Hello TeamLiquid! I am a long time lurker and first time blog poster, so I hope you enjoy this entry! I read the general forums of TeamLiquid quite frequently, and I have recently noticed discussions of terrorism often lead to flame wars between posters and misconceptions of what constitutes acts of terrorism. The purpose of this blog is to elaborate on three points that may help clarify some of the misconceptions regarding terrorists. The majority of my talking points will come from a recent lecture given by Christopher Dickey a reporter for Newsweek, www.christopherdickey.com. Before I begin the blog, I would like to introduce myself. I am currently working on my doctoral degree. I am also enrolled in a terrorism course that has greatly enhanced my understanding of domestic and international terrorists. I would like to make a disclaimer that I am not asserting myself to be some expert on all things related to terrorism. Some of you may disagree with my three points, but I would like to understand why or how you disagree. On a side note, I used to be an avid Starcraft 2 player (Zerg ftw), but I am inactive now due to school.
Point #1: Terrorism is difficult to define. The United States uses numerous definitions for terrorist organizations. Homeland security, Department of Defense, and the FBI each have different definition for terrorist acts. Some of these definitions focus on the psychological aspects of the individual, such as the FBI’s. Other definitions explicitly discuss the political, ideological, or religious nature of the attacks. One researcher, Alex Schmid found approximately 109 definitions of terrorism. He attempted to narrow the definitions of terrorism but was unsuccessful. I often see people in the general forums debating what constitutes a terrorist act. This is a great question, and it varies according to the respondent However, it is accepted that most terrorist acts have a political aim or goal. Even al Qaeda has a definitive political goal with their attacks, which is to eliminate the Western world while simultaneously establishing a state of Sharia Law. As broad as an objective as the one proposed by al Qaeda, it is still political in nature. Other terrorist groups have specific aims or goals with their attacks.
Why does it matter if several definitions of terrorism exist? Recently Anders Breivik committed heinous crimes in Norway to protest the spread of Islam in Europe. He acted alone, but he carried out acts of violence for a political cause. However, the media seemed hesitant to call him a terrorist. There were debates across numerous forums as to how or why he could be classified as a terrorist, while other posters simply referred to him as a mass murderer. Personally, I favor Bruce Hoffman’s definition of terrorism when attempting to make the distinction between a terrorist and a mass murderer. Hoffman’s definition is, “violence – or, equally important the threat of violence – used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim.” According to his definition, a mass murderer can be a terrorist, and a terrorist can be a mass murderer. Additionally, a terrorist could not be a mass murderer, and a mass murderer could not be a terrorist. I know the two above sentences may seem confusing, but it is important to understand that any act of violence towards a political cause could qualify as an act of terrorism. This is especially important when examining the pre-trial rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The military uses a definition of “active terrorist” to keep these men detained. If the men did not engage or support (monetarily, housing, etc.) violence for a political cause, why would they be detained? The United States government needs to establish a uniform definition that encompasses the roles of an active terrorist.
Point #2: Al Qaeda and the War on the United States According to Lawrence Wright, who wrote The Looming Towers, the defeat of the Soviets during the Soviet-Afghan War established a definitive win for all Muslims. The clerics in Afghanistan viewed the invasion by the Soviets not as an assault on the country, but as an attack on all Muslims. This invoked a response by the clerics to call all true Muslims to join the fight in Afghanistan and help protect Islam against invaders. The call was heeded, and numerous fighters joined the cause. This is where the United States entered the scene by aiding the Afghani fighters through the Pakistani government. According to some sources, the United States had a presence in Afghanistan before the Soviets invaded, which provoked the Russian government to take the country before the United States could obtain a stronghold. However, the Russian government underestimated the Afghan fighters, which would become the Soviet’s version of the Vietnam War. After the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan and subsequently collapsed, the hardened Muslim fighters returned to their respective countries to fight for their respective organizations, such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Lawrence Wright said the Afghani fighters successfully delivered the mortal blow to one of the world’s greatest superpowers.
Osama bin Laden established himself as a hero during the Soviet-Afghan War. He had wealth, wisdom, and was a humbled man. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Osama bin Laden approached the Saudi Arabian King to request he and his followers repel the million-man army of Hussein. Bin Laden was laughed out of the room according to Lawrence Wright. The United States entered the scene and Operation Desert Storm soon started. During this time, images were spread of Christians, Jews, and Female American soldiers entering the Middle East to protect the Arabic community, which was humiliating to some Muslims. Bin Laden viewed the Americans as occupiers, and he began to formulate plans to eradicate the American presence from the Middle East. This is when al Qaeda, which translated means the base, began to pick up sympathizers. The group destroyed embassies and attempted to take the war to the Americans by blowing up the World Trade Center in 1993. Eventually, bin Laden officially declared a jihad against the United States and its allies and condoned all attacks against American targets, including civilians. It is understandable how the presence of non-Muslims to defend a Muslim country would be seen as humiliating. Osama bin Laden strongly believed the Americans were attempting to occupy the Middle East.
Point #3: America has lost the Mental War Christopher Dickey, an expert on Middle East affairs, has written numerous articles on terrorism. He, like many other researchers who have evaluated the War on Terror, believe the United States had underestimated the threat of terrorist groups before 9/11 and overestimated them afterwards. Dickey believes that the moment the United States entered Afghanistan they lost the mental war. We played right at the hands of bin Laden, who knew he would be able to recruit more sympathizers with the presence of “oppressive” occupiers. The establishment of the PATRIOT Act, the stringent TSA policies, and the constant paranoia of radical Islamists in America has led to a paradigm shift within the country. I agree with Chris Dickey that we grossly underestimated the threat of terrorist groups before 9/11. For example, in Bruce Hoffman’s book Inside Terrorism he made an interesting note that of approximately 201 federal exercises in preventing terrorist attacks, two-thirds focused on biological, nuclear, and cyber attacks rather than traditional methods of terrorist acts. This underestimation of traditional attacks and overestimation of biological and nuclear attacks led to the government focusing on the wrong issues. It is documented al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have attempted to obtain biological or nuclear weapons. However, the ability for these groups to recruit scientist and purchase plutonium or other required materials is extremely unlikely.
Another example of how the United States has lost the psychological war on terror is we are extremely critical of failed terrorist attacks. For example, the underwear bomber in Christmas of 2009 had failed because he attempted to make a bomb that would bypass the TSA screenings. He could not use traditional components for making the bomb, which decreased his chances of succeeding. Chris Dickey also spoke about how the media and public are also critical of the government for failed terrorist attacks, which is ironic. We are being protected, but the fact that a close call occurred is too much for people to handle. Another example of a failed terrorist attack is that by the shoe bomber, Richard Reid. We were highly critical of the government for having such a close encounter to another terrorist act. What people seem to forget though is that terrorists have to configure shoddily made bombs or strategies to bypass the security that is in place. I think the greatest failure on behalf of the United States during the War on Terror is restricting citizen rights and engaging in enhanced interrogation techniques, which defies the basic principles of our country.
Conclusion Chris Dickey opened his lecture by referring to recent attempts by certain state legislatures to enact legislation that forbids Sharia Law (Islamic Law). This overestimation of the threat of Islam and ignorance of religion are prime examples of how many citizens in the United States and the rest of the world misunderstand terrorism. There are also individuals on the other side, who believe the United States is attempting to control the world through power and manipulation. I believe the United States has made countless mistakes throughout the past decade, but the country is also learning from those mistakes. I remember reading one thread on the general forums where a poster stated something along the lines of the entire American counter-intelligence initiatives have yielded few positive results. I completely disagree, and I believe the CIA and FBI have gathered critical intelligence from sources throughout the world in combating terrorist threats. Since I mentioned the CIA and FBI, I would like to say I do not condone enhanced interrogation techniques, and I believe that these tactics reflect poorly on what the United States represents. I believe the greatest success at defending the country from terrorist threats comes from training and creating protective programs within the United States, not in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Chris Dickey’s book Securing the Gates: Inside the World’s Best Counter-terrorism Unit does a great job of describing this transformation.
I tried my best to make this blog interesting, and I hope to have clarified a few misconceptions of terrorism. If I were to write another blog, I would try to focus on the role of the media in helping terrorists spread their message, the recruitment techniques for many Salafi jihadist groups, and domestic terrorists. The following is a list of the sources I used to help write this blog. 1) Bruce Hoffman – Inside Terrorism 2) Marc Sageman – Understanding Terror Networks 3) www.christopherdickey.com 4) Lawrence Wright – The Looming Tower – also on YouTube as a documentary
I would greatly appreciate any feedback for the presentation or styling of the blog! Thanks for reading!
i guess so. so we're terrorists, fighting against terrorism with terrorism?
i'm fascinated by how you dive so deep into the topic. but i see no sign of critical thinking. if i was you, i wouldn't be so sure that everything i've read is actually true. our governments always made use of excessive propaganda and false-flag attacks to control the public opinion... so... why are you so sure they're not doing it again?
i really believe you can't attain peace by fighting... i really really believe that...
i'm sorry for my lame post without any substance... it's the same old same old, i know. but i just really think we have to grow out of fighting and manipulating the masses. i don't like being manipulated.
You just proved my point beg, terrorism is difficult to define. Even Hoffman's definition leaves numerous things open to interpretation. The lines begin to blur further when you start examining state-sponsored terrorism, which I assume you believe NATO is engaging in with your YouTube link.
In terms of the government using excessive propaganda and false-flag attacks to control public opinion, it is difficult to discuss those things with you. You seem to believe that the sources I listed are controlled or manipulated by the United States government. I am not sure how I could persuade you otherwise because it seems you are assuming the only way I can critically think is to question the existent research that is already out there. You are right, it is important to question the research done by others, which is necessary for replication studies, etc. However, Hoffman's accounts of al Qaeda and the Salafi jihadists are verified by Marc Sageman's book. Debating conspiracy theories with someone is difficult.
Are you also asking whether governments sponsor terror? I would answer that question with a yes. Depending on what side you stand on (sympathetic to the terrorists or sympathetic to the coalition in the War on Terror) you could make the argument that countries have engaged in terrorism at one point or another. The main thing to remember when discussing whether we are fighting terrorism against terrorism is the perspective you take and how you define it. These very issues complicate researchers' attempts to study terrorism.
I also believe you are giving the government way to much credit with controlling personal stories, studies, and publications of terrorist activities. It would be highly improbable that every publication regarding the history, development, and understanding of terrorist networks is manipulated by the United States government.
Seriously, I can never ever understand the "war on terrorism".
Can we (western industrialized nations) ever hope to "win"? It's a war of attrition to a good extent; for every dollar they spend, a terrorist organization inflicts hundreds, if not thousands of times of damage economically to their target nations in prevention, cleanup, etc. costs. This is not even counting the psychological defeat you described, or the corruption by monetary and political profiteers of fear.
So how can we "win"? The way I see it, it either boils down to the invention of love potions and the force-feeding of said potions to every Muslim on the planet because let's face it, they're not going to love us any other way any time soon, or the extermination of every Muslim on the planet. Clearly, 2 very practical solutions...
Im glad you share your homework with us. You must have felt real strong about own writing. Like someone said, try to incorporate your thought into this, dont just recite another doctor of terrorist sciences. For someone currently working on doctorate degree this is weaksauce. But seems appropriate for something like Centerville Times
On October 07 2011 05:02 supaplex wrote: Im glad you share your homework with us. You must have felt real strong about own writing. Like someone said, try to incorporate your thought into this, dont just recite another doctor of terrorist sciences. For someone currently working on doctorate degree this is weaksauce. But seems appropriate for something like Centerville Times
I am trying to share my thoughts and opinions through those who have established and documented research. I attempted to share my thoughts through the writings and opinions of those I have cited, like any researcher should and will do. How do you think grad school works? Do you think you can give your own opinion without properly citing or acknowledging existing research? If that was the case, anyone and everyone could earn a doctoral degree, especially our opinionated TeamLiquiders.
I also believe you misunderstood the purpose of my blog. If I presented only my opinions without acknowledging existing problems or attempts to understand each of the three points, no one would take the blog seriously. I attempted to integrate the works of numerous researchers to clarify and establish my argument to clarify some of the misconceptions of terrorism. I believe anyone in grad school would agree with me that you assert your opinion through the interpretation of other individuals work. You do not blatantly state what you believe without acknowledging previous research. Maybe next time I could split the blog in half by establishing what is out there, and then creating a subsection of my personal opinion. Thanks for the flame though.
Why is a definition of terrorism important, and why should a government be the body defining what terrorism is? To me it seems like scholar's work.
Edit: whether the accidents in Norway were terrorism or not does not make a difference, except possibly in the case where special laws or procedures apply only for things defined "terrorism", in which case it would become legalese. Do you mean that the law is unclear in defining terrorism?
On October 07 2011 05:02 supaplex wrote: Im glad you share your homework with us. You must have felt real strong about own writing. Like someone said, try to incorporate your thought into this, dont just recite another doctor of terrorist sciences. For someone currently working on doctorate degree this is weaksauce. But seems appropriate for something like Centerville Times
I am trying to share my thoughts and opinions through those who have established and documented research. I attempted to share my thoughts through the writings and opinions of those I have cited, like any researcher should and will do. How do you think grad school works? Do you think you can give your own opinion without properly citing or acknowledging existing research? If that was the case, anyone and everyone could earn a doctoral degree, especially our opinionated TeamLiquiders.
I also believe you misunderstood the purpose of my blog. If I presented only my opinions without acknowledging existing problems or attempts to understand each of the three points, no one would take the blog seriously. I attempted to integrate the works of numerous researchers to clarify and establish my argument to clarify some of the misconceptions of terrorism. I believe anyone in grad school would agree with me that you assert your opinion through the interpretation of other individuals work. You do not blatantly state what you believe without acknowledging previous research. Maybe next time I could split the blog in half by establishing what is out there, and then creating a subsection of my personal opinion. Thanks for the flame though.
You should actually take seriously this person's opinion instead of being defensive. The difference between a blog and a academic paper is that a blog should use language in a clear and direct way, where-as your typical student's essay will try to encompass as few ideas as possible in as many words as possible. The purpose of your blog is to clear up misconceptions, so it would make sense to have a list or paragraph that explictly states what you think are the current misconceptions, and then you could directly address each misconception in turn.
It might also be useful to have a paragraph at the beginning of your blog/essay that states the points and opinions you are trying to communicate, and then have the rest of your essay justifying this set of statements.
My own opinion is that terrorism is by definition acts of aggresion that are designed to scare ordinary people in order to further political ends.
The current Islamist terrorist threat is less to do with the west or religeon and more to do with politics in the middle east. By inciting war and causing religeous radicalisation the Terrorists have increased their own political power and influence. The USA, as a result of domestic public pressure, has been forced to play along even though the most logical response by any analysis would have been to avoid all out war and act through more subtle methods.
The political powers in the Middle East feel the pressure of democracy from the influence of the west, and revolution is always on the edge in many countries. They react by causing religeous radicalisation and demonising the west. We need to not play up to these local pressures, and set an example of peace and prosperity for people in the middle east to see, and eventually the revolutions that are inevitable will come all the sooner.
On October 07 2011 05:02 supaplex wrote: Im glad you share your homework with us. You must have felt real strong about own writing. Like someone said, try to incorporate your thought into this, dont just recite another doctor of terrorist sciences. For someone currently working on doctorate degree this is weaksauce. But seems appropriate for something like Centerville Times
I am trying to share my thoughts and opinions through those who have established and documented research. I attempted to share my thoughts through the writings and opinions of those I have cited, like any researcher should and will do. How do you think grad school works? Do you think you can give your own opinion without properly citing or acknowledging existing research? If that was the case, anyone and everyone could earn a doctoral degree, especially our opinionated TeamLiquiders.
I also believe you misunderstood the purpose of my blog. If I presented only my opinions without acknowledging existing problems or attempts to understand each of the three points, no one would take the blog seriously. I attempted to integrate the works of numerous researchers to clarify and establish my argument to clarify some of the misconceptions of terrorism. I believe anyone in grad school would agree with me that you assert your opinion through the interpretation of other individuals work. You do not blatantly state what you believe without acknowledging previous research. Maybe next time I could split the blog in half by establishing what is out there, and then creating a subsection of my personal opinion. Thanks for the flame though.
You should actually take seriously this person's opinion instead of being defensive. The difference between a blog and a academic paper is that a blog should use language in a clear and direct way, where-as your typical student's essay will try to encompass as few ideas as possible in as many words as possible. The purpose of your blog is to clear up misconceptions, so it would make sense to have a list or paragraph that explictly states what you think are the current misconceptions, and then you could directly address each misconception in turn.
It might also be useful to have a paragraph at the beginning of your blog/essay that states the points and opinions you are trying to communicate, and then have the rest of your essay justifying this set of statements.
My own opinion is that terrorism is by definition acts of aggresion that are designed to scare ordinary people in order to further political ends.
The current Islamist terrorist threat is less to do with the west or religeon and more to do with politics in the middle east. By inciting war and causing religeous radicalisation the Terrorists have increased their own political power and influence. The USA, as a result of domestic public pressure, has been forced to play along even though the most logical response by any analysis would have been to avoid all out war and act through more subtle methods.
The political powers in the Middle East feel the pressure of democracy from the influence of the west, and revolution is always on the edge in many countries. They react by causing religeous radicalisation and demonising the west. We need to not play up to these local pressures, and set an example of peace and prosperity for people in the middle east to see, and eventually the revolutions that are inevitable will come all the sooner.
I responded to his post in a manner that warranted my explanation of how I crafted the blog. I wrote my blog in a clear and direct way. I presented the information according to the knowledge of my audience, which means I avoided an in depth analysis of the nuances of defining terrorism, and how terrorism networks develop in the Middle East. I also heavily disagree with your belief that academic papers try to discuss as few ideas as possible with as many words as possible. That is the exact opposite of parsimonious academic writing, which encourages individuals to write or explain the most with the least. I appreciate your recommendations for preparing the next blog though.
On the topic of the threat of radical Islamic terrorists, I believe you are downplaying the importance of religion in enabling terrorists to engage in their behaviors. I believe both politics and religion are intertwined for many Middle Eastern governments. By eliminating the United States presence in the Middle East, the radical Islamist believe they can reestablish a stronghold for Muslims. Of course Islamic terrorists have political motives, but their motives are onset by their religious ideologies. Think about it, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and even the Jewish terrorist organization Kach are religiously motivated to achieve their political goals.
Yes, religeon is used as a tool to achieve political ends. The motivation is power and influence (even if they have convinced themselves they are true believers). These 2 statements are as true now as they have been for the last 3000 years. Get some historical perspective.
On October 07 2011 07:13 deathly rat wrote: Yes, religeon is used as a tool to achieve political ends. The motivation is power and influence (even if they have convinced themselves they are true believers). These 2 statements are as true now as they have been for the last 3000 years. Get some historical perspective.
Get some historical perspective? Are you disagreeing with what I just said? I said religion and politics are intertwined, and that you are downplaying the influence of religion. Achieving Sharia law throughout the world is both a religious and political victory.
On October 07 2011 07:13 deathly rat wrote: Yes, religeon is used as a tool to achieve political ends. The motivation is power and influence (even if they have convinced themselves they are true believers). These 2 statements are as true now as they have been for the last 3000 years. Get some historical perspective.
Get some historical perspective? Are you disagreeing with what I just said? I said religion and politics are intertwined, and that you are downplaying the influence of religion. Achieving Sharia law throughout the world is both a religious and political victory.
Look at the situation the UK had with Catholic and Protestant terrorism in Northern Ireland. There were all kinds of terrible acts commited under the banner of religeon, but it wasn't any kind of religeous answer that stopped the violence, it was the sharing of power along with the legitimisation and empowerment of the leaders of the terrorist groups.
The same thing will be true for Islamist terrorists. It won't be any kind of religeous agreement or change in the law that solves the problem, it will be either the empowerment (effective buying off) of the terrorist leaders, or it will be the crushing of the terrorist organisations (which pretty much never happens). More power is the motivation of all men who have power. This is why Bill Gates still goes to work and why rich business men contribute to political parties. It is the reason that Putin wants to become the leader of Russia again, it is why Alexander the Great conquered most of europe, it is why every war ever fought was fought. All politics must be viewed through the lense of who is gaining power and who is losing power. To suggest that people wage war on pure religeous principle is naive.
Where in my response did I say war was waged purely for religious reasons? Many Islamic terrorists will achieve success religiously, which means they will also achieve success politically. The two are the same for many Islamic terrorists. A win in one area will subsequently result in a win in another.
On October 07 2011 07:07 sorn wrote: Of course Islamic terrorists have political motives, but their motives are onset by their religious ideologies. Think about it, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and even the Jewish terrorist organization Kach are religiously motivated to achieve their political goals.
I am saying Islamic terrorist organizations are religiously motivated to achieve political goals. You are arguing that religion is used to wage wars for political gain. Where exactly are you disagreeing with me? What exactly are you disagreeing with is the better question?
Also what you quoted still did not answer my question. All if not most terrorist organizations have a political motive. You are still trying to separate politics and religion for Islamic radicalist. You can do that for the IRA, who you quoted. However, for some of these organizations the two are one in the same.
I don't disagree with 90% of what you are saying, but I think my different perspective has a significant impact on the response that we in the west should provide.
It seem like you are saying that for religeous reasons the rulers and terrorists have some beef with the west, and this is causing us to get involved in wars and be the victim of terrorism.
I am saying that the rulers and terrorists in the middle east don't care about us in the west, and how we live our decadent lives. They do not have a strong desire to spread Islam and Sharia law around the world. Their motivations are localised to the political situations in their own countries. All the terrorism and wars in the middle east are to do with local power struggles. Thus my theories that the most logical response is to not wage war on middle eastern countries and thus unite them against the west, we should provide an example of the kind of life ordinary people in those countries should expect as well as ACTIVELY aiding those local people in the country who are fighting for democracy and moderate government.
I disagree with your point 2, because Bin Laden is obviously not humble, wise or a hero, he is a tribal leader who wants more power. You've got a nerve describing him as anything more than this.
EPT
