becoming a more common and fatal strategy. 66 Proponents of the view of ‘new’ terrorism include scholars such as David Rapoport who sees this supposed transition to a modern form of terrorism as another element in the phases of the phenomenon. 67 However, there are those scholars that dispel the notion of a new form of terrorism. Ronald Crelinsten, for example, suggests that it is the lenses in which terrorism is now seen that has been the most impactful factor in the post-Cold War. 68 The Cold War framework of capitalism against communism meant most terrorism-related rhetoric in the West revolved around left-wing terrorism and refrained from the concept of terrorism committed by states. Although the level of terrorist attacks has increased, it could be argued that this has been facilitated more through the ending of the bipolar world order than by a rudimentary transition in activities by terrorist groups. The end of the Cold War took the bipolar power agenda off the table and the threat of terrorism has since filled the void. This notion is in part supported by Paul Pillar who sees interest in terrorism “waxing and waning” dependent on whether a larger ‘threat’ exists. 69 66 Brenda Lutz and James Lutz, 'Terrorism', in Contemporary Security Studies , ed. by Alan Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 273–288, pp. 278–279. 67 Tom Parker and Nick Sitter, 'The Four Horsemen of Terrorism: It’s Not Waves, It’s Strains', Terrorism and Political Violence , 28.2 (2015), 197–216, p. 198. 68 Ronald D. Crelinsten, Counterterrorism (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2009), pp. 18–19. 69 Paul R. Pillar, 'Counterterrorism', in Security Studies: An Introduction , ed. by Paul D. Williams (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012), pp. 457–470, p. 458.
27
Made with FlippingBook HTML5