THE TERRORS OF TERRORISM AND OF TERRORISTS

A Case Study about the World Trade Center Bombing

INTRODUCTION

After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre happened, the word “terrorism” has taken
on a different kind of meaning. Before the attacks it was taken seriously, but now the 2001 attack
serves as a link between the word “terrorism” and that scary day.
The word is used to mark the change of a society, marking the beginning of increased
security and a changed, more fearful, attitude among the general American public, and for those in
other countries; basically with the people of specifically westernized countries, as they are the
subjects of the typical terrorist anger.
Since then, the world has witnessed a radical change in the world order. Fear, anxiety,
sentiments of repugnancy and hate, and, mostly, a deep sentiment of great uncertainty took their
place and dominated, and still dominate, most of our daily lives. Since then, there have been much
discussions and debates about the events that took place in that fatal date and consequent
repercussions for the entire world.
The events were classified as the worst ‘terrorists’ acts, deeds that were ever seen and
witnessed, much due to the role of a cultural good which has a central place in this mass-
communications era– television. The power of the images of the two ‘hijacked’ planes crushing
against the Twin Towers and their subsequent fall, which every one of us has and will have in mind
until the end of our lives, had a major part in producing all the sentiments that certainly all of us felt,
at the time, and surely, still fill!
But terrorism isn’t just Muslim extremists, the word describes violence in the pursuit of
political aims. The way the word “terrorism” has influenced everyday culture can’t be misunderstood.
In this case study, the various ways in which terrorism has taken hold in the United States, and how
the word has been used in a way that has changed our society is hereby examined.
The discussion about ‘Terrorism’ has, thus, become part of our lives, while the media have
become a central player in delivering the latest developments on this issue, and in keeping people
informed and updated. One just cannot avoid it! Virtually, everyone has his personal point of view
and particular way of looking at this concerning problematic issue.
Terrorism is a very contemporary issue and, thus, I believe it is worthy looking at it, studying
and analysing it. In the next pages, then, I will focus on the points, which I consider to be the key
icons that must be underlined and highlighted in order to fully understand the contours of ‘terrorism’.
Firstly, I’ll try to define ‘terrorism’. After that, I will concentrate myself in giving a perspective
of the ‘terrorist’ side. I will centre my attention in broaching what is called the “tactics of publicity”
used by ‘terrorists’, analysing the crucial role of the media in disseminating ‘terrorists’’ causes, as
well as trying to understand the use of violence by ‘terrorists’.

WHAT IS TERRORISM?

Unfortunately defining terrorism is just as hard as understanding it. Although there is not a
universally accepted definition of terrorism, most explanations typically involve key criteria such as:
violence, a psychological impact and fear, political goals, deliberate targeting of non-combatants,
and unlawfulness or illegitimacy. Terrorism has been around since history has been recorded, from
biblical citations to the pattern of political terror surrounding Julius Caesar. However the first verified
event to expose the politicized use of the term terror was "The Reign of Terror" coined during the
French Revolution and directed at the French government for killing thousands of suspected enemies
of the revolution (1793-1794).[1] Terrorism has clearly changed since then: See the list below for
various definitions of terrorism and take note of not only the inclusions, but also the possible
exclusions within each definition. Notice, for instance, the specificity of the language within each U.S.
definition: words like "premeditated", "political or social objectives", and "unlawful".
U.S. Institutional Definitions: State Department definition, Title 22 of the U.S. Code,
Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d)(2): "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."[2]
FBI definition: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of
political or social objectives."[3]
 Defense Department definition: "The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instil
fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other
ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political." (JP 3-07.2)[4]
Civic Definitions:
Boaz Ganor's (Executive Director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-
Terrorism) definition: "the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against
civilian targets, in order to attain political aims."[5]
Tal Becker, former legal advisor to the Israeli Mission to the UN, affirms "If we define
terrorism not by what one does, but what one does it for, we legitimate the deliberate targeting of
civilians for certain causes."[6]
Noam Chomsky, American linguist and political critic, adopted his definition from a U.S.
Army Manual: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political,
religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."[7]
 OVERVIEW OF THE WORLD TRACE CENTER BOMBING

Terror. A word that no one takes lightly. It is instilled into the hearts and minds of the
innocent, for what? A message, a political viewpoint expressed by taking another human life. And
sweeping right in behind this tragedy, this act of terrorism, is the ever present media, which only fuels
the flames of destruction even higher. Terrorism is a major problem in facing our society. Even
though it has been around since people's ideals have been oppressed, still no one listens and
everyone fears it. The best way to end terrorism is by understanding the reasons behind it, ending
publicity for it, and increasing security measures for it. To understand terrorism one has to realize
that it can occur at any moment, but it will most likely happen when least expected. To uncover the
true cause of terrorism, involves identifying motive and personalities of those "terrorizing". Today,
our society, not only America, as well as the rest of the world, is frightened by domestic and
international terrorists for their ability to reach the innocent.
The Twin Towers of New York City's World Trade Center collapsed after being deliberately
struck by two commercial passenger jets during the September 11 attacks. A total of four commercial
aircraft were hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists on 9/11 and two of those were crashed into the Twin
Towers.[1] American Airlines Flight 11 was crashed into the north side of the North Tower (One World
Trade Center) and United Airlines Flight 175 was crashed into the south side of the South Tower
(Two World Trade Center).[2] The collapse of the Twin Towers destroyed the rest of the complex,
and debris from the collapsing towers severely damaged or destroyed more than a dozen other
adjacent and nearby structures. The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am, less than an hour after being
hit, followed by the North Tower at 10:28 am. Later that day, the nearby Seven World Trade Center
collapsed at 5:21 pm from fires that had started when the North Tower collapsed.[3] As a result of the
attacks to the towers, a total of 2,763 people died including 2,192 civilians, 343 fire-fighters, and 71
law enforcement officers as well as all the passengers and crew on the airplanes, including 147
civilians and the 10 hijackers.[4]

A CLOSER LOOK

At 8:46 of that morning, an airliner traveling hundreds of miles an hour and carrying some
10,000 gallons of jet fuel drove into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. At
9:03 that same morning, another airliner, traveling at about the same speed with about the same
amount of fuel, drove into the South Tower. Into the smoke, flames, molten steel, and smashed
glass, the two towers collapsed less than 90 minutes later. At 9:37 of the same day, a third airliner
drove into the west side of the Pentagon, in Arlington, Virginia, and at 10:03 a fourth plane went
down in a field in southern Pennsylvania. The hijackers had intended to hit the Capital, but the
passengers realized what was happening and with extraordinary courage forced the plane down,
sacrificing their lives for the good of their country. The total known dead at this time is just under
3000.
How and why did this terrible thing happen? Why was not it prevented? The U.S. Senate
formed the National 9/11 Commission for the express purpose of providing answers to these
questions. In July 2004, the commission released the report of its investigation into the causes of the
United States’ failure to prevent the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
The conclusions were unanimous. The report provides a sobering look into the activities and
organization of al Qaeda prior to 9/11 as well as the response of the U.S. government to al Qaeda’s
terrorist attacks.
WHY DID 9/11 HAPPEN?

If so much information was available, why weren’t the attacks prevented? The Executive
Summary lists what it calls missed opportunities: losing track of the two operatives who went through
Bangkok, Thailand; not taking steps to find them when they arrived in the United States; not sharing
information about individuals involved in the attack on the USS Cole with the hijackers involved in
9/11; not linking the arrest of Moussaoui to the warnings of a big attack; not discovering false
statements on visa applications; not recognizing fake passports; not expanding no-fly lists to include
names on terrorist watch lists; and not taking precautions in planes to put steel doors in front of
cockpits nor training flight crews in defensive tactics. In short, the Report found that the U.S.
government lacked:
1. Imagination: The attitude was that terrorist strikes can-not happen here!
2. A coherent policy: There was no policy. Al Qaeda was not high on the list of dangers
in 2001, and neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations could conceive of an
attack on the United States.
3. Capabilities: The CIA had very little capacity to carry out paramilitary operations. At
no time was the Department of Defense fully engaged; the U.S. homeland defenders
looked outward for a threat coming from abroad, not from within the country; the
Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) did not adjust its training programs or flight
procedures to take account of threats to planes other than those that had occurred
in the past. Perhaps most serious of all, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
did not have the ability to link the knowledge collected by individual agents in the
field to national security priorities.
4. Management: “The missed opportunities to thwart the 9/11 plot were symptoms of
a broader inability to adapt the way government manages problems to the new
challenges of the twenty-first century. Management should have ensured that
information was shared and duties were clearly assigned across agencies.”

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

The report gives several reasons for the U.S. government’s failure to prevent 9/11:
1. Failed diplomacy: Both the Pakistani and Afghan governments refused to give up bin Laden
at U.S. request. The United States pressed the United Arab Emirates to break off relations
with and enforce sanctions on Afghanistan, to no avail. Before 9/11, there was virtually no
sharing of information between Saudi Arabian intelligence and the CIA.
2. Inability of the military to take action: Starting from 1998, the military presented a list of
possible military options, but the policy makers did not like any of them. In particular, they
expressed frustration at the lack of “actionable intelligence,” or information that provided
proof with-out a doubt that bin Laden was where intelligence said he was. In 1998 and 1999,
there were three occasions when intelligence looked credible enough to plan to kill bin
Laden. But the strikes never went through because the policy makers at the top did not think
the information credible enough to justify the risks involved.
3. Problems within the intelligence community: Here the Commission faults “the combination
of an overwhelming number of priorities, flat budgets, an outmoded structure, and
bureaucratic rivalries.” The compartmentalization of unshared information made it
impossible to put together a complete picture.
4. Problems in the FBI: Perhaps most important here was that FBI had not modernized to
respond to terrorist threats. The agency’s approach to investigations was case-specific,
decentralized, and aimed at eventual prosecution. It had insufficiently developed
mechanisms to find information about and track down unidentified possible terrorists within
the country.
5. Permeable borders and immigration controls: The list here of misdeeds by immigration and
border control is detailed. The 9/11 hijackers included al Qaeda militants who should have
been on the watch list, who presented faked passports or passports that suggested
extremism, lied on visa applications, lied to border control officials, and violated immigration
laws. At no time were the State Department’s consular officers or Immigration and
Naturalization Services (INS) agents brought fully into the terrorist picture. Before 9/11, no
senior policy maker thought it vital to secure national borders. Terrorist attacks happened
abroad, not at home.
6. Permeable aviation security and lack of foresight in securing cockpits, training crew, and
inspecting passengers and their luggage.
 7. Financing: The execution of the 9/11 attacks cost between $400,000 and $500,000. The
hijackers and al Qaeda personnel used banks in the United States, opening accounts in their
own names using their own passports and identification papers. “Their transactions were
unremarkable and essentially invisible amid the billions of dollars fl owing around the world
every day.” To this date, we do not know where the money used for the 9/11 attacks came
from or how it got to the United States.
8. Improvised homeland defense: None of the agencies concerned with making the United
States secure, including the Northeast Air Defense Sector and the National Guard, had
individual or coordinated strategies to meet a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The response to
9/11 was improvised, and at the senior level, communication was poor. Senior military and
FAA personnel could not communicate with one another. The president could not reach
some senior officials. National Guard sectors operated under different rules of command.
The emergency response was likewise improvised, but heroic. Agencies were unprepared.
Congress, like the executive branch of the U.S. government, responded slowly to the growth of
transnational terrorism. Its oversight of the agencies that should have been reformed to deal with the
new threat was episodic and splintered across several congressional commit-tees. Congressional
rules and regulations further hampered any action on reform.

RECOMMENDATIONS/RESOLVING THE CASE

The Commission recommends “a global strategy to dismantle the al Qaeda network and, in
the long term, prevail over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism.” This strategy includes
the following:
1. Attacking terrorists and their organizations.
2. Preventing the growth of Islamist terrorism by defining the U.S. message and
defending U.S. ideals, offering an agenda of opportunity that includes support for
education and economic openness, developing a comprehensive coalition strategy
against Islamist terrorism, making maximum efforts to counter the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and “following the money” for intelligence as
a tool to hunt terrorists.
3. Protection against and preparation for terrorists’ attacks by reforming U.S.
homeland security. In particular the Commission calls for a national counterterrorism
center and a national intelligence officer.