Terrorism – The Threat of Possible Attacks

The word “terrorism” is used in so many security related issues, that the true meaning of it has gone lost. If we look up terrorism in the dictionary the following is displayed:
Cambridge Dictionary of American English: “Violent action for political purpose”
The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is one of the largest institutions fighting terrorism and describes terrorism as follows:
“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.”

In the course of history the definition of terrorism has changed and things were added to it. As terrorism has been around since humans could walk it is not a new phenomenon. However it has become more public, more violent and focused on one certain perpetrator and one certain target.

Law enforcement agencies have always been vigilant for terrorism, however not as vigilant as they became after 9/11 occurred in the United States. Everybody was taken by surprise because an act of terrorism was committed within a stable and relatively safe super power by people coming from the outside. The possibility of attack increased and the law enforcement community got a violent wake up.
All of a sudden everybody in the world became a target and security measures were heightened in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and other attempts discovered by an evermore vigilant intelligence community.
Even Europe wasn’t safe anymore. Even though terrorism wasn’t new for Europe (Irish Republican Army, Basque Separation Army ETA, 17 November Group) all of a sudden everybody was afraid and considered themselves a target. With good reason as was shown during the Madrid 2004 train station attacks, 2005 July London attacks and the planned attacks on airliners en-route to the US and Canada, discovered by British police in August 2005.
After 9/11 it was a logical step for terrorist organizations to spread terror in Europe. Their preferred target, the US was guarded and under control while the Europeans were still thinking that they would be safe from terrorist attempts.
Not being involved in any world conflict that would trigger an attack on European targets, Europe also presumed that the security and safety measures implemented were sufficient since no attacks had occurred from real terrorist organizations. Of course Spain was on a higher alert level due to their problems in the North with the Basque community and Europe had its own little war going on in the former Yugoslavia but none of these were considered as serious terrorist issues.
But after the August 2005 spectacular discovery of the planned attacks on airliners flying towards the US and Canada the general public started noticing changes in the way Europe handles its security.
Airline hand luggage regulations changed in respect of liquids and gels. The Dutch government started an anti terrorism campaign in February of 2006 after polls showed that the Dutch people wanted to know how to deal with eventual attacks. That the risk of attacks were being taken seriously is shown also by the measures taken by the Dutch government which cost 4.8 million euro for the first year. These costs covered radio and television commercials, leaflets to every household in the Netherlands and 200,000 people working and guarding against possible terrorist attacks on Dutch interests. (Source: ANP).
So even though Europeans have the feeling that they live in relative safety and protected from possible terrorist attacks, professionals in the business of security think otherwise and this has a good reason.
As I mentioned before, the term terrorism is being used for too many security related issues but in some cases terrorism is not recognized as terrorism. Look at the problems during the October 2006 ‘riots’ in Paris where 112 cars were set on fire every day. 15 attacks on police and emergency services were carried out and nearly 3000 police officers were injured in one year. These attacks were considered as riots that started in a Paris suburb. The reason being that people didn’t agree with the governments’ way of dealing with issues in those suburbs. Similar events took place more recently, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Now go back to the FBI’s definition of terrorism: “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.” If we take the Paris events and compare them with the definition, it becomes clear that those ‘riots’ could be classified as terrorist attacks.
People used unlawful force (burning cars and attacking police and emergency services) against persons or property (the burning vehicles and police and emergency services of which nearly 3000 got injured) to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population or any segment thereof (the suburban community wanted to coerce the Government to deal with an issue) in furtherance of political or social objectives (the objectives were political and social).
So why do we call these attacks riots instead of acts of terrorism? Why do we sentence perpetrators as rioters instead of treating them as terrorists? Why are they not being given the same harsh sentences as the terrorists discovered in the UK in 2005?
The answer is both simple and complicated. Europe is still not ready to deal with terrorism. Maybe we think we are ready in terms of safety and security and maybe we believe that our intelligence agencies can deal with the amount of threats Europe receives. However we are not yet ready to face the fact that terrorists might be living amongst us. People we share our daily lives with and maybe even people that we trust our lives to from time to time….
The possible threat for an attack increases thanks to the failure to acknowledge this possibility. Because terrorism is based on the willingness of 100% success rate on the part of the perpetrator, attacks will occur on easy targets. Today in the wake of 9/11 the US has become a harder target while Europe is becoming an easier target because we all try to be as open as possible. Not only in our border policies but also in our tolerance policies towards our neighbors.
That is the strength of terrorism, they use our weakness against us and when we fortify our weak points after a terrorist attack or incident, terrorism moves on to the next.
The threat of possible attacks is always there or at least should always be considered to be there. If you think you are safe and drop your guard a notch, that’s when you will be attacked.