How useful is the term "New terrorism" in distinguishing -9/11 post terrorism from the form that preceded it?

Résumé du document

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.

Extraits

[...] cit. Ibid. Danner, M. 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 on Terror':Winning or Losing? Oxford Research group, Oxford, September 2003, p.11. Rogers, loc. cit. Ibid. Golun, P.S, loc. [...]

[...] Furthermore, the emphasis placed on terrorism” could lead to a neglect of other terrorisms not currently in the public eye.”[18] In fact that is what happened just after the events of 11 September. United States of America have defined news policies to tackle Terrorism” and the Bush's administration has launched War on Terror”. We can wonder about these policies if these were fitting a democratic state such the United States of America. As Paul Wilkinson asks a democratic state defeat, or at least marginalize, a well armed, well-financed and protracted terrorist campaign without undermining its basic institutions and principles in the process?”[19] In order to illustrate the use of the term Terrorism” and the lack of democracy that it generates, we only need to take examples of the War on Afghanistan, the Pre-emptive strike in Iraq and/or the supplanting of liberties by Security reasons. [...]

[...] Wilkinson, op.cit. p.126. 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. [...]

[...] In the middle of 2001, the Taliban regime was in control of a large extent of the country, receiving its support principally from people in the Pashtun areas. “From an original war aim of destroying the Al-Qaida network, the United States quickly extended its intentions to the overthrow of the Taliban regime itself, partly in the belief that it would prevent Afghanistan again being used as a base for such a paramilitary organization. [ [The war in Afghanistan] appeared to have been accomplished within about three months, but the results were, in many ways, thoroughly misleading.”[21] However, very few of the more leading members of the Al-Qaida's network were captured, and few are believed to have been killed. [...]

[...] A certain numbers of authors such as Paul Wilkinson distinguish the Terrorism” in opposition to the Terrorism”, the real world of terrorism democratic governments and societies are going to have to deal with both ‘old' and ‘new' terrorist organizations, tactics and weapons simultaneously [ Characteristics of this Terrorism”, which is seem to be opposed to the Terrorism”, are the importance of religion, the increasing willingness to use excessive indiscriminate violence, the threat of mass destruction, the inherent lack of state backers, the amateurism of the new terrorists who do ] not receive training or logistical support from state sponsors but rely on the network of supporters and information on the internet, [ ] its loose networked and less hierarchical organizational structure. In others words, ] the ‘new' terrorism is more amorphous, more diffuse, and often planned and committed by ‘freelance' or ‘walk-on' terrorists.”[9]However, for Alexander Spencer there is no a New Terrorism. He says, “Without doubt terrorism has evolved and changed over time. But so have many things. Without wanting to re-ignite the old debate about agency and structure, one should consider whether terrorism has changed or whether the world has changed in which it operates. [...]