Historical Dictionary of Terrorism Third Edition

INTRODUCTION • lxiby what until then had been a relatively obscure cult opened the Pandora’sbox of mass terrorism. Until that event, Brian Jenkins’s dictumthat “terrorists wanted more people alive than dead” had remainedessentially valid. Most terrorist groups sought some level of supportwithin a targeted audience, or wanted enough intimidated survivors torecognize their cause and, if possible, to force their governments toadopt policies that would further the aims of the terrorist group. Moreover,most terrorists realized that if their acts were too provocative,the public might support the government taking whatever measureswere necessary to defeat them. Thus the attacks on the World TradeCenter and Pentagon of 11 September 2001 have been the most deadlyattacks to date. But the scale of these attacks has mobilized not onlythe U.S. government and public, but also a wider community of nations,to punish the perpetrators and to halt any repetition, much lessthe escalation, of such attacks in the future.The development of various cults and religious fundamentalistgroups that viewed their acts to be divinely inspired, who were ultimatelynot concerned about achieving temporal goals, but goals in anext life, broke this implicit constraint based on concerns over publicopinion. Thus in the 21st century there is good reason to believe thatsuch groups might use mass terrorism to achieve their respectiveapocalyptic visions. These groups may also be joined by rogue statesand regional powers that might seek to engage a stronger enemyin asymmetric warfare by indirectly supporting such groups and soachieving “plausible deniability” in pursuing their national and transnationalgoals.Unfortunately, not only have terrorist destructive capabilities haveincreased in the area of weapons of mass destruction, but even moreconventional “rational” terrorist groups have at their disposal an increasinglysophisticated arsenal of standoff weapons that will make itincreasingly difficult to ensure the physical defense of any given potentialtarget. The implications, particularly in regard to aviation security, areextremely serious, with the incredible availability of targets created bythe rapid expansion of airline traffic and the continued growth in generalaviation. The state of the terrorists’ capabilities, plus their increased willingnessto use lethal means, will in all likelihood dramatically increasein both the near and far term. It is worth reiterating that an overreactionto the WMD threat could place democratic orders on a dangerous path ofincremental repression in the name of preserving order.