Editing Terrorism (section)

=== Pre-modern terrorism ===
Early published studies like [[Paul Wilkinson (political scientist)|Paul Wilkinson]] considered terrorism a product of 19th-century revolutionary politics. Technological developments like the [[pistol]] and [[dynamite]] made possible the relentless onslaught of successful attacks and assassinations that shook the 19th-century.{{sfn|Dietze|Verhoeven|2022|p=128}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Clark |first=David S. |title=Encyclopedia of Law and Society |date=2007 |publisher=Sage |location=United Kingdom |page=1474 |quote=Before the advent of dynamite and automatic weapons, groups had to kill on a one-to-one basis. It took one terrorist (or soldier) to kill one enemy or perhaps a handful of enemies, except in unusual cases, such as the failed [[1605 Gunpowder Plot]] of [[Guy Fawkes]] in England. The weapons of choice for the earlier terrorists were the dagger, the noose, the sword and the poison elixir. This changed with the hand-thrown bomb and the pistol, introduced in the nineteenth century, and the machine gun and plastic explosives, common in the twentieth century.}}</ref> For the most part, scholars considered terrorism a modern phenomenon until [[David C. Rapoport]] published his seminal article ''Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions'' in 1984.{{sfn|Dietze|Verhoeven|2022|p=128}} 

Rapoport proposed three case studies to demonstrate "ancient lineage" of religious terrorism, which he called "sacred terror": the [[Thuggee|"Thugs"]], the [[Order of Assassins|Assassins]] and the Jewish [[Sicarii Zealots]]. Rapoport argued religious terrorism has been ongoing since ancient times and that "there are signs that it is reviving in new and unusual forms". He is the first to propose that religious doctrines were more important than political rationales for some terrorist groups.<ref>Rapoport, D. (1984) "Fear and Trembling" in Mahan,&nbsp;S.,&nbsp;Griset,&nbsp;P.&nbsp;L.&nbsp;(2012).&nbsp;Terrorism in Perspective.&nbsp;United Kingdom:&nbsp;Sage Publications:"Furthermore, the three cases illustrate a kind of terror nowhere adequately analyzed in our theoretical literature, terror designated here as holy or sacred. Before the nineteenth century, religion provided the only acceptable justifications for terror, and the differences between sacred and modern expressions (differences of nature, not scale) raise questions about the appropriateness of contemporary definitions. The holy terrorist believes that only a transcendental purpose which fulfills the meaning of the universe can justify terror, and that the deity reveals at some early moment in both time and end the means and may even participate in the process as well. We see terrorists as free to seek different political ends in this world by whatever means of terror they consider most appropriate."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Laqueur|2001}}: "The misunderstandings about the nature of terrorism in the 1970s were founded, in part, on political reasons. At the time, terrorism was predominantly left wing in inspiration and it did not come as a surprise that commentators belonging to the same political persuasion would produce theoretical explanations which were, at the very least, not unsympathetic as far as terrorists were concerned. It was argued in these circles that terrorism always occurred where there was oppression, social or national, that the terrorists had genuine, legitimate grievances—hence the conclusion that once the grievances were eradicated, terrorism would also disappear. Terrorism, in brief, was seen as a revolutionary phenomenon; it was carried out by poor and desperate human beings and had, therefore, to be confronted with sympathetic understanding."</ref> Rapoport's work has since become the basis of the model of "New Terrorism" proposed by [[Bruce Hoffman]] and developed by other scholars. "New Terrorism" has had an unparalleled impact on policymaking. Critics have pointed out that the model is politically charged and over-simplified. The underlying historical assertions have received less critical attention.{{sfn|Dietze|Verhoeven|2022|p=129}} According to ''The Oxford Handbook on the History of Terrorism'':{{sfn|Dietze|Verhoeven|2022|p=128}}

<blockquote>Since the publication of Rapoport's article, it has become seemingly pre-requisite for standard works on terrorism to cite the three case studies and to reproduce uncritically its findings. In lieu of empirical research, authors tend to crudely paraphrase Rapoport and the assumed relevance of "Thuggee" to the study of modern terrorism is taken for granted. Yet the significance of the article is not simply a matter of citations―it has also provided the foundation for what has become known as the "New Terrorism" paradigm. While Rapoport did not suggest which late 20th century groups might exemplify the implied recurrence of "holy terror", Bruce Hoffman, recognized today as one of the world's leading terrorism experts, did not hesitate to do so. A decade after Rapoport's article. Hoffman picked up the mantle and taking the three case studies as inspiration, he formulated a model of contemporary "holy terror" or, as he defined it, "terrorism motivated by a religious imperative". Completely distinct from "secular terrorists", Hoffman argued that "religious terrorists" carry out indiscriminate acts of violence as a divine duty with no consideration for political efficacy―their aim is transcendental and "holy terror" constitutes an end in itself. Hoffman's concept has since been taken up and developed by a number of other writers, including Walter Laquer, Steven Simon and Daniel Benjamen, and rebranded as the "New Terrorism".</blockquote>