¶ … nomadic tribes wreaking havoc on each other to Zealots of Judea and the original Assassins, terrorism has been a part of human political strategy since the origin of the species. Whether it reflects the innate bellicosity of human beings or simply reveals the effects of class or religious conflict, terrorism is an unfortunate part of life -- even daily life for some people. Advanced weaponry and communications technology has made terrorism more widespread, more sinister, and far deadlier than ever before but terrorism is nothing new. The first recorded use of the word "terrorism" occurred during the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror ("Early History of Terrorism," n.d.). Yet terrorism precedes the Reign of Terror by millennia. Many terrorist groups like the Zealots and the Assassins of the past or Al Qaeda and ISIL of today have some kind of religious ideology wrapped up in their politics, but religion is not a necessary feature of terrorism. In fact, Robespierre did not invoke religion to defend the strategic use of violence during the Reign of Terror. Likewise, anarchists and Bolshevists periodically used terrorist techniques without resorting to religious justifications. Thus, the strategic objectives and patterns of behavior evident in historical examples of terrorism set the stage for contemporary versions of terrorism, even though the tools, technologies, means, and methodologies have changed. To understand the connection between historical and modern forms of terrorism, it may be helpful to define terms. Unfortunately, defining terrorism is practically impossible given its diversity and shifting nature. As Lacueur (2007) puts it, there are "more than a hundred definitions" of terrorism, none wholly satisfactory because "there have been many terrorisms, greatly differing in time and space, in motivation, and in manifestations and aims," (Laqueur, 2007). Some common features of terrorism include a sense of unity among perpetrator groups, and an identification of a shared enemy. That enemy may be symbolic, just as is the sense of unity itself. After all, the unity that terrorist groups have promoted does not depend on "nationhood" in the modern sense or even shared religious goals. That unity does not even require a perceived foreign invader, although foreign invasions have often promoted terrorist responses as they did with the Zealots. Religion can and sometimes does provide the impression of unity on the part of the terrorist group and its supporters, but more important historically in the rhetoric of terrorist groups has been the theme of "liberation." For the Zealots, the goal was to use terrorism to attack Roman officials in order to liberate Jewish lands from Roman rule. The Islamic State (ISIL), uses similar terminology in their charter: "We are a comprehensive Islamic front working to liberate the land and people [of Syria] and to build, through organizational work, a civilized Islamic society in Syria," ("Charter of the Syrian Islamic Front," 2013).

The Assassins likewise valued the ideal of liberation and targeted internal enemies just as modern Muslim jihadist groups frequently target perceived Muslim enemies. For instance, the leader of the terrorist group al-Jihad, which assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981, believed "the fight against the 'near enemy' - local, Muslim regimes - was more important than the fight against the 'far enemy' - external, non-Muslim threats," ("A History of Modern Jihadism," 2014). The modern jihad movements like that of Al Qaeda trace their origins to the Assassins, the original Muslim jihad group who fought for the unity of Shiite believers against the perceived injustices of the Sunnis among them. Domestic terrorism in the United States has revealed similar tendencies towards targeting the "near enemy" as with the anti-government sentiments of Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Oklahoma City government building. "I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government," wrote McVeigh (2001) in a letter. McVeigh's statement bears strong resemblance to that of Robespierre's, as both used terrorism to attack the "enemies of liberty," as Robespierre (1784) put it. McVeigh (2001) did not seek to start his own nation; he simply believed that the American government needed a "retaliatory strike," and terrorism "served more purposes than other options." McVeigh's (2011) language reflects the Assassin rhetoric of centuries earlier: "But for Hasan-i Sabbah, acts of terror were a legitimate means of self-defense precisely because they focused on high-ranking enemy military, political, and religious leaders who had taken hostile actions against the Ismaili community," (Gray, 2010).

Therefore, the asymmetric warfare that characterizes...

The Zealots targeted the Roman Empire; the Assassin Shiites targeted a much larger Sunni group; and McVeigh targeted the government of the United States. Terrorist groups use specific tactics that allow them to subvert the need for traditional military engagement. Likewise, terrorist groups only occasionally represent an organized government. The only exception would be Robespierre during the Reign of Terror. Like modern Muslim terrorist organizations, the historical Assassins were dispersed throughout multiple geographic locations and did not represent a single nation-state. Indeed, one of the main features of terrorism throughout history has been its geographic dispersion and its relatively "asymmetric" style of warfare (Gray, 2010). Rather than soldiers fighting face-to-face on a battlefield, terrorism involves surprise attacks designed as much as psychological warfare (the "terror" element of terrorism) as physical. Sabotage is a feature of traditional warfare, but the surprise nature of terrorist attacks is actually its defining feature, not just one of many other techniques.
Changes to social and political structures have also led to changes in terrorist tactics. More so than in the past, recent terrorist groups have taken advantage of the "freedoms of thought, speech, religion, movement, and assembly offered by democracies." (Lacqueur, 2007). Usually, terrorist groups claim to be protecting freedoms and liberties when they are actually destroying the same. For example, Robespierre justified the use of terrorism precisely to defend perceived liberties and freedoms in the modern nation-state: "Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty's despotism against tyranny," (Robespierre, 1784). Similarly, McVeigh viewed it as his right and duty to attack a symbol of the federal government in order to protect what he believed were the rights and freedoms embedded in the Constitution (McVeigh, 2001). ISIL likewise claims to be using terrorism to "liberate" and to "civilize" (Charter of the Syrian Islamic Front," 2013). Hamas describes itself as a liberation group: "They should mobilize the Islamic nations, ideologically, educationally and culturally, so that these peoples would be equipped to perform their role in the decisive battle of liberation," (The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement," 1988). Modern Muslim terrorist groups, like the Reign of Terror, claim that some sacrifices of personal liberty are needed to protect a grander form of liberty or justice.

The techniques of terrorism have changed over the years due largely to shifts in technology but also due to different norms and values. Suicide terrorism is not a new tactic; the Assassins were the first group known to have used suicide terrorism regularly (Laqueur, 2007). In fact, "most terrorism up to the late 19th century had been suicide missions, simply because the only available weapons were daggers, short-range pistols, or highly unstable bombs likely to explode in the hands of the attackers," (Lacqueur, 2007). One essential feature of contemporary terrorism that distinguishes it from the terrorist acts and ideologies of the past is the use of civilian targets and the justification of killing civilians. The term "assassin" evolved from the original Assassin group because the Assassins practiced targeted killings of key political figures, leaders, or military targets. On the other hand, modern terrorists do willingly kill innocent people by re-framing the enemy. The enemy is no longer an impersonal force like a state enemy (such as Rome or Sunni Muslims) but an "infidel," or in the case of Hamas, Israel. The creation of a common enemy has long been a part of terrorist ideology, but that common enemy has become more personal in nature. The second paragraph of the Hamas charter reads, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it," (The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement," 1988). McVeigh's (2001) language parallels that of the Hamas charter, as the Oklahoma City bomber stated, "what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time." The "clinical detachment" McVeigh (2001) refers to is similar to the urged by Al Qaeda in their Charter, to "remove the anger from their breasts," referring to the believers ("Al Qaeda: Constitutional Charter, Rules and Regulations, 2002). Terrorists, because they do rely on suicide missions, must be able to cultivate a sense of "clinical detachment" that releases perpetrators from feeling empathy for civilian, innocent victims.

Historically and today, terrorist…