We might wonder why, if there isn't really a "new" terrorism, so many have spoken of one. Here are a few suggestions:
- The first efforts to describe a 'new' form of terrorism, in the 1990s, were generally by professional students of terrorism attempting to make sense of phenomena that did not fit into the model that evolved in the 1970s and 1980s out of left-leaning national liberation movements. Attacks such as that of the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo did not make sense without a reconsideration of the model.
- Simplifying schematics such as "old" and "new" make complex phenomena seem simple, which is intellectually satisfying and emotionally comforting in a complicated world;
- When people do not know the historical or cultural context of a phenomenon, anything that they do not recognize may indeed look "new." In reality, it is simply new to them;
- Although individuals who write about "new" terrorism after 9/11 may not be aware of it, their claim of unprecedented lethality is a political argument that favors putting more resources into terrorism (which does not kill as many people as heart disease, or poverty) precisely because it is so lethal;
- It is difficult for any cause to draw attention in crowded media space. Claiming "newness" is one way to distinguish a phenomenon, and it is easier to digest than explanations of complicated historical facts.
- Identifying a new phenomenon can help a writer gain attention or build a career.