Terrorism

ONE MINUTE the young Australian and European revelers were gyrating to pop music in the tropical night. The next, they were engulfed in a massive ball of fire triggered by a crude car bomb. The growing death toll, of almost 200 civilians, was the world's highest from terrorism since last year's attacks in America. Saturday night's bombing on the normally tranquil Indonesian island of Bali came just days after the U.S. State Department issued a worldwide terrorist alert. If the Sept. 11 attacks brought the horrible reality of terrorism home to Americans, then this gruesome slaughter of innocents ought to similarly underscore that the frontlines in the war against Islamic extremism are spreading across the globe.

THE CURRENT myopia about terrorism is summed up in a recent headline: "Netanyahu puts onus on Arafat."It may serve the political needs of the prime minister of Israel to blame the president of the Palestinian Authority for the terrorist bombing in Jerusalem this month.And it may be convenient for Americans to think of terrorism as yet another dilemma to be resolved by more shuttle diplomacy.But the emerging paradigm of terrorism is much different than in the '70s and '80s, when the likes of Carlos the Jackal were controlled from Moscow or Damascus, Syria.

NEW DELHI -- The South Asian earthquake struck at the epicenter of a principal recruiting ground and logistical center for global terrorists, leveling a number of terrorist nurseries and training camps in an area that serves as the last main refuge of al-Qaida. Much of the quake's destruction occurred in the two terrorist-infested areas of northern Pakistan where Osama bin Laden may be holed up - Pakistani-held Kashmir and the North-West Frontier Province. The Oct. 8 calamity brought foreign teams and troops to that restricted region in Pakistan and gave the international community the potential leverage to steer the area away from terrorism.

BOSTON - Among the responsibilities a free press should meet is alerting people to danger. It has done so in matters pertaining to disease and diet, but it failed to sufficiently warn the public of the growing terrorist threat in the years leading up to Sept. 11, 2001. In its well-written report, the 9/11 commission noted that it had become "conventional wisdom" prior to 9/11 that terrorism was not as big a threat to Americans as it would soon prove to be. As one example, it cites an April 1999 New York Times story that "sought to debunk claims that [Osama]

In what was described as an act of terrorism, a Nigerian passenger attempted to ignite an incendiary device Friday aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit as the plane began its approach for landing, federal officials said. The plane landed safely shortly before noon. The suspected would-be bomber suffered burns as the result of his attempt, and two of the other 277 passengers reported minor injuries, authorities said. FBI agents were investigating the incident, which a White House official said was thought to be an attempted act of terrorism.

Five weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden publicly commanded his foot-soldiers to ramp up the violence against American civilians. But five weeks before his death, he privately instructed his lieutenants to refrain from killing any civilians. Did the world's most notorious terrorist have a moral awakening and grow soft? Hardly. His unheralded tactical shift was purely strategic. This month, the Combating Terrorism Center at the West Point Military Academy released 17 declassified documents that were seized from bin Laden's Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound in the targeted killing last year.

As residents of New York, they have seen and felt firsthand the terror of the attacks against the United States. But, as the world's representatives to the United Nations General Assembly discuss how they plan to combat world terrorism, each sees the problem through the prism of his own country's experience. The debate, which began Monday, is expected to continue through tomorrow. An unprecedented number of representatives - 165 - have asked to speak. The first speakers declared that terrorism needed no definition, but it quickly became apparent that while condemnation of the attacks was universal, definitions of terrorism were not. Here are excerpts of some of their remarks: Sir Jeremy Greenstock, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Let me touch on one controversial area where this assembly has a job to do. Increasingly, questions are being raised about the problem of the definition of a terrorist.

"Terrorism has shifted from hostage-taking to indiscriminate slaughter of men, women and children." Truer words were never spoken, and it would be a foolish dereliction of duty for the Clinton administration and Congress to refuse to strengthen anti-terrorists laws and procedures.The Democratic president and Republican congressional leaders say they are ready and willing to crack down on terrorism -- and now! Some critics say this is an over-reaction to the horror of Oklahoma City. American public opinion has been enflamed by what happened there, but even when all the emotionalism has been filtered out of that response there is a still a good case to be made for getting tougher with terrorism.

PARIS -- The key difference between the terrorist and the criminal is that the terrorist is an idealist and the criminal a practical man. The terrorist runs risks the criminal refuses because he or she believes that the terrorist cause transcends the individual.It provides meaning in the terrorist's life. It may give meaning to death. When the terrorist motivation is religious as well as political, not only is the cause more important than life, but life is unimportant. The Hamas suicide bomber in Israel is convinced that his act gives him eternal happiness.