Italian terrorism and society, 1940s–1980s: Roots, ideologies, evolution, and international connections

Rimanelli, Marco

doi:10.1080/10576108908435789

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…that this process implies. The suspense is (re)created in the Moro books by a punctilious narration of the kidnap that climaxes with Moro's assassination, and this is as true of sociologist and historian Alison Jamieson's version (1989) (Rimanelli 1998). The strategy of provoking vicious backlash, in inexorable advance towards his death.…”

Section: Moro's Escapementioning

confidence: 95%

Dead Man Walking: The Aldo Moro kidnap and Palimpsest History in Buongiorno, notte

O’Leary

2008

New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The centrist Italian politician Aldo Moro was kidnapped in 1978 and murdered 54 days later by the Brigate Rosse (Red Brigades) -a far-left revolutionary group. The kidnap has come to be perceived as the key event of the Italian 'terrorist' period of roughly [1969][1970][1971][1972][1973][1974][1975][1976][1977][1978][1979][1980][1981][1982][1983], and has displaced the other events of the period in national memory. There are several films devoted to the kidnapping; Buongiorno, notte (2003), based on the memoir by one of Moro's jailers, is unique among these in evincing a sophisticated awareness of the means by which historical understanding is constructed through a clash and superimposition of discourses, including various forms of fictional representation. The film is a meditation not solely on the Moro events in themselves, but on the place of the memory of Aldo Moro in Italian culture, and on the means by which the perception and historicising of the Moro kidnapping is generated.

show abstract

Section: Moro's Escapementioning

confidence: 95%

Dead Man Walking: The Aldo Moro kidnap and Palimpsest History in Buongiorno, notte

O’Leary

2008

New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…as unlawful violence, or the plausible threat of such violence, by an illegal, sub-national, clandestine groupusually carried out in a peaceful, civilian.,(Rimanell -1989) ( 291 ) as a violent form of political struggle employed by revolutionary groups.,(Crelinsten -1992) ( 292 ) is the combined threat and use of violence, planned in secret. (157) , (Collin -1997) as the use of bomb attacks., (Fairbairn -1974…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The main research priorities in the field of terrorism; Social Welfare Policies in Context of Disciplines. Shereen Salah Sayyah

2017

مجلة الخدمة الاجتماعية

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some have questioned whether one can speak of Terrorism Studies as a single field. The study of terrorism can indeed be approached from different disciplines such as criminology, political science, war and peace studies, communication studies or religious studies; as a consequence, one can interpret terrorism in different frameworks: acts of terrorism as crime; acts of terrorism as politics; acts of terrorism as warfare; acts of terrorism as communication; acts of terrorism as religious crusade/jihad. These are, as it were, five conceptual lenses through which we can look at terrorism. All of these 'frames' are useful to understand better some aspects of some forms of terrorism. Yet it would be wrong to single out any one of these frameworks and claim that it is the 'right' one. They are not mutually exclusive. . This dissertation aims to explore The main research priorities in the field of terrorism; Social Welfare Policies in Context of Disciplines. At the end of the study , Pro: and Con: .

show abstract

Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors

Wolfowicz

Litmanovitz

Weisburd

et al. 2021

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Two of the most central questions in radicalization research are, (1) why do some individuals radicalize when most of those from the same groups or exposed to similar conditions do not? and (2) why do radicalized individuals turn to radical violence while the majority remain inert? It has been suggested that the answer to both questions lie in the cumulative and interactive effects of a range of risk factors. While risk assessment and counter‐radicalization take a risk‐protective factor approach, there is widespread debate as to what these factors are and which are most important. Objectives This review has two primary objectives. 1) To identify what the putative risk and protective factors for different radicalization outcomes are, without any predeterminations. 2) To synthesize the evidence and identify the relative magnitude of the effects of different factors. The review's secondary objectives are to: 1) Identify consistencies in the estimates of factors across different radicalization outcomes. 2) Identify whether any significant heterogeneity exists within factors between (a) geographic regions, and (b) strains of radicalizing ideologies. Search Methods Over 20 databases were searched for both published and gray literature. In order to provide a more comprehensive review, supplementary searches were conducted in two German and one Dutch database. Reference harvesting was conducted from previous reviews and contact was made with leading researchers to identify and acquire missing or unpublished studies. Selection Criteria The review included observational studies assessing the outcomes of radical attitudes, intentions, and/or radical behaviors in OECD countries and which provided sufficient data to calculate effect sizes for individual‐level risk and protective factors. Data Collection and Analysis One‐hundred and twenty‐seven studies, containing 206 samples met the inclusion criteria and provided 1302 effect sizes pertaining to over 100 different factors. Random effects meta‐analyses were carried out for each factor, and meta‐regression and moderator analysis were used to explore differences across studies. Results Studies were primarily cross‐sectional, with samples representing 20 countries OECD countries. Most studies examined no specific radicalizing ideology, while others focussed on specific ideologies (e.g., Islamist, right‐wing, and left‐wing ideologies). The studies generally demonstrated low risk of bias and utilized validated or widely acceptable measures for both indicators and outcomes. With some exceptions, sociodemographic factors tend to have the smallest estimates, with larger estimates for experiential and attitudinal factors, followed by traditional criminogenic and psychological factors. Authors' Conclusions While sociodemographic factors are the most commonly examined factors (selective availability), they also tend to have the smallest estimates. So too, attitudinal and even experiential factors, do not have effect sizes of the magnitude that could lead to significa...

show abstract

Italian terrorism and society, 1940s–1980s: Roots, ideologies, evolution, and international connections

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Dead Man Walking: The Aldo Moro kidnap and Palimpsest History in Buongiorno, notte

Dead Man Walking: The Aldo Moro kidnap and Palimpsest History in Buongiorno, notte

The main research priorities in the field of terrorism; Social Welfare Policies in Context of Disciplines. Shereen Salah Sayyah

Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About