Where Has the "New" Terrorist Been Lurking Since 9/11?

Dec 13, 2011
Stavroula Dimitropoulos

9/11: one of the most apocalyptic disasters ever. Did it really signal the era of a "new" type of terrorism? - slagheap

It is widely and falsely argued that 9/11 changed the path of history and initiated an era of "new" and more lethal terrorism.

America Under Attack

On September 11, 2001, television offered people all around the globe one of the most apocalyptic disasters ever. Grimmet (2007:1) summarizes in an interesting fashion:

“On September 11, 2001, terrorists linked to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners, crashing two into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and another into the Pentagon building in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh, after passengers struggled with the highjackers for control of the aircraft. The collective death toll resulting from these incidents was nearly 3,000. President George W. Bush characterized these attacks as more than acts of terror. “They were acts of war,” he said. He added that 'freedom and democracy are under attack,' and he asserted that the United States would use 'all of our resources to conquer this enemy.' ”

Still, They Knew

The reaction of the former US President gives the impression that the 9/11 attacks came as a surprise. "New" terrorism emerged as impersonal and uncredited. Contrary to the terrorist’s practice in the past, the "new" terrorist was thought not to take credit for the attack, leaving people with a feeling that a future attack was imminent, whether it was a Bacillus Anthraci dissemination inside the metro station of Paris or a hijacking of a plane flying to London. However, according to the CBS reporter David Martin, weeks before the attacks the CIA had warned George Bush of Osama Bin Laden’s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles.

Moreover, not only were American analysts and decision-makers knowledgeable about Osama Bin Laden's plans to attack the USA but also the wider public had suspected that an act of terrorism was bound to occur. Copeland (2007) reports that on February 26, 1993, a Ryder rental van loaded with a 3,000-pound bomb made of urea nitrate and nitric acid exploded in the B-2 parking level of the World Trade Center, where it killed six people, injured more than a thousand and caused extensive damage to the building. The same researcher claims that it was later confirmed by the terrorists that their initial intention was to topple one building into the other and raise a great death toll. Had this “prophetic” attack been more successful, the death toll would have been dramatically higher.

Not That "New" Terrorism

Yes, but what about the most significant “old” terrorism characteristic, its orientation towards hitting symbolic targets, usually people of certain political or economic power, the killing of whom relieves — in a way — the oppressed, victimized people? It could always be supported that the 9/11 attack was aiming at a symbolic target, the center of “capitalism” and Western economic dominance, the World Trade Center (regardless of the fact that numerous victims were just low-income workers). To the brainwashed terrorist, the target could not have been more symbolic.

Another argument in favor of the existence of "old" terrorism is its hierarchical structure. Organizations like ETA, IRA or Hamas have a well-defined structure whereas Al Quaeda is rather a network of terror. Nevertheless, the pyramid-like structure with the leader/spiritual father on top and the terrorists and supporters in the next layers is not unique to "old" terrorism. Osama Bin Laden’s role as a rich, spiritual father of terrorists does bring to mind Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, founder of the Gruppi di Azione Partgiana (GAP) in the 1960s and early 1970s. The "paternal" figure that guides the "sons" towards acts of "redemption" reigns here, too.

A final characteristic that distinguishes "old" terrorism from "new" is the dependence of the former on state sponsorship (Tucker, 2001: 1). "Old" terrorists are educated specialists who are subsidized by states, which in turn have the same interests as terrorists. However, terrorism financing is a big and complex issue and the data shows that this claim does not necessarily hold true. According to Brisard (2002: 7), al Qaeda uses a wide variety of fund-raising methods such as:

Subscription/membership fees
Investment projects
Front companies
Robbing state banks/bank employee
Forging checks
Counterfeiting/forging currency
Kidnapping/Extortion/Arms smuggling
Drug trafficking
Various trafficking

Most of these operational cells have used or use legal umbrella organizations for cover. Would it be possible for all these illegal activities to take place within non-supportive states?

What really distinguishes “old” terrorism from “new” is the realization that the latter is more technologically advanced than the former. The employment of chemical, biological, nuclear or chemical weapons (CBNCR) combined with cyberterror may indeed cause an unimaginable death toll. And this is the only strong argument that could indicate a new kind of terrorism and this because technology has been following a linear progress throughout the whole of human history and has shown that no matter how beneficial it is, it may also prove unforeseeably catastrophic or fatal when it is not appropriately (or ethically) manipulated. At the same time, the hyperbole about the prevalence of an almighty “new terrorism” should serve some purpose. This will be investigated in a further article.