Given the growing global threats of terrorism, it is significant that an understanding of the history, nature and mechanism-premises under which terror operates is obtained. This is significant as it would shape the perspective of policy makers when addressing issues of this nature. Terrorism, as it is understood is the action of none-state weak actors, individual or groups, who for some reasons feels suppressed, marginalized and, or denied what they may view as the basic human right. All terrorism has political objectives, even though the perpetrators may use religious relics to appeal to a wider existing audience, and invoke a response through violent act to prove or propagate their point. Yoram Schweitzer in "Suicide Terrorism Development & Characteristics," Mark Sedgwick in "Al-Qaeda and the "Nature of Religious Terrorism," and Dr. James Armstrong, all demonstrates that suicide terror attacks are politically motivated even though the perpetrator may use religious symbolism to justifies their acts.
Observing areas in the world where terrorism is frequent, especially in the Middle East, it can be argued that groups that engaged in terrorists' activities are those that feel suppressed and taken advantage of by a much greater power. Thus, terrorism, particularly suicide terror is prevalent in areas where systems of gross injustice seem to exist. Therefore, the actual use of terrorism by non-state actors is a tactic aimed at polarizing the population in their favor. By killing people in mass number, they are attempting to take away the view that only the state can legitimately kill – thus undermining the state authority. As Armstrong, Sedgwick and Schweitzer exemplify, suicide terrorism is not a new happening, but an old historical phenomenon. And that just as modern day terror organizations, particularly Al-Qaeda, uses religious concepts to motivate its actions (though their immediate goal is political), various old terrorist groups have used similar approached to achieve their political end.
To understand the history of suicide terrorism and how terrorist groups in the past have used religious tone to propagate their political course, Armstrong pointed out the Zealots-an extremist Jewish sect that opposed Jesus. The Zealots engaged in political assassinations of their political foe, knowing that they would be killed in the process. Even though their ultimate goal might have been religious, the Zealots immediate aim was political. In the same way, during the third century, the Assassins- a notorious terrorist wing (similar in nature to Al-Qaeda) in modern day Syria, assassinated many of their political opponents in order to establish their own form of Islam.
In Brym’s article he discusses what research has shown about the motivations of suicide bombers. Brym and my fellow classmate explained to me how suicide bombers may be motivated by politics, religion, or retaliatory aims (Brym, Kyra Howard). Both Brym and Howard helped me view the issue of suicide bombers in multiple
Likewise, Goodwin illustrates how the use of categorical terrorism can be seem being used by Al-Qaida during the attacks of 9/11. Nonetheless, it is evident that Al-Qaida is unusual in terms of using terrorism to influence the rise of unity rather than trying to overthrow a standing state. For the purpose of instigating a pan-Islamic revolutionary movement, Al-Qaida tries to unite all Islamic people under one state to develop umma, or Muslim community. The logic of Al-Qaida remained that if their “revolutionaries” could illicit a reaction from the powerful US state, resulting in oppression of the middle-eastern region, that Al-Qaida could, as a result, unite all Muslims to counter this suggested oppression. Although the end goal of Al-Qaida clear failed, it does suggest the organization’s attempt at implementing categorical terrorism.
In Robert Pape’s Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism he investigates the three hundred and fifteen suicide terrorist attacks that have occurred from its beginning in 1980 up until 2003. By examining these attacks he explains the three logics behind suicide terrorism, the strategic, the social, and the individual logic. Pape uses Dying to Win as a tool to educate the public on suicide terrorism. He hopes people will begin to understand that it is not irrational, but requires reason and strategy. He brings to light that suicide terrorism is not directly correlated with Islamic fundamentalism, but rather political objectives, trying to put to rest many preconceived notions. By understanding the logic behind suicide terrorism people can work together to prevent it from happening in the future. After reading this book it is clear that suicide terrorism is not random, but does demand some thought in order for it to work.
some try to reach their goals through violence, the majority work through political parties within the electoral process. People like Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network are only at fringes. Even if fundamentalism is to encompass such aberrations, such brand of fundamentalism is a characteristic of all (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism) the religions. This paper by citing episodes of fundamentalism in leading religions substantiates the theseis that fundamentalism is not specific to any particular religion. Beginning with Judaism, the bombing of Hotel King David in July 1946 is an incident that starkly explifies the Jewish Fundamentalism.
The topic of my paper is types of terrorism. There are several types of terrorism for which to choose for my paper, state, dissident, religious, left-wing v. right-wing, and international. In this paper I have chosen state terrorism, religious terrorism, and international terrorism as the types of terrorism that I am going to discuss. I will discuss what they are in my own words and give examples of two different groups for each type that represent that type of terrorism. Then I will compare and contrast the three types of terrorism that I chose.
In Module one, I learned that terrorism is a result of physical harm or deadly acts of force with the intent of a political outcome by the use of terror for coercion. There are various types of terrorism such as international terrorism and domestic terrorism. International terrorism occurs outside of the United States with a purpose to influence the policy of a government by intimidation. International and Domestic terrorism both involve violent acts dangerous to human life that violate federal and state laws. Domestic terrorism occurs within the United States with the intention of coercion or intimidation by way of mass destruction, etc. Some forms of terrorism include Improvised explosive devices (IED), kidnappings, suicide bombings and
Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
Terrorism has been around for centuries and religion-based violence has been around just as long. (Hoffman, 2). The violence was never referred to as terrorism though. Only up to the nineteenth century has religion been able to justify terrorism (Hoffman, 2). Since then, religious terrorism became motivated and inspired by the ideological view (Hoffman, 3). Therefore, it has turned against the main focus of religion and more towards the views of the extremist and what is happening politically (Winchester, 4).
Pape believes that suicide terrorism is focused around democracies and occupation. After conducting his research, Pape discovered that from 1980 to 2001, records of suicide terrorism have had three main reoccurring, necessary properties: timing, nationalist goals, and target selection. Pape (2003) explains that, when it comes to timing, “nearly all suicide attacks occur in organized, coherent campaigns, not as isolated or randomly timed incidents” (347). Thus, Pape infers there is strategic reasoning behind this way of terrorizing the masses. He further states campaigns of suicide terrorism focus on gaining oversight of territory terrorists deem as their national homeland.
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism is wrong, he defines what terrorism is, what causes terrorism, and what people believe terrorism to mean. With a working definition in place, Khatchadourian examines terrorism’s role in a just war and shows that terrorism is never just, even during war. With the assertion that terrorism, even during wartime is unjust, Khatchadourian analyzes the variations of innocence and non-innocence surrounding the victims of a terrorist attack. The analysis of innocence and non-innocence is accomplished through review of the principal of discrimination and the principal of proportion and how each relates to terrorism. From these philosophical and ethical standpoints, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism is unjust and wrong because of the way it groups and punishes the innocent with the guilty, not allowing the victim to properly respond to the charges against them. Finally, Khatchadourian looks at how terrorism is always wrong because of the way it denies a person their basic human rights. In examination of person’s human rights, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism specifically “violates its targets’ right to be treated as moral persons,” as it inflicts pain, suffering and death to those who are not deserving (298).
“The trauma of the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., which were quickly interpreted as religious as well as political phenomena, provoked yet another body of studies. On the other hand, general studies of the relationship between religion and violence are rare, and they often appear to be somewhat one-sided...
Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks, but instead the result of partisan advancement. Acts of terrorism have been around throughout the evolution of mankind. Terror attacks have even been traced back as far as the religious roots of an ancient middle east (Ross, Will Terrorism End?, 2006). However as man evolved, so did terrorism. Today’s extremism involves some of the main characteristics of ancient terrorism, but much more developed. Political advancement is no longer the root cause of terrorism acts. Instead influxes of “holy” wars have been appended the prior definition of terrorism. Mistakably modern terrorism has been confused for Political violence with political objectives, but research will establish that the nature of terrorism is fundamentally different from other forms of political violence.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
In this world there are many different topics of controversy. With every controversial topic comes different views and arguments explaining why people believe what they do. There are problems that can be just within one country or throughout the entire world. Terrorism affects everyone in the world, specifically us as Americans, which is why it is one of the biggest controversial topics. Of course with a topic as big as terrorism, there are emic and etic perspectives involved. With past history, there are specific countries and religions that we think of when we hear the word terrorism, specifically Afghanistan, located in the Middle East and the Muslim religion in that general area. Being part of the American