Target Selection

Drake, C. J. M.

doi:10.1057/9780230374676_11

Cited by 7 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Non-state political actors see themselves as the moral “good guys” (Marighella 1971; Crenshaw 1981; Drake 1998). Terrorists themselves seem to agree, and have identified the importance of the ethical dimension in their decision to target civilians.…”

Section: Why Would Political Organizations Target Civilians?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, even though there has been important theoretical, comparative case study and single-country work on the issue of organizational use of terrorist tactics (Crenshaw 1981; Hofnung 1994; Bieber 2003; Oberschall 2004; Bloom 2005), there is still very little cross-national or quantitative work (for some important exceptions, see Drake 1998; Sánchez-Cuenca and De la Calle 2009; Weinberg, Pedahzur and Perliger 2009). Third, most of the extant analysis focuses either on state-level variables or on ideological differences, or does not take into account organizational power (Drake 1998? ; Sánchez-Cuenca and De la Calle 2009; Weinberg, Pedahzur and Perliger 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following much of the terrorism literature, the model we propose includes variables that capture organizational capabilities and support (Crenshaw 1981; Sánchez-Cuenca and De la Calle 2009), the impact of ideology or norms (Drake 1998; Darby 2001; Juergensmeyer 2003; Della Porta 2006), and repression or discrimination from the government (Piazza 2006). These factors are also used to explain the outbreak of other types of political non-state violence (for example, see Gurr 2000; Goldstone 2001; Collier and Hoeffler 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

“Kill Them All—Old and Young, Girls and Women and Little Children”: An Examination of the Organizational Choice of Targeting Civilians

Asal¹,

Brown²,

Schulzke³

2015

PSRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W hat factors make it more likely that non-state organizations will target civilians as a political strategy? This study examines targeting civilians as a tactical and normative choice, and hypothesizes that the targeting of civilians (compared to the general use of violence) is a function of the ideological make-up of organizations, organization weakness and state repression. Other factors related to organizational capability will not have a differential impact on the likelihood that an organization will target civilians for violence. This article uses data from the Minorities at Risk Organizational Behavior database to examine these issues with respect to ethno-political organizations. It argues that the typical analytic focus on general violence obscures understanding of the factors that lead to targeting civilians. It finds that targeting civilians-while similar in some respects to the use of general violence-is different, particularly with respect to organizational ideology.

show abstract

Section: Why Would Political Organizations Target Civilians?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Kill Them All—Old and Young, Girls and Women and Little Children”: An Examination of the Organizational Choice of Targeting Civilians

Asal¹,

Brown²,

Schulzke³

2015

PSRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 This is unfortunate, because ideology is likely the strongest factor in determining why a group might choose to pursue a nuclear weapons capability. 8 As terrorist-targeting expert C. J. M. Drake notes, “[T]errorists’ ideology is central … not only because it provides the initial dynamic for the terrorists’ actions, but because it sets out the moral framework within which they operate” (Drake, 1998: 53). A group’s ideology, Drake continues, “is extremely important because [it] identifies the ‘enemies’ of the group by providing a measure against which to assess the ‘innocence’ or ‘guilt’ of people and institutions.…”

Section: A Holistic Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fatwas for fission: Assessing the terrorist threat to Pakistan’s nuclear assets

Blair¹

2011

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PakistanÕs nuclear assets may be tempting targets for terrorists. Experts are split, however, on the actual threat posed. Some assert that PakistanÕs nuclear assets are on the verge of seizure by terrorists, while others contend that the risk is minimal at best. Because neither side develops robust or holistic threat assessments, however, American decision makers, who wisely include open sources when evaluating possible threats emanating from PakistanÕs nuclear infrastructure, are not adequately informed. Thus, the author maintains that the real threat assessment is yet to be madeÑone that goes beyond merely considering assumed terrorist capability and putative vulnerabilities.

show abstract

“…Even though certain definitions approach the topic regardless of the nature of the victims targeted by political violence (Drake 1998; Garrison 2003, 2004), a frequent answer to our question is that a specificity of terrorism is the use of violence against civilians or personnel not engaged in combat operations (Gunaratna and Steven 2004, 7; see also Rodin 2004). In both cases either of war or guerrilla war, violent actions are primarily directed against enemy's military forces engaged in combat operations.…”

Section: Defining Terrorismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sociology of Terrorism and Counterterrorism: A Social Science Understanding of Terrorist Threat

Tosini

2007

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to outline a social science understanding of terrorist threat, with special reference to political violence of new terrorist groups, fundamentalist movements and extremist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. Four main terrorism topics will be examined: (i) Definition of terrorism. We will make explicit the political and moral implications of the word 'terrorism' by tracing a brief history of terrorism; at the same time, a definition of terrorism will be proposed based on an overview of terrorism studies. (ii) Typology of terrorism. The topic to be addressed here concerns the classification of terrorist groups, paying special attention to contemporary fundamentalist movements and extremist organisations (particularly after World War II). (iii) Explanation of terrorism. Criticism will be made of psychological explanations of terrorism that try to trace political violence back to specific personal traits or psychopathological profiles of terrorists. We will offer an alternative explanation, focusing on specific social, cultural and religious factors to be considered the root causes of terrorism. Suicide terrorism will be used as a case study. (iv) Counterterrorism policy. Here, we will discuss some of the limitations and counterproductive effects of the counterterrorism measures adopted by governments after 9/11, including new antiterrorism legislation, the case of special detention at Guantanamo Bay, and the Iraq invasion. Most of such limitations are due to a misunderstanding of the political culture and ideology of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism (Islamism). Some concluding remarks will summarise the findings of the article and underline the most important suggestions for a future research agenda in the sociology of terrorism and counterterrorism.

show abstract

Target Selection

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

“Kill Them All—Old and Young, Girls and Women and Little Children”: An Examination of the Organizational Choice of Targeting Civilians

“Kill Them All—Old and Young, Girls and Women and Little Children”: An Examination of the Organizational Choice of Targeting Civilians

Fatwas for fission: Assessing the terrorist threat to Pakistan’s nuclear assets

Sociology of Terrorism and Counterterrorism: A Social Science Understanding of Terrorist Threat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About