Pick A Terrorist Act Not Mentioned In This Chapter ✓ Solved

Pick a terrorist act not mentioned in this chapter and de

Cleaned Instructions:

Pick a terrorist attack not mentioned in this chapter and describe it based on the following criteria in a two to three page paper (not including the cover page and reference page): What was the terrorist act? Was it an individual or group? Would the terrorist(s) be classified as a criminal, crusader or crazy? Why? Your paper must be formatted in accordance with APA guidelines.

Paper For Above Instructions

Paper For Above Instructions

The perpetrators were not a single actor; rather, they were part of a transnational extremist network led by al-Qaeda, an organization that would become central to subsequent high-profile attacks. The operational model—an intentional, mass-casualty strike intended to coerce political concessions and to project the group’s grievance ideology—fits a pattern described by terrorism scholars as strategic violence aimed at drawing international attention and pressuring governments (Hoffman, 2006; Pape, 2005). The attack underscored how extremist actors use symbolic targets to maximize psychological and political impact, a concept explored in paths of modern terrorism and terrorist strategy literature (Rapoport, 2004; Wright, 2006).

Classification of the attackers—criminal, crusader, or crazy—requires careful framing. Legally and descriptively, the embassy bombings meet the criteria for criminal violence: deliberate, politically motivated violence intended to coerce governments, injure civilians, and advance an extremist agenda. From a legal perspective, the act constitutes terrorism because it involved non-state actors employing violence to influence state policy. However, some scholars and commentators describe the perpetrators in ideological terms that invoke crusader rhetoric: the attackers framed their violence as defending a perceived religious or political cause, presenting their actions as part of a broader righteous struggle against perceived enemies. Yet a rigorous assessment—consistent with the literature on terrorism—suggests they were not irrational or “crazy” in a mental-health sense; rather, they operated with a calculated strategy, organizational coherence, and a defined political objective. Thus, the more defensible classification is that the attackers were criminal extremists acting under a radical ideological framework, which is consistent with the broader literature on al-Qaeda’s organizational logic and strategic aims (Hoffman, 2006; Pape, 2005; Wright, 2006).

Contextually, the embassy bombings illuminate several analytical themes in terrorism studies. First, they demonstrate how non-state actors mobilize resources, surrogate networks, and international logistics to execute spectacular attacks with global reverberations (Hoffman, 2006). Second, they underscore the shift in modern terrorism from local or regional incidents to transnational operations with wide geographic reach, a phenomenon described as part of a “wave” of modern terrorism in scholarly frameworks (Rapoport, 2004). Third, the events foreground the debate about the causes of terrorism, including grievances, identity, and perceived grievances against foreign policy, which Pape (2005) frames as the strategic logic behind certain extremist campaigns. Finally, the case exemplifies how states and international communities respond—through law enforcement, intelligence, and counterterrorism collaboration—to disrupt and degrade broad terrorist networks (Britannica, n.d.; U.S. Department of State, 1999).

In terms of implications for the assessment of criminal versus crusader versus crazy, the Nairobi/Dar es Salaam attacks illustrate the complexity of labeling terrorist actors. While the act was criminal by law and state practice, the attackers also invoked ideological and religious justifications that framed their violence as part of a broader crusade narrative. Yet the deliberate, strategic, and organized nature of the operation argues against the label “crazy” in a clinical sense and supports a classification of “criminal extremists” acting within a defined political project. This nuanced interpretation helps scholars, policymakers, and students understand how such acts fit within broader theories of terrorism—where violence is not random but part of a calculated strategy to alter political realities (Gerges, 2011; Hoffman, 2006; Wright, 2006).

In sum, the 1998 embassy bombings illustrate a crucial instance of transnational terrorism: a calculated, ideologically motivated attack conducted by a network tied to al-Qaeda, designed to advance political objectives by coercive violence. The act aligns most closely with a criminal extremist classification, while acknowledging the ideological framing employed by the perpetrators. The incident remains a turning point in understanding how contemporary terrorist networks orchestrate high-impact operations and how the international community mobilizes to counter them, setting the stage for subsequent counterterrorism norms and practices (Britannica, n.d.; Hoffman, 2006; Wright, 2006).

References

1. Britannica. (n.d.). 1998 United States embassy bombings. https://www.britannica.com/event/1998-United-States-embassy-bombings
2. Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
3. Rapoport, D. (2004). The four waves of modern terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 16(3), 381-399.
4. Wright, L. (2006). The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. New York, NY: Knopf.
5. Pape, R. A. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York, NY: Random House.
6. U.S. Department of State. (1999). Patterns of Global Terrorism 1998. Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
7. Gerges, F. A. (2011). The Far Enemy: Fear, Faith, and the Rise of Modern Islamism. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
8. BBC News. (1998). Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings: Attacks on U.S. embassies. https://www.bbc.com/news
9. The New York Times. (1998). Embassy bombings: Attacks in Africa kill hundreds. https://www.nytimes.com
10. Hoffman, B. (2017). The evolution of modern terrorism: A critical review. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), The Global Terrorism Reader (pp. 1-22). New York, NY: Routledge.