Defining Terrorism
Defining terrorism is a very complex issue, the importance of which cannot be overstated in the world today. The problem with declaring a “War on Terror” is that there is no catch-all definition of what constitutes terrorism (O’Kane, 2007). Most people have a very general idea of what terrorism looks like; it is easy to describe an act as terrorism once it has occurred, but it is very difficult to define terrorism as a whole before it happens.
A good definition of an act of terrorism is, arguably, an act, often a violent act, whose purpose is to terrify, scare, or otherwise force a civilian population into behaving in a certain manner (O’Kane, 2007). For example, an act of terror may be attacking a young woman who is attending school, for the sole purpose of terrifying the vast majority of other young women into behaving in a certain way-- to terrify them into not going to school, in this case.
The problem with this definition of terrorism is that it does not quantify acts of terror that seem to have no particular purpose. The systematic capture and execution of journalists in Iraq during the early 2000s, for instance, does not seem to fit into this pattern: there is no message being sent by this action, it is merely an act of extreme cruelty.
While terrorism cannot be clearly defined, and there are certainly problems with defining it, there is very little that is subjective about acts of terror. Terrorism is not, as it is sometimes suggested by the media, an act of a desperate individual pushed against a wall; it is thought-out and well-planned (O’Kane, 2007). Separating terrorism and acts of terror from acts of desperation is important to the discussion of terrorism. (Word count: 293)
References
O'kane, R. (2007). Terrorism. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
O'neill, B., Heaton, W. and Alberts, D. (1980). Insurgency in the modern world. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
O'neill, B. (2005). Insurgency & terrorism. Dulles, Va.: Brassey's.
Origins of State Terrorism
Acts of a desperate individual acting against an unjust system should certainly be separated from the discussion of terrorism. Terrorism should be considered in the context of the purpose of the action: forcing another individual or group into behaving in a different manner is the primary purpose of an act of terror (O’Neill, 2005). When an individual or group acts in a certain way, out of desperation (because they feel violence is their last choice), this should not be considered terrorism.
Nelson Mandela, perhaps one of the most famous freedom fighters in history, acted out against an unjust system in South Africa, and sometimes his actions and the actions of the groups he supported were violent (O’Neill, 2005). This is not because he was a violent man, but instead, it was because he and his supporters were forced into submission by a system that left them no choice but violence.
The French Revolution easily qualifies as terrorism because there were other options during this time. The culture became swept up in a lust for blood and an obsession with violence, victims of the mob mentality; however, revolutions and coups have happened without the kind of terrorism and violence that occurred during the French Revolution.
Terrorism may have existed before the French Revolution, but the French Revolution remains the best example of modern-day terrorism and the mentality of terrorists (O’Kane, 2007). There is a distinct mentality in groups that participate in terrorism; it is an us-versus-them mentality. People engaged in terrorist activities are often swept up in fundamentalist thought; this is why the French Revolution is such a good example of modern-day terrorism (O’Kane, 2007). During this time, it was not enough to depose the aristocracy; they had to be eradicated. (Word count: 284)
References
O'kane, R. (2007). Terrorism. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
O'neill, B. (2005). Insurgency & terrorism. Dulles, Va.: Brassey's.
Domestic Terrorism in the United States
Domestic terrorism is terrorism that is perpetrated against a country by one of its own citizens. These acts of terror could take any number of different guises; there are a wide variety of different groups that participate or have participated in domestic or homegrown terrorism in the past.
Homegrown or domestic terrorism is certainly a threat to the United States, although it is a different type of threat than foreign terrorism (Forest, 2007). There are a number of groups who have participated in terrorism against the United States or citizens/groups within the United States in the past, and they have caused serious harm. However, most homegrown or domestic terrorists have a different type of agenda than foreign terrorists; for example, the Ku Klux Klan has been described as a domestic terrorist organization, and their primary targets have been people of non-white ethnicities (Forest, 2007). The Ku Klux Klan is primarily concerned with maintaining what they describe as racial purity in the United States (Forest, 2007).
Another act of domestic terrorism that was incredibly destructive was the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995 (Forest, 2007). This was a unique act, because the perpetrators were individuals rather than members of a group. Timothy McVeigh, the perpetrator of the act of terror, did not act alone, but was not part of any particular group (Forest, 2007).
Domestic terrorism is a threat to the United States, but in a different way than foreign terrorism is. Because domestic terrorists are often part of the fabric of American society, they have more specific goals than to attack the American people as a whole. (Word count: 257)
References
Forest, J. (2007). Countering terrorism and insurgency in the 21st century. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International.
O'kane, R. (2007). Terrorism. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Radical Islam and the Threat to the United States
Radical Islam is a legitimate threat to the United States, but not in the way that many people think it is. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has changed so many things about the ways in which the government interacts with the people both within the country and outside of the country (Luxenburg, 2010). Many of the freedoms that were taken for granted in the years prior to September 11th were curtailed after the attacks in the name of national security.
While it is clear that some changes needed to be made in the wake of the September 11th attacks, it is also clear that in some ways, the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United States were successful, because they managed to scare the American populace into allowing certain freedoms to be restricted without question (Luxenburg, 2010).
The United States is under constant threat from attacks from various groups around the world; the public does not find out about these threats until after they have been nullified, if they are made aware of these threats at all. Without all the information available, it is difficult to see which group poses the greatest threat to the United States, and which will be most likely to be successful. However, radical Islam does seem to be the most vocal threat, and the most willing to speak out about the perceived problems that exist within American society; this may be the primary reason that radical Islam is perceived as such a threatening group (Luxenburg, 2010).
Choosing the most dangerous group to American society would take a risk analysis of the different groups that threaten America and the likelihood that their attacks would be successful (Forest, 2007). However, because radical Islam is so outspoken against America, it is often perceived as the most dangerous. (Word count: 293)
References
Forest, J. (2007). Countering terrorism and insurgency in the 21st century. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International.
Luxenberg, A. (2010). Radical Islam. Broomall, PA: Mason Crest Publishers.
O'kane, R. (2007). Terrorism. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
The Troubles in Northern Ireland
The violence in Northern Ireland began in the 1960s when the country was split along ethnic and political lines. The country is, essentially, to this day split religiously between Anglicans/Protestants and Catholics; the former are usually of the Unionist persuasion, wanting to reconnect the country with the United Kingdom, while the latter are separatists, wanting Northern Ireland to maintain its freedom and independence (Shannon, 1991).
The groups in this dispute are split along both political and religious lines, but there is a long history in Northern Ireland of religious persecution against Catholics and those of Catholic background. During the 1960s, a civil rights movement began in Northern Ireland, focused on encouraging civil rights for those Catholics who were denied their rights (Shannon, 1991). However, the dispute quickly became violent, and for nearly thirty years, Northern Ireland was an incredibly violent place. In August of 1971, internment of those fighting in paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland was introduced; in early 1972, British soldiers killed more than 70 unarmed civilians in a massacre that became known as “Bloody Sunday” (Shannon, 1991).
The actions in Northern Ireland were actions of a repressed minority making attempts to secure freedom for themselves and their children (Shannon, 1991). While they acted out in violent and sometimes irresponsible ways, the purpose of the violence was to secure a better living situation, not usually to terrify the rest of the population into a certain course of action. For this reason, the actions of the Northern Irish do not qualify as acts of terror in the same way that other groups, like the Ku Klux Klan’s actions do. (Word count: 262)
References
O'kane, R. (2007). Terrorism. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
O'neill, B., Heaton, W. and Alberts, D. (1980). Insurgency in the modern world. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Shannon, M. (1991). Northern Ireland. Oxford, England: Clio Press.
