save many more lives on the ground. The main reasoning behind this decision was that the state would effectively be taking the lives of innocent hostages in order to avoid a terrorist attack. The Court also ruled that the Minister of Defense is constitutionally not entitled to act in terrorism matters, as this is the duty of the state and federal police forces. See the German Wikipedia entry, or
The President of Germany, Horst Köhler, himself urged judicial review of the constitutionality of the Luftsicherheitsgesetz after he signed it into law in 2005.
Nuclear terrorism
Nuclear terrorism denotes the use, or threat of the use, of nuclear weapons or radiological weapons in acts of terrorism, including attacks against facilities where radioactive materials are present. In legal terms, nuclear terrorism is an offense committed if a person unlawfully and intentionally “uses in any way radioactive material … with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury”, according to International conventions.
The notion of terrorist organizations using nuclear weapons (especially very small ones, such as suitcase nukes) has been a threat in American rhetoric and culture. It is plausible that terrorists could acquire a nuclear weapon.
Overview
Two of the main dangers associated with nuclear reactors are nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Terrorism involving nuclear weapons or radioactive materials could take a variety of forms. Terrorists could:
* Attack a nuclear reactor.
* Disrupt critical inputs (eg., water supply) for the safe running of a nuclear reactor.
* Steal nuclear fuel or waste.
* Acquire fissile material and fabricate a nuclear bomb.
* Acquire a ready-made nuclear weapon or take over a nuclear-armed submarine, plane or base
The notion of terrorist organizations using nuclear weapons (especially very small ones, such as suitcase nukes) has been a threat in American rhetoric and culture. It is plausible that terrorists could acquire a nuclear weapon.
Overview
Two of the main dangers associated with nuclear reactors are nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Terrorism involving nuclear weapons or radioactive materials could take a variety of forms. Terrorists could:
* Attack a nuclear reactor.
* Disrupt critical inputs (eg., water supply) for the safe running of a nuclear reactor.
* Steal nuclear fuel or waste.
* Acquire fissile material and fabricate a nuclear bomb.
* Acquire a ready-made nuclear weapon or take over a nuclear-armed submarine, plane or base
Piracy
Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties (not affiliated with any government), especially robbery or criminal violence on the sea. The term can include acts committed in other major bodies of water or on a shore. It does not normally include crimes committed against persons traveling on the same vessel as the actor (e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel). The term has been used to refer to raids across land borders by non-state actors. Piracy should be distinguished from privateering, which was a legitimate form of war-like activity by non-state actors, authorized by their national authorities, until this form of commerce raiding was outlawed in the 19th century.
Definition
Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state, in fact piracy has been the first example of universal jurisdiction. Nevertheless today the international community is facing many problems in bringing pirates to justice.
Definition
Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state, in fact piracy has been the first example of universal jurisdiction. Nevertheless today the international community is facing many problems in bringing pirates to justice.
Various definitions of propaganda of the deed
An early proponent of propaganda by the deed was the Italian revolutionary Carlo Pisacane (1818-1857), who wrote in his "Political Testament" (1857) that "ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around." Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), in his "Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis" (1870) stated that "we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda."
The phrase "propaganda by the deed" was popularized by the French anarchist Paul Brousse (1844-1912). In his article of that name, published in the August 1877 Bulletin of the Jura Federation, he cited the 1871 Paris Commune, a workers' demonstration in Berne provocatively using the socialist red flag, and the Benevento uprising in Italy as examples of "propaganda by the deed."
Some anarchists, such as Johann Most, advocated publicizing violent acts of retaliation against counter-revolutionaries because "we preach not only action in and for itself, but also action as propaganda." Most was an early influence on American anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. Berkman attempted propaganda by the deed when he tried in 1892 to kill industrialist Henry Clay Frick following the deaths by shooting of several striking workers.
By the 1880s, the slogan "propaganda of the deed" had begun to be used both within and outside of the anarchist movement to refer to individual bombings, regicides and tyrannicides. However, as soon as 1887, important figures in the anarchist movement distanced themselves from such individual acts. Peter Kropotkin thus wrote that year in Le Révolté that "a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite". A variety of anarchists advocated the abandonment of these sorts of tactics in favor of collective revolutionary action, for example through the trade union movement. The anarcho-syndicalist, Fernand Pelloutier, argued in 1895 for renewed anarchist involvement in the labor movement on the basis that anarchism could do very well without "the individual dynamiter."
State repression (including the infamous 1894 French lois scélérates) of the anarchist and labor movements following the few successful bombings and assassinations may have contributed to the abandonment of these kinds of tactics, although reciprocally state repression, in the first place, may have played a role in these isolated acts. The dismemberment of the French socialist movement, into many groups and, following the suppression of the 1871 Paris Commune, the execution and exile of many communards to penal colonies, favored individualist political expression and acts.
Other theorists advocating propaganda of the deed included the Italian anarchists Luigi Galleani and Errico Malatesta. Malatesta described "propaganda by the deed" as violent communal insurrections that were meant to ignite the imminent revolution.
It should be noted that Malatesta denounced such insurrections. Here is some of what he says in his essay:
"Violence (physical force) used to another's hurt, which is the most brutal form of struggle between men can assume, is eminently corrupting. It tends, by its very nature, to suffocate the best sentiments of man, and to develop all the antisocial qualities, ferocity, hatred, revenge, the spirit of domination and tyranny, contempt of the weak, servility towards the strong. And this harmful tendency arises also when violence is used for a good end. ... Anarchists who rebel against every sort of oppression and struggle for the integral liberty of each and who ought thus to shrink instinctively from all acts of violence which cease to be mere resistance to oppression and become oppressive in their turn are also liable to fall into the abyss of brutal force. ... The excitement caused by some recent explosions and the admiration for the courage with which the bomb-throwers faced death, suffices to cause many anarchists to forget their program, and to enter on a path which is the most absolute negation of all anarchist ideas and sentiments."
For the German anarchist Gustav Landauer "propaganda of the deed" meant the creation of libertarian social forms and communities that would inspire others to transform society.In "Weak Statesmen, Weaker People," he wrote that the state is not something "that one can smash in order to destroy. The state is a relationship between human beings... one destroys it by entering into other relationships"
In 1886, French anarchist Clément Duval achieved a form of propaganda of the deed, stealing 15,000 francs from the mansion of a Parisian socialite, before accidentally setting the house on fire. Caught two weeks later, he was dragged from the court crying "Long live anarchy!", and condemned to death. His sentence was later commuted to hard labor on Devil's Island, French Guiana. In the anarchist paper Révolte, Duval famously declared that, "Theft exists only through the exploitation of man by man... when Society refuses you the right to exist, you must take it... the policeman arrested me in the name of the Law, I struck him in the name of Liberty".
Propaganda of the deed is also related to illegalism, an anarchist philosophy that developed primarily in France, Italy, Belgium, and Switzerland during the early 20th century as an outgrowth of anarchist individualism. The illegalists openly embraced criminality as a lifestyle. Influenced by theorist Max Stirner's concept of "egoism", the illegalists broke from anarchists like Clément Duval and Marius Jacob who justified theft with a theory of la reprise individuelle (Eng: individual reclamation). Instead, the illegalists argued that their actions required no moral basis - illegal acts were taken not in the name of a higher ideal, but in pursuit of one's own desires. France's Bonnot Gang was the most famous group to embrace illegalism.
The phrase "propaganda by the deed" was popularized by the French anarchist Paul Brousse (1844-1912). In his article of that name, published in the August 1877 Bulletin of the Jura Federation, he cited the 1871 Paris Commune, a workers' demonstration in Berne provocatively using the socialist red flag, and the Benevento uprising in Italy as examples of "propaganda by the deed."
Some anarchists, such as Johann Most, advocated publicizing violent acts of retaliation against counter-revolutionaries because "we preach not only action in and for itself, but also action as propaganda." Most was an early influence on American anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. Berkman attempted propaganda by the deed when he tried in 1892 to kill industrialist Henry Clay Frick following the deaths by shooting of several striking workers.
By the 1880s, the slogan "propaganda of the deed" had begun to be used both within and outside of the anarchist movement to refer to individual bombings, regicides and tyrannicides. However, as soon as 1887, important figures in the anarchist movement distanced themselves from such individual acts. Peter Kropotkin thus wrote that year in Le Révolté that "a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite". A variety of anarchists advocated the abandonment of these sorts of tactics in favor of collective revolutionary action, for example through the trade union movement. The anarcho-syndicalist, Fernand Pelloutier, argued in 1895 for renewed anarchist involvement in the labor movement on the basis that anarchism could do very well without "the individual dynamiter."
State repression (including the infamous 1894 French lois scélérates) of the anarchist and labor movements following the few successful bombings and assassinations may have contributed to the abandonment of these kinds of tactics, although reciprocally state repression, in the first place, may have played a role in these isolated acts. The dismemberment of the French socialist movement, into many groups and, following the suppression of the 1871 Paris Commune, the execution and exile of many communards to penal colonies, favored individualist political expression and acts.
Other theorists advocating propaganda of the deed included the Italian anarchists Luigi Galleani and Errico Malatesta. Malatesta described "propaganda by the deed" as violent communal insurrections that were meant to ignite the imminent revolution.
It should be noted that Malatesta denounced such insurrections. Here is some of what he says in his essay:
"Violence (physical force) used to another's hurt, which is the most brutal form of struggle between men can assume, is eminently corrupting. It tends, by its very nature, to suffocate the best sentiments of man, and to develop all the antisocial qualities, ferocity, hatred, revenge, the spirit of domination and tyranny, contempt of the weak, servility towards the strong. And this harmful tendency arises also when violence is used for a good end. ... Anarchists who rebel against every sort of oppression and struggle for the integral liberty of each and who ought thus to shrink instinctively from all acts of violence which cease to be mere resistance to oppression and become oppressive in their turn are also liable to fall into the abyss of brutal force. ... The excitement caused by some recent explosions and the admiration for the courage with which the bomb-throwers faced death, suffices to cause many anarchists to forget their program, and to enter on a path which is the most absolute negation of all anarchist ideas and sentiments."
For the German anarchist Gustav Landauer "propaganda of the deed" meant the creation of libertarian social forms and communities that would inspire others to transform society.In "Weak Statesmen, Weaker People," he wrote that the state is not something "that one can smash in order to destroy. The state is a relationship between human beings... one destroys it by entering into other relationships"
In 1886, French anarchist Clément Duval achieved a form of propaganda of the deed, stealing 15,000 francs from the mansion of a Parisian socialite, before accidentally setting the house on fire. Caught two weeks later, he was dragged from the court crying "Long live anarchy!", and condemned to death. His sentence was later commuted to hard labor on Devil's Island, French Guiana. In the anarchist paper Révolte, Duval famously declared that, "Theft exists only through the exploitation of man by man... when Society refuses you the right to exist, you must take it... the policeman arrested me in the name of the Law, I struck him in the name of Liberty".
Propaganda of the deed is also related to illegalism, an anarchist philosophy that developed primarily in France, Italy, Belgium, and Switzerland during the early 20th century as an outgrowth of anarchist individualism. The illegalists openly embraced criminality as a lifestyle. Influenced by theorist Max Stirner's concept of "egoism", the illegalists broke from anarchists like Clément Duval and Marius Jacob who justified theft with a theory of la reprise individuelle (Eng: individual reclamation). Instead, the illegalists argued that their actions required no moral basis - illegal acts were taken not in the name of a higher ideal, but in pursuit of one's own desires. France's Bonnot Gang was the most famous group to embrace illegalism.
Propaganda of the deed
Propaganda of the deed (or propaganda by the deed, from the French propagande par le fait) is a concept that promotes physical violence against political enemies as a way of inspiring the masses and catalyzing revolution.
Propaganda of the deed may take many forms, but in many cases utilizes violence against people seen as threats to the working class. It also refers to the use of symbolic acts of violence against structural targets, in which the act is intended to evoke a broader meaning.
Anarchist origins
Propaganda of the deed may take many forms, but in many cases utilizes violence against people seen as threats to the working class. It also refers to the use of symbolic acts of violence against structural targets, in which the act is intended to evoke a broader meaning.
Anarchist origins
Proxy bomb
The proxy bomb (also known as a human bomb) was a tactic used by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) for a short time in the early 1990s, whereby people were forced to drive car bombs into British military targets. It has also been used in Colombia by FARC rebels. The tactic has been compared to a suicide bomb, although the bomber in these cases was coerced rather than being a volunteer.
First proxy bomb
In late 1990 the IRA Army Council gave approval for what was to be the first of a series of proxy bomb attacks.[citation needed] The plan was to kidnap a member of the British security forces or a British Army sympathiser, hold their family hostage and force the kidnapped person to take explosives to a target.
In the early hours of 24 October 1990 armed and masked IRA volunteers took the family of Patrick "Patsy" Gillespie hostage. Gillespie was a Catholic who worked as a cook for the British Army and so was seen by the IRA as a collaborator and legitimate target.
The IRA forced him to drive a car loaded with 1,000 pounds of explosives to the British Army checkpoint at Coshquin on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. When he arrived at the checkpoint the bomb was detonated by remote control, killing Gillespie and five soldiers from the Kings Regiment.
At Gillespie's funeral Bishop Edward Daly said the IRA and its supporters were "...the complete contradiction of Christianity. They may say they are followers of Christ. Some of them may even still engage in the hypocrisy of coming to church, but their lives and their works proclaim clearly that they follow Satan."
Other proxy bombs
On the same day, there were two other proxy bomb attacks in Northern Ireland. In one, a 65 year old ex-UDR man, James McEvoy was forced to drive a bomb into a British Army checkpoint outside Newry. He managed to jump clear at the last moment, suffering a broken leg, but Ranger Cyril J. Smith QGM aged 21 from B. Coy. 2nd Battalion Royal Irish Rangers was killed and thirteen were injured. Smith was posthumously awarded the QGM as he attempted to warn his colleagues about the bomb rather than running for cover.
In another attack on Lisanelly Army base in Omagh, the proxy bomber was strapped into the car to keep him from escaping, while his wife and children were held hostage. However, the bomb failed to explode.
There were a few more attacks like these in the next month the last one being a failed attempt to destroy a checkpoint at Rosslea, County Fermanagh, on 21 December. The same checkpoint was the subject of a heavy machine gun attack a week later. Another proxy bomb wrecked a UDR base in Magherafelt, County Londonderry, in early February 1991, but there were no fatalities. The proxy bomb tactic caused some outrage in both the unionist and nationalist communities. In spite of this, there were a few more attacks before the tactic was stopped. The final IRA use of proxy bombs came on 24 April 1993,[citation needed] when they forced two London taxi drivers to drive bombs towards Downing Street and New Scotland Yard. There were no casualties, however, as the drivers managed to shout warnings and to abandon their cars in time. A conventionally delivered bomb was detonated by the IRA on the same day in the financial centre of Bishopsgate in central London.
First proxy bomb
In late 1990 the IRA Army Council gave approval for what was to be the first of a series of proxy bomb attacks.[citation needed] The plan was to kidnap a member of the British security forces or a British Army sympathiser, hold their family hostage and force the kidnapped person to take explosives to a target.
In the early hours of 24 October 1990 armed and masked IRA volunteers took the family of Patrick "Patsy" Gillespie hostage. Gillespie was a Catholic who worked as a cook for the British Army and so was seen by the IRA as a collaborator and legitimate target.
The IRA forced him to drive a car loaded with 1,000 pounds of explosives to the British Army checkpoint at Coshquin on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. When he arrived at the checkpoint the bomb was detonated by remote control, killing Gillespie and five soldiers from the Kings Regiment.
At Gillespie's funeral Bishop Edward Daly said the IRA and its supporters were "...the complete contradiction of Christianity. They may say they are followers of Christ. Some of them may even still engage in the hypocrisy of coming to church, but their lives and their works proclaim clearly that they follow Satan."
Other proxy bombs
On the same day, there were two other proxy bomb attacks in Northern Ireland. In one, a 65 year old ex-UDR man, James McEvoy was forced to drive a bomb into a British Army checkpoint outside Newry. He managed to jump clear at the last moment, suffering a broken leg, but Ranger Cyril J. Smith QGM aged 21 from B. Coy. 2nd Battalion Royal Irish Rangers was killed and thirteen were injured. Smith was posthumously awarded the QGM as he attempted to warn his colleagues about the bomb rather than running for cover.
In another attack on Lisanelly Army base in Omagh, the proxy bomber was strapped into the car to keep him from escaping, while his wife and children were held hostage. However, the bomb failed to explode.
There were a few more attacks like these in the next month the last one being a failed attempt to destroy a checkpoint at Rosslea, County Fermanagh, on 21 December. The same checkpoint was the subject of a heavy machine gun attack a week later. Another proxy bomb wrecked a UDR base in Magherafelt, County Londonderry, in early February 1991, but there were no fatalities. The proxy bomb tactic caused some outrage in both the unionist and nationalist communities. In spite of this, there were a few more attacks before the tactic was stopped. The final IRA use of proxy bombs came on 24 April 1993,[citation needed] when they forced two London taxi drivers to drive bombs towards Downing Street and New Scotland Yard. There were no casualties, however, as the drivers managed to shout warnings and to abandon their cars in time. A conventionally delivered bomb was detonated by the IRA on the same day in the financial centre of Bishopsgate in central London.
Suicide attack
A suicide attack is an attack intended to kill others and inflict widespread damage in the knowledge that oneself will die in the process. This article is concerned with two particular instances of suicide attacks, namely the tactics employed by the Kamikaze and modern instances of suicide tactics and suicide terrorism.
Suicide Attack tactics
Historical examples
In the late 17th century, Qing official Yu Yonghe recorded that injured Dutch soldiers fighting against Koxinga's forces for control of Taiwan in 1661 would use gunpowder to blow up both themselves and their opponents rather than be taken prisoner.
During the Belgian Revolution, the Dutch Lieutenant Jan van Speijk detonated his own ship in the harbour of Antwerp to prevent being captured by the Belgians.
Another example was the Prussian soldier Karl Klinke on 18 April 1864 at the Battle of Dybbøl, when he blew a hole in a Danish fortification.
Modern suicide bombing as a political tool can be traced back to the assassination of Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1881. Alexander fell victim to a Nihilist plot. While driving on one of the central streets of Saint Petersburg, near the Winter Palace, he was mortally wounded by the explosion of hand-made grenades and died a few hours afterwards. The Tzar was killed by a member of Narodnaya Volya, Ignacy Hryniewiecki, who died while intentionally exploding the bomb during the attack.
Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff intended to assassinate Adolf Hitler by suicide bomb in 1943, but was unable to complete the attack.
During the Battle for Berlin the Luftwaffe flew "Self-sacrifice missions" (Selbstopfereinsatz) against Soviet bridges over the River Oder. These 'total missions' were flown by pilots of the Leonidas Squadron under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Heiner Lange. From 17 April until 20 April 1945, using any aircraft that were available, the Luftwaffe claimed that the squadron destroyed 17 bridges, however the military historian Antony Beevor when writing about the incident thinks that this was exaggerated and that only the railway bridge at Küstrin was definitely destroyed. He comments that "thirty-five pilots and aircraft was a high price to pay for such a limited and temporary success". The missions were called off when the Soviet ground forces reached the vicinity of the squadron's airbase at Jüterbog.
Following World War II, Viet Minh "death volunteers" fought against the French colonial army by using a long stick-like explosive to destroy French tanks.
Suicide terrorism and suicide bombing
Suicide terrorism is a problematic term to define. There is an ongoing debate on definitions of terrorism itself. Kofi Annan, as Secretary General of the UN, defined terrorism in March 2005 in the General Assembly as any action "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants" for the purpose of intimidation. This definition would distinguish suicide terrorism from suicide bombing in that suicide bombing does not necessarily target non-combatants. However this definition is not widely accepted.
For example, Jason Burke, a journalist who has lived among Islamic militants himself, whilst preferring the term 'militancy' to 'terrorism', suggests that most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause', and stresses that terrorism is a tactic, and Burke leaves the target of such actions out of the definition, although he is also clear in calling suicide bombings 'abhorrent'. Halliday meanwhile draws attention to the fact that assigning the descriptor of 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' to the actions of a group is a tactic used by states to deny 'legitimacy' and 'rights to protest and rebel', although similar to Burke does not define terrorism in terms of the militance of the victim as did Kofi Annan His preferred approach is to focus on the specific aspects within terrorism that we can study without using the concept itself, laden as it is with 'such distortion and myth'. This means focusing on the specific components of 'terror' and 'political violence' within terrorism .
With awareness of that debate in mind, suicide terrorism itself has been defined as ' a diversity of violent actions perpetrated by people who are aware that the odds they will return alive are close to zero'. This captures suicide bombing, and the range of suicide tactics below
Types of suicide tactic
* Suicide attack on foot: explosive belt, satchel charge
* Attempted suicide attack with a plane as target: Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63
* Suicide car bomb: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, Sri Lankan Central Bank bombing, numerous incidents in Iraq since 2003
* Suicide attack by a boat with explosives: USS Cole bombing, attacks in Sri Lanka by the LTTE Sea Tigers.
* Suicide attack by a submarine with explosives (human-steered torpedo): Kaiten, used by Japan in World War II
* Suicide attack by donkey: Donkey bombs were a speciality of the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) in Peru.[25]
* Suicide attack by a woman (Thenmuli Rajaratnam) wearing a belt with explosives or a bra bomb : Assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
* Suicide attack by a bicycle with explosives: Assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
* Suicide attack by a hijacked plane with fuel: September 11, 2001 attacks, possibly Air France Flight 8969 and attempted by Samuel Byck
* Suicide attack by diverting a bus to an abyss: Tel Aviv Jerusalem bus 405 massacre
* Suicide attack with guns: Kashmiri insurgents on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 killing 15 people.
After the 1983 truck bombing of two barracks buildings in Beirut that killed 300 and helped drive American and French Multinational Force troops from Lebanon, the tactic spread to insurgent groups like the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, and Islamist groups such as Hamas.
Suicide Attack tactics
Historical examples
In the late 17th century, Qing official Yu Yonghe recorded that injured Dutch soldiers fighting against Koxinga's forces for control of Taiwan in 1661 would use gunpowder to blow up both themselves and their opponents rather than be taken prisoner.
During the Belgian Revolution, the Dutch Lieutenant Jan van Speijk detonated his own ship in the harbour of Antwerp to prevent being captured by the Belgians.
Another example was the Prussian soldier Karl Klinke on 18 April 1864 at the Battle of Dybbøl, when he blew a hole in a Danish fortification.
Modern suicide bombing as a political tool can be traced back to the assassination of Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1881. Alexander fell victim to a Nihilist plot. While driving on one of the central streets of Saint Petersburg, near the Winter Palace, he was mortally wounded by the explosion of hand-made grenades and died a few hours afterwards. The Tzar was killed by a member of Narodnaya Volya, Ignacy Hryniewiecki, who died while intentionally exploding the bomb during the attack.
Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff intended to assassinate Adolf Hitler by suicide bomb in 1943, but was unable to complete the attack.
During the Battle for Berlin the Luftwaffe flew "Self-sacrifice missions" (Selbstopfereinsatz) against Soviet bridges over the River Oder. These 'total missions' were flown by pilots of the Leonidas Squadron under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Heiner Lange. From 17 April until 20 April 1945, using any aircraft that were available, the Luftwaffe claimed that the squadron destroyed 17 bridges, however the military historian Antony Beevor when writing about the incident thinks that this was exaggerated and that only the railway bridge at Küstrin was definitely destroyed. He comments that "thirty-five pilots and aircraft was a high price to pay for such a limited and temporary success". The missions were called off when the Soviet ground forces reached the vicinity of the squadron's airbase at Jüterbog.
Following World War II, Viet Minh "death volunteers" fought against the French colonial army by using a long stick-like explosive to destroy French tanks.
Suicide terrorism and suicide bombing
Suicide terrorism is a problematic term to define. There is an ongoing debate on definitions of terrorism itself. Kofi Annan, as Secretary General of the UN, defined terrorism in March 2005 in the General Assembly as any action "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants" for the purpose of intimidation. This definition would distinguish suicide terrorism from suicide bombing in that suicide bombing does not necessarily target non-combatants. However this definition is not widely accepted.
For example, Jason Burke, a journalist who has lived among Islamic militants himself, whilst preferring the term 'militancy' to 'terrorism', suggests that most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause', and stresses that terrorism is a tactic, and Burke leaves the target of such actions out of the definition, although he is also clear in calling suicide bombings 'abhorrent'. Halliday meanwhile draws attention to the fact that assigning the descriptor of 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' to the actions of a group is a tactic used by states to deny 'legitimacy' and 'rights to protest and rebel', although similar to Burke does not define terrorism in terms of the militance of the victim as did Kofi Annan His preferred approach is to focus on the specific aspects within terrorism that we can study without using the concept itself, laden as it is with 'such distortion and myth'. This means focusing on the specific components of 'terror' and 'political violence' within terrorism .
With awareness of that debate in mind, suicide terrorism itself has been defined as ' a diversity of violent actions perpetrated by people who are aware that the odds they will return alive are close to zero'. This captures suicide bombing, and the range of suicide tactics below
Types of suicide tactic
* Suicide attack on foot: explosive belt, satchel charge
* Attempted suicide attack with a plane as target: Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63
* Suicide car bomb: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, Sri Lankan Central Bank bombing, numerous incidents in Iraq since 2003
* Suicide attack by a boat with explosives: USS Cole bombing, attacks in Sri Lanka by the LTTE Sea Tigers.
* Suicide attack by a submarine with explosives (human-steered torpedo): Kaiten, used by Japan in World War II
* Suicide attack by donkey: Donkey bombs were a speciality of the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) in Peru.[25]
* Suicide attack by a woman (Thenmuli Rajaratnam) wearing a belt with explosives or a bra bomb : Assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
* Suicide attack by a bicycle with explosives: Assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
* Suicide attack by a hijacked plane with fuel: September 11, 2001 attacks, possibly Air France Flight 8969 and attempted by Samuel Byck
* Suicide attack by diverting a bus to an abyss: Tel Aviv Jerusalem bus 405 massacre
* Suicide attack with guns: Kashmiri insurgents on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 killing 15 people.
After the 1983 truck bombing of two barracks buildings in Beirut that killed 300 and helped drive American and French Multinational Force troops from Lebanon, the tactic spread to insurgent groups like the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, and Islamist groups such as Hamas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
