The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism

A Comparison of Public Support for Moderate and Extreme Terrorism

“…There were elements in both Schmidt's and Pedahzur's studies that showed agreement; element 8 (tactic), element 4 (threat) element 1 (force/violence), element 2 (political); reported as follows (element 8: 30.5%, 31.5%; element 4, 47%, 41%, element 1; 83.5%, 71%, element 2; 65%, 60%). The results reported some agreement between Schmidt's respondents and the journalism contributors, in the way terrorism is defined however, there were also significant differences [23].…”

“…Pedahzur et al [23] found that the country of origin is important in the way that scholars differed in how they used key words in their survey. Middle Eastern participants never included the element 'civilian' , however, Western Europeans and North American's used the element 'civilian' 40% and 21% of the time in the definitional elements.…”

“…Large differences existed between element 9 ('extranormality, in break of accepted rules, without humanities constraints"); element 10 ("coercion, extortion, induction of compliance"); element 12 ("arbitrariness, impersonal, random character, indiscriminate") where the frequencies were reported as: Schmidt versus Pedahzur [23,24]; element 9 (30%, 0%) element 10 (28%, 5.5%) and element 12 (21%, 0%) (pp: 781). There were elements in both Schmidt's and Pedahzur's studies that showed agreement; element 8 (tactic), element 4 (threat) element 1 (force/violence), element 2 (political); reported as follows (element 8: 30.5%, 31.5%; element 4, 47%, 41%, element 1; 83.5%, 71%, element 2; 65%, 60%).…”

“…Pedahzur et al [23], focused on building on Alex Schmidt's arena model for defining terrorism. Schmidt et al [24] divided their arena discussions of non-state terrorism into four different platforms: (1) the state's laws, (2) judicial ruling and regulations; (3) public debate; and (4) repressive states that oppose developed societies.…”

“…Schmidt et al [24], 22 elements taken from the 109 definitions were compared by Pedahzur's et al [23], 55 papers from which 73 definitions were extracted from three journals: 'Terrorism' , 'Terrorism and Political Violence' , and 'Studies in Conflict and Terrorism' , dating from 1977-2001. Large differences existed between element 9 ('extranormality, in break of accepted rules, without humanities constraints"); element 10 ("coercion, extortion, induction of compliance"); element 12 ("arbitrariness, impersonal, random character, indiscriminate") where the frequencies were reported as: Schmidt versus Pedahzur [23,24]; element 9 (30%, 0%) element 10 (28%, 5.5%) and element 12 (21%, 0%) (pp: 781).…”