Terror

[Yerda]

There are some indicative correlations which spring to mind when I think about terrorists:

Firstly, terrorist activity appears (I say appears as this is not a scientific paper) to be at its most intense in regions where economic inequality is most prevalent. By this I DO NOT mean the gap between the richest and poorest in terms of material wealth but in terms of means of survival. This may be common sense but I don't hear many people mentioning the economic conditions that breed terror.

I'm sure terrorists exist everywhere, but where the people are poorest there would seem to be increased rates of crime in general.

Secondly, strict oppresive societies have produced most internationally known terrorist organizations. Religion I'm sure plays a very important role in this. In a bizarre contradictory way religion disempowers many citezens causing extreme social stress and simultaneously looks to provide the energy for the atrocities consequently commited. Religion creates a unique situation where it actively creates the social conditions required for the most horrible and un-holy (anti-religious) acts to occur.

Theft is another indicator. By this I mean the theft of land, power, resources, etc. The theft of the political process in order to complete the theft of a nation or regions resources is very difficult to disguise. For this reason, I imagine, it produces incredible levels of animosity and usually terrorism. Take Ireland for instance. The British government bribed, blackmailed and beat the Irish sovereignity into union. There has been a massive struggle for freedom by many groups since then. Russia's treatment of Chechnya and other post-soviet nations is another example of terrorism arising from one nations treatment of another. There is probably an endless list of sufficient examples that fulfil this criteria.

Lastly, a large proportion of terrorist organizations are based in countries with no democratic process. When human rights are ignored, and basic freedoms flouted, aggrevation will surely arise. Terrorists are murderers. There is no doubting that victims of their aggression do not deserve death, or maiming or whatever results. But consider this, terrorists are very economical murderers. In order to 'free' Iraqis the coalition forces decided to kill them, "liberating life from bodies" as one source put it. Christ knows how many civilians have died (thousands no doubt) as the invaders have plunged in attempting to achieve their ends (which I will not discuss here). Add to this Afghanistan, the Gulf war, and Serbia and we have some seriously big numbers of civilian deaths. Then think of the effects of recent beheadings. How many people do you think are saying "get our forces out of there" as a result? I wonder how troop morale responds to facing opponents who will gladly decapitate you? The point being that state terrorism (coudn't help myself) is a very inefficient form of action where a much higher number of civilian deaths occur in comparison to non-governmental terrorism.

My aim here was to demonstrate that terrorists are the result of scoial forces and not an inherently evil collection of child murderers, and hijackers. Is terrorism a viable option when fighting against these forces? I daren't say.

 

[linwood]

Is terrorism a viable option when fighting against these forces?

I`ll dare.

It`s not only A viable option it is THE only option.

However there must still be some type of morality to guide it.

The Chechens who specifically targeted an elementary school do not help their cause.
Chechen complaints are right, the Russians are suppressing them, the Russians are killing their children.
However returning an eye for an eye only brings forth disdain and disgust especially in todays atmosphere against terrorism.

My only problem with terrorism is when it specifically targets civilian or neutral entities.
This is morally wrong and actually hurts their cause.

I don`t have a problem with insurgents in Iraq beheading US soldiers or even civilians working for the US military.

This may sound bad coming from an American who loves his country but the fact is that we attacked them.
Whether we are right or wrong in doing so doesn`t matter, in a war killing your opponent is justifiable no matter how you do it.

It`s when you intentionally kill innocents that you have crossed an unacceptable line.
In fact I wouldn`t call it "terrorism" unless innocents were specifically targeted.

 

[Yerda]

I`ll dare.

It`s not only A viable option it is THE only option.

Non-violent tactics have been very successful for some fighting imperialism and occupation. India in ridding itself of the British used mostly non-violent methods (or so some history books claim). The application of such strategies may not be very practical for different situations. Chechnya may not have the international recognition required place enough pressure on Russia. That would probably make non-violent tactics complete folly and possibly suicide.

 

[DontFearMe]

Well, I think we should first define the word 'terrorism.' It is not only committed as of late by Al Queda or whatever group you want to accuse, many people would find the United States as a terrorist state. Specifically speaking, invading a country that had no intention of invading yours. As a result 10s of thousands have died over there over what? That can also be defined as terrorism. Just a thought.

 

[linwood]

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

The definition above is the one I think of when I hear the word.

Dontfearme`s definition is also valid it just doesn`t coincide with my own beliefs.

I consider any intentional act against a civilian or nuetral entity a terorist attack.

I consider it this way because these acts are not used towards a classically strategic goal but are used as a means to force political pressure on an opponent.

In other words there is nothing really gained by terrorism.