The root causes of terrorism

Hey all, given that the war on terror and the consequences of it (Iraq, heightened security) are very much an issue these days I thought it might be worth looking at some of the things that are said to be the cause of terrorism. Now I won't go into detail on these just yet but here are a few reasons that are given: anger at being used and abandoned, religion calling for holy war, jealousy at another's power, revenge for an attack, efforts against their actions.

 

I'd say there's two sides to it. One is that if you have a system that continually perpetrates an injustice or inequality upon a particular group, then eventually civil unrest builds up and sometimes leads into violence and worse, terrorism.

The other more moralistic idea is that it depends on what kind of people rises up to face what is perceived as an unjust system and what means they utilize to fight it. Osama bin Laden probably has some very valid complaints about Western policies, but obviously he does things very differently than Martin Luther King. A man that skips peaceful alternatives to solving a crisis and picks up the sword instead generally becomes a terrorist.

 

Terrorism is a method of conducting warfare and political struggle. The reasons why people become terrorists, in general, are about as varied as the reasons people go to war and get involved with politics, though the biggest common thread would have to be a major asymmetry of available force and resources. When you feel you need to go to war against someone you cannot challenge on the conventional battleground, you often become a terrorist. Pretty simple.

As to the root motivations behind contemporary Islamic terrorism, the basic motivation is this: the US has been waging a very aggressive war for control of the oil reserves of the Middle East through proxies for decades now, a war which has involved massacres of civilian populations and widespread suppression of democracy. The Shah's regime in Iran, Saddam Hussein's reign of terror in the 80s, the Egyptian and Saudi dictatorships, the Israeli occupations of Lebanon and Palestine - all of these atrocities are laid, very justifiably, at our feet. Since we have no equal on the conventional battlefield, terrorism is the obvious and inevitable result.

 

There's an apocryphal story from the Algerian Uprising in the fifties that sums this up quite nicely.

During the uprising, the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) used terrorist methods against the local French population in an effort to force out the French who were occupying Algeria. By response, the Casbah or Arab Quarters where the native Algerian population was forced to live was placed under martial law. Nobody got in or out without a thorough searching. The only way the rebel leaders found to continue to wage war was to send Muslim women, who were not thoroughly searched or suspected, out with baskets filled with explosives, which they would then plant in cafes and police bureaus and such in the French parts of the city.

At a press conference, a reporter asked a captured official of the FLN: "Isn?t it a dirty thing to use women?s baskets to carry bombs to kill innocent people?" The official's response was this, "And you? Doesn?t it seem even dirtier to you to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages with thousands of innocent victims? It would be a lot easier for us if we had planes. Give us your bombers, and we?ll give you our baskets."

So there's one simple answer to your question: Terrorists use bombs in baskets because they have no bombers.

 

The Root cause of terrorism:

[image=http://www.lostandfrowned.com/milton.gif]

 

lol@Keiran

I say: the Israel/Palestine issue and the North-African dictatorships are the prime movers. Because they are kept in place with support of the West, Al Qaida and the like are able to draft disgruntled beardies by the heaps.

 

Although "terrorism" is a subjective term, engaging in asymmetric warfare against a government is by nature extremely destructive and, like conventional war, should not be done except as a last resort. The stakes are perhaps even higher considering that such a conflict by nature has little accountability for the rebelling groups.

Simply put, a government is a structure and should not be destroyed unless it is in need of replacement. Yes, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are probably corrupt and undemocratic, but are there not other means with which to achieve a political end? If the people living there are being repressed, why don't they speak up or turn to the United States for help and political support? It may take longer but history shows that it works. Has Osama bin Laden given us a valid reason for why war? I feel the answer is no. Henceforth in my view (and yes this is subjective to a degree) Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group and not a band of freedom fighters.

Ironically by turning to violence, terrorists force us to depend on these corrupt regimes to counter the threat they pose and end up damning whatever cause they might stand for.

 

Pretty good points so far, although it should be mentioned that a lot causes tend to be used by terrorist for political gain, when in reality they don't really care about the outcome. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a perfect example: it is a great rallying cry for not only groups like al-Qaeda, but for middle-eastern dictators in general who want to take attention away from their own corrupt regimes. In reality, most of them care little for the day-to-day struggles of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, and don't take any action to help them (outside of smuggling weapons and money for weapons, further feeding the cycle of violence that neither side will be the first to renounce).

Ironically, Hamas has engaged in activities on the ground that help ordinary Palestinians, yet still follow terrorist activities. I think they could put a lot more pressure on Israel by renouncing violence, just like Israel could gain far more support in the international community by ceasing to respond to terrorism the way it has, especially with the doctrine of collective punishment.

Peace,

V-03

 

I think we should define what you understand the term 'terrorism' to mean before exploring its root causes. In my view the terms 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' have become so diluted by the "War on Terror" (tm) that they are just meaningless words churned out by any government (or government in exile) that conveniently feels the need to delegitimise any action which opposes a particular viewpoint, whether that be political, religious or moral. It doesn't even have to necessarily be violent opposition action although invariably it is.

In Australia, you run the risk of being branded a 'terrorist' in the same breath as being branded an 'anti-semite' if you criticise Israeli policies concerning the occupied territories.

Labels such as terrorist' and 'terrorism' are ammunition in the war of ideas and legitimacy. So long as you can be branded a 'terrorist' then you have no legitimacy. Take the Isreali/Palestinian conflict as an example. In the war of ideas and labels most action taken against Israel is invariably labelled an act of 'terrorism', but any action taken against Palestinians is invariably labelled an act of 'self defense' or a 'reprisal'. The armed extremist messianic & ultra orthodox Jews occupying illegal settlements in the West Bank (particularly in Hebron)can carry out the worst atrocities against Palestinian Arabs but as they are part of the settlement movement endorsed by the state of Israel then their actions are invariably labelled the actions of a brave group of "freedom fighters" trying to make "the desert bloom" against "terrorist" adversity.

On the other hand the main coalition forces have categorised Hamas as a 'terrorist' organisation with no legitimacy. Hamas however say that they are a "liberation" organisation that defends its people against oppression and an illegal violent military occupation in a geographical area cut off from the rest of the world and surrounded by guard towers and razor wire. As was correctly pointed out in an earlier post, in the absence of tanks, bomber aircraft and sophisticated artillery the most effective weapon in the "resitance movement" is suicide bombing.

Are the Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" or legitimate "resistance fighters"? What is the line that must be crossed ? Some might argue that it is the targeting of civilians - but really, what is the moral difference between a person strapping explosives to their body and walking into a crowded cafe and an aircraft dropping a cluster bomb into a residential neighbourhood or firing a missile into a building which is occupied by civilians. Civilians are killed either way. If that was the key then the IDF & the US Army could be labelled terrorist organisations.

Is the violence in the occupied territories really 'terrorism' or is it legitimate 'resistance' action against an illegal military occupation? Certainly, collective punishment is never labelled as a form of terrorism, although in my book I consider it to be so.

Just wanted to throw a few ideas around.

 

I think that is a very large distortion of what terrorism is. Terrorism is attacks against civilians where killing civilians is the primary target to create general fear. Its an entirely different phenomenon from civilians being killed while a different target is being attacked.

Though I'd also apply this to say that the attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces in Iraq, if they're attacking military targets, would be legitimate military attacks and not acts of terrorism.

 

I agree with you, Lowbacca, but it seems the broader interpretation of the term is gaining terrain...

Hot topic on the Lit boards today:
"Rebel Alliance = terrorists?"

 

As to the question of Islam, there tends to be branches beyond those of Sunni and Shia. Within the Sunni communities, there tends to be extremist (Wahabbist) views, and the more normative view.

As we all know, the Wahabbist view comes from Saudi Arabia. It actually formed as a grassroots movement that the government was (in their view) forced to allow to come to prominence. It formed as a reaction to Western presence. This was in reaction to it's presence in general, and well before the Gulf War which brought US troops on Saudi soil. It has become supported by many prominent and wealthy Saudis. Although not formally linked to Pakistan, much of the movement has found similar thinking in Pakistan and Saudi money has been often linked to Pakistan religious organizations.

Believe it or not though, this is not how much of the Muslim world works, despite the odd position of US foreign policy. While I would hesitate to say that the rest of the Muslim world, from Iran to Morocco, is WELCOMING, terrorism and anti-Western thinking is not based on the mere PRESENCE of Westerners. At least, not when they are granted the political say. Outside of the cases of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, much of the terror that began with Black Sunday was deeply rooted in politics: often directed at Israel but also caught up in Cold War scenarios.

We can even, perhaps, look at Iraq as an example. The actual possibility of the surge to work is based on the fact that most of the inhabitants of Iraq are NOT Wahabbist. They're sure as likely going to attack military ground troops on nationalistic and tribal grounds: it's not like you can move any old army in and start running the place no matter what regime you're replacing (meaning Ron Paul has a solid point in his foreign policy arguments), but they're not so riled that they would have attacked people in the political environment pre-9/11, or killed their own people just to make things bad for America, etc.

This is why I think Spielberg's final shot on Munich is, in the end, a mar on an otherwise good film by including the Twin Towers. What happened on 9/11 is a totally separate event and dynamic than Black September, involving people more willing to die for a much more confused and aimless 'cause'. The only things the two share in common perhaps is a tendancy in that area of the world (probably regardless of religion at this point) for people to take to violence when their aims are not satisfied. However the situation in Munich and with Black September involved people who had a higher threshold for "dishonor" which is probably comparable to our own. This is not the case with the Wahabbist strain of thought that was involved in the late 90s terror that brought about 9/11.

The two deserve to be distinguished, by both the US political right AND the left (for entirely different reasons).

 

The line lies between necessary and unnecessary violence. As I said in my above post, there are other non-violent ways which people can use to achieve a political objective, making the use of force by militants in Iraq and elsewhere unnecessary. Only in highly repressive regimes such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Stalinist Russia would violent means against the government be legitimized. And even in such situations, the targeting of civilian bystanders should be strictly prohibited.

Al-Qaeda and the other Islamic militant groups have failed both of these criteria, first by rejecting a peaceful dialogue that could lead to political compromise, and secondly by deliberately targetting innocent bystanders. This is where I draw the line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

Once again, I draw attention to the idea of necessity. Yes it's a subjective and elusive ideal, but just because a person is a member of the military does not make it okay to kill him or her.

 

All that I'm saying is that it would not be terrorism, and therefore should not be labeled as such. Doesn't mean its okay, and there's plenty one can do thats not okay but also not terrorism. Example, executing all captured enemy soldiers is a logicial tactical move because then they can't take up arms against you again and you don't expend energy keeping them imprisoned, but that doesn't mean its ok. But it is in the realm of military tactics rather than terrorism.

 

I think that is a very large distortion of what terrorism is. Terrorism is attacks against civilians where killing civilians is the primary target to create general fear. Its an entirely different phenomenon from civilians being killed while a different target is being attacked.

I just don't see the distinction. If there is a suspected terrorist occupying a three storey residential building and somebody fires a missile into the building thereby killing the suspected terrorist and all of the civilians in the building at the same time, then that is not a form of terrorism because the suspected terrorist was the "primary" target?

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it for me.

To my mind, any form of 'collective punishment' is a form of terrorism whether it be violent or non-violent action. The idea behind collective punishment is to create enough fear and angst in a pupulation that it rises up against the 'militants' that are ostensibly protecting them. Take Israel's 2006 attack on Lebanon as a prime example. Hizbollah's military arm sneaks across the border, kills three Israeli troops and snatches a couple of others. Israel's response? Israel launches an indescriminate bombardment on Lebanese infrastructure, including roads, bridges, power plants, hospitals etc. Israel used cluster bombs in residential areas. Basically, Israel launched an attack on Lebanese civilians in a collective punishment effort designed to incite the Lebanese civilian population to oust Hizbollah.

Is that not terrorism right there in a nutshell?

The line lies between necessary and unnecessary violence. As I said in my above post, there are other non-violent ways which people can use to achieve a political objective, making the use of force by militants in Iraq and elsewhere unnecessary

What is "necessary" violence? Who gets to decide whether an action was "necessary" or not. I've spent many years as a lawyer and I can tell you that you can probably justify anything as "necessary". I can hear it now: We fired a missile into a residential building because it was necessary to neutralise a terrorist threat to the security and safety of our citizens and it was necessary to maintain security in the region.

I think every act of violence perpetrated by Palestinians and Israelis has probably been necessary to someone. I agree with you that it is a subjective and elusive ideal.

Do all terrorist acts have to be violent? Again take the example of the abduction of an Israeli soldier in southern Gaza last year by the military arm of Hamas. The Israeli response was to bomb Gaza's main power station resulting in a 60 per cent loss of electricity for all of the Gaza strip and its 1.5 million residents. This means that a large population of men, women and children have no power, no refrigeration. Electricity is pretty important to a hospital. This was a targetted attack against a civilian population to punish them for the acts of a militant group. The government of Israel has now authorised temporary disruptions to the electricity supply in Gaza (thank God this will not include hospitals). http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/917198.html

I'm not sure there is a satisfatory definition of 'terrorism' as we understand the term being used today. I don't think the term has any real meaning anymore.

 

Bad judgement perhaps, but the point of the attack was not to terrorise people and create the feeling that they are always in jeopardy, but to kill that particular person. Therein is the difference, because intent does matter. It doesn't make the action neccessarily 'ok' because its not an act of terrorism though and that is a seperate matter.
Its a false dichatomy to try say that 'terrorism'='bad' and 'not terrorism'='good'. While I would consider the first part of that to be entirely true, the latter is not at all a given and it is entirely possible for an act to be not terroristic in nature and still be morally wrong.

 

Bad judgement perhaps, but the point of the attack was not to terrorise people and create the feeling that they are always in jeopardy, but to kill that particular person. Therein is the difference, because intent does matter. It doesn't make the action neccessarily 'ok' because its not an act of terrorism though and that is a seperate matter.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. What else are you doing when you drop a missile on a building if not sending a message to the population?

I'm not sure that the concept of intent is really appropriate to help define an act of terrorism, although if terrorism is a crime it is most likely a necessary ingredient. If I could prove that the intent was twofold: to kill that particular person and also to terrorise the rest of the people in the area so that they feel that they are in jeopardy and won't fall in with the terrorist crowd then that act would be an act of terrorism? Or only partly?

Perversely, this might mean that a lack of intent would define an act as something other than terrorism. I could drop a bomb on an embassy and argue that my intent was to take out a particular person in the embassy and not to terrorise people generally.

How do US ant-terrorism laws define "terrorism"? I'll have a look at our recent Australian laws and post a definition.

 

I would add that I don't think it really helps thigns when you have militants within a civilian population and lacking a central location that one could attack to get at said militants.

 

I agree but that is the new battlefield for the "War on Terror" unfortunately.

Edit - OK, I've found in our Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth) the following defition of "terrorist act".

"terrorist act" means an action or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (2A); and
(b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
(c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:
(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or
(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.

(2)
Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or
(b) causes serious damage to property; or
(ba) causes a person's death; or
(c) endangers a person's life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or
(e) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to:
(i) an information system; or
(ii) a telecommunications system; or
(iii) a financial system; or
(iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or
(v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or
(vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

(2A)
Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and
(b) is not intended:
(i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or
(ii) to cause a person's death; or
(iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or
(iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

That's a pretty broad definition. I would interested see how the US defined a terrorist act.

 

True, however the consequences of those tactics I put upon those that are hiding amongst civilians, not those seeking them out.
Example, if a gunman were to engage in a standoff in a situation where civilians were to get shot, I think he is most responsible for endangering people, not the authorities that responded, even if their judgement in how they handled the situation may be flawed.
I'd contrast this to if there was a way to deal with the gunman clearly without civilians.

Also similar to how in car chases, they don't do anything if there is traffic around the person, but if there are no nearby cars, they will try to end the persuit sometimes becuase others won't be put at risk.

If a group hides entirely within civilians, though, then it DOESN'T give other forces that chance to act against them without civilians being involved. Not limited to non-gov't organizations, either. As I recall, Saddam used a similar technique in putting military installations in same places as hospitals and schools.

 

I think militant groups hiding in civilian areas presents a major challenge to coalition forces. The challenge is how you deal with those situations whilst maintaining the moral and ethical ideals of our society.

I'd hate to think that we carry out activities that are really no better than the activities of the 'terrorist' organisations that we oppose.

 

I think "no better" is going too far. There is still the attempt to minimise civilian casualties, not maximise and I don't think it is at all by choice that we are dealing with militant groups hiding in civilian areas, but it is a situation being forced upon us by groups that do not care about the well-being of civilians.

 

There is still the attempt to minimise civilian casualties, not maximise...

Then how do you explain what is happening in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon? In particular, the policy of collective punishment that is designed to target civilian populations.

If Israel care about civilians then why is its government cutting off electricity & fuel supplies which will affect over 1 million women, children, old men and disabled?
http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=2825

How do you explain the use of phosperous bombs and cluster bombs in civilan areas? The main victims of cluster bombs are children. http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1854714,00.html#article_continue

What is the intent?

edits: sorry, do you think I can link a simple article?

 

Not necessarily, no.

Because the United States is generally the primary backer of those doing the repression, and has a long history of assassinating, overthrowing, torturing, bombing, and conducting terrorist operations against people who try to overthrow their repressive regimes when said regimes are allies of the US?

I don't think that's true. The big success story there is usually Gandhi in India, but that's all quite overblown. Britain withdrew from India for its own reasons far more than in response to Gandhi.

"You know I love you baby, so why you wanna make me hit you?"

That is complete ********. Dead civilians are dead civilians. If you know that X number of civilians are very likely to be "collateral damage" of your "targeted attack," and you go with it anyway, you are every bit as reprehensible as any suicide bomber.

"Yes, I killed 200 civilians, but I could have killed 500 civilians if I weren't so careful and gosh-darned humanitarian in my intent! Also, I feel really, really bad about having to kill them. You should be so grateful for my moral superiority and my mercy!"

 

I NEVER said that its morally acceptable, or even at all better, neccessarily. Just that its not terrorism.