A research paper...
Posted: 2003-02-25 01:02am
I completed this a little while ago, and I'm posting here for your opinions. I do hope you enjoy it, though I have to say that it's not the best I've done, 
.
The Definition of Terrorism-
The definition of terrorism should be composed of three parts in order to truly understand it: The nature of terrorism, the history of terrorism and then finally the reasons behind terrorism.
Terrorism describes just that, a philosophy in which terror should be enforced against an entity, whether that entity be a nation, a person or even the enforcers themselves. The belief is that the maximum amount of damage to that entity can be achieved by creating fear, distrust and division in the entity. In doing so, the enforcer of terrorism can control it through threats and continual abuse of the target, destroy it by causing instability to the point of collapse, or exploit it by aiming a select number of terror acts at key targets, in order to better the enforcer’s point or place.
In almost all cases, the enforcer of terrorism is in some way weaker than the victim. This is because terrorism appeals to those who have limited resources and access to those resources and it requires little manpower and risks few casualties, intended or no. Additionally, unlike most forms of warfare, terrorism can often grow in support, not lose it, over time. Finally, the costs are dramatically less in the use of terrorism than in conventional warfare.
The agents, or soldiers of a specific terrorist principal usually follow the dogma related to that principal fanatically. They need little desensitization because of it, and their morale is often to the point that they will sacrifice themselves for their believed cause. As an added bonus, these fanatics can become missionaries of sorts, offering or forcing their beliefs into others, increasing their support and numbers. Finally, they are often more than willing to scavenge enemies for weaponry, which decreases load-out costs. In short, they are extremely effective soldiers for any person, group or nation that lacks military expertise or funding to back a strong army.
The history of terrorism is long indeed. Terrorism takes many forms, and not every form is horrible to society. The mythical Robin Hood was, in a technical sense, a terrorist. People with more noble goals via terrorism are sometimes named “Freedom Fighters”, as a kinder title to the group. With Robin Hood, terrorism was used to pressure the infamous Sheriff of Nottingham, as well as the prince. He used subtlety and carefully planned actions against larger forces, completing an objective before the enemy had a chance to defend itself. He increased his support with the common people of the village, and recruited others through those avenues, while at the same time scaring the noble quarter and causing instability. Now, because he was, after all, a legendary man, he was able to stage an assault against the castle and win control. Unfortunately, this is almost never the case that happens in the real world.
In reality, terrorism, though often quite effective at making a point and giving an advantage to a side of negotiation, it can almost never fully remove an entity from a place. In some cases, civil instability may cause a collapse in the governing force of that entity, it will likely only spawn additional factions. A conventional force, or at least an open force would be required in order to take governing control of the country. The problem with this is that removal by terrorism does not destroy the original entity, it merely breaks it into multiple pieces. Some of these may submit peacefully to the new force, and others make take up a terrorist principal in order to achieve revenge and/or try and removal the foreign group from power. A good example of this is the peninsula that houses the nation of Vietnam. It was not always know by that name, having before been a French colony by the name of the French Indochina. Because of the poor governing in the region, a nationalist faction that had already existed strongly in the culture took up a principal of independence, and took to using terrorism to remove the French from power. The governing entity collapsed, and the country became their own, for a short time. Two different ideals had evolved, and it resulted in a split, and then invasion. When the US intervened, the same tactics from the past were employed to remove the stronger entity from power. The entity was never entirely destroyed, but found no support with them and no profit in holding the territory. They vacated.
In some cases, terrorism may have the opposite of the intended effect, a risk that some often take. In cases that the victim entity may be on less-than-amiable terms with the enforcing terrorist group, it may strengthen (Or create) the resolve to remove that terrorist group. In some cases, it is enough so that the victim entity may desire the same fate to any terrorist group that uses similar tactics or has similar principals to the perpetrating enforcer group. These times the effects of terrorism backfire completely, and all the negative effects intended to the victim can easily fall upon the enforcer. Such is with the September 11th incident. It can be said that in cases of terrorism, first the power behind a victim entity must be crippled, or at least paralyzed, before one can break the victim entity’s spirit. If an adequate repercussion can be amounted, any fear or misgivings can be transferred into anger to be used against the enforcer. The more powerful the source of morale, the more anger can be produced (As such, an attack on the Statue of Liberty might’ve had such dire consequences that our actions could be considered at one point “Crimes of Passion”). Only when the options of a victim are deprived can damage be truly dealt.
Now, with that brief history, one can divulge the reasons behind terrorism, and what it is today. Terrorism is caused by many, almost infinite sources. It can be the desire of independence, as with Vietnam, freedom from corruption and oppression, with the French revolution and the Russian revolution, or maybe it is simply a religious principal, as with some more radical forms of Islam or Christianity. Any idea or tradition that takes a radical form and comes into conflict with another idea is a viable formula for terrorism. The Ku Klux Klan is another prime example. By having the idea that the white race is superior to all others (Which, genetically, can easily be false) and disliking the idea of the government’s granting of freedom to live in “their” lands, they become a terrorist faction in that they try to put pressure on non-white communities, sparking fear in them. However, it is a terrorist group organized like conventional group, and having that openness in action and formation opened it up to the victim entity guardian, a.k.a. the United States government remove the threat fairly effectively.
Unfortunately, a guardian entity can become apathetic if its views are split between the terrorist faction and the victim entity. Such is with abortion-based terrorism. Policing forces meant to guard the abortion entity may be divided in their desire, and may not provide adequate protection or retribution. The problems with these terrorist groups is that they usually aim to achieve only destruction of the victim entity to satisfy their dogma, a goal nearly impossible to achieve with a terrorist organization. The results usually end in unintended division or irreparable damage to the entity group or the guardian body. Damage can result of it, or perhaps the victim entity will seek protection of its own design.
Osama Bin Laden can be described as the “classical” terrorist. He aims to destroy a larger body than himself through the use of terrorism ideals, through use of low-cost, easily carried out plans that cause as much damage as possible. The problem is that the only places where high damage can be caused are points of morale supplement. Military entities tend to be more resistant to terrorism through various means (Defenses, layouts, multiple placements) than these civilian entities. Though these means are usually meant for conventional enemies, they can also apply to terrorism.
This paper is meant to provide insight to the reasoning behind terrorism. It is not black and white. There are no groups who simply desire chaos and destruction. Whatever their goal is, no matter how twisted, it is a goal that they want to achieve, that they think will make society better for, theirs if no one else’s. The grey areas must be studied and meditated upon to learn the most from past events. There is no black and white, there is no good nor evil. Only the twisted mind that is humanity.
Note: It is this author’s belief that many common ideas that are incorporated into humanity would be better non-existent. One example is religion, is dangerous in that it is an influence, created by man but at the same time, thrown out of our reach by man. It is an influence that is twisted by this forced isolation, an isolation that, while at the same time of being thrown out of reach, those same people who do this try and grasp at the thing they throw out of their reach. If it did not exist, it is likely that the moral conflict behind abortion, the mid-east, race and evolution would be gone. They would understand each other better and could advance in regions which were totally taboo because of religion, such as sex education/protection. On the flip side, people would need it as an option to oppose terrorism, as it is a force of morale that can inspire them. But that same option can be used to create more terrorist groups. And, it is such a volatile idea, as volatile as the human minds from which it was crafted. In the renaissance, sex was considered a normal, even encouraged part of life. In the 1800's, exposing your arms was considered a sin. Volatile.
Also, the term terrorism is used loosely, in its most technical, encompassing sense. Our own revolutionary soldiers could be termed as terrorists, by modern definition. As I have stated before, terrorism in this sense is not always a bad thing.
.The Definition of Terrorism-
The definition of terrorism should be composed of three parts in order to truly understand it: The nature of terrorism, the history of terrorism and then finally the reasons behind terrorism.
Terrorism describes just that, a philosophy in which terror should be enforced against an entity, whether that entity be a nation, a person or even the enforcers themselves. The belief is that the maximum amount of damage to that entity can be achieved by creating fear, distrust and division in the entity. In doing so, the enforcer of terrorism can control it through threats and continual abuse of the target, destroy it by causing instability to the point of collapse, or exploit it by aiming a select number of terror acts at key targets, in order to better the enforcer’s point or place.
In almost all cases, the enforcer of terrorism is in some way weaker than the victim. This is because terrorism appeals to those who have limited resources and access to those resources and it requires little manpower and risks few casualties, intended or no. Additionally, unlike most forms of warfare, terrorism can often grow in support, not lose it, over time. Finally, the costs are dramatically less in the use of terrorism than in conventional warfare.
The agents, or soldiers of a specific terrorist principal usually follow the dogma related to that principal fanatically. They need little desensitization because of it, and their morale is often to the point that they will sacrifice themselves for their believed cause. As an added bonus, these fanatics can become missionaries of sorts, offering or forcing their beliefs into others, increasing their support and numbers. Finally, they are often more than willing to scavenge enemies for weaponry, which decreases load-out costs. In short, they are extremely effective soldiers for any person, group or nation that lacks military expertise or funding to back a strong army.
The history of terrorism is long indeed. Terrorism takes many forms, and not every form is horrible to society. The mythical Robin Hood was, in a technical sense, a terrorist. People with more noble goals via terrorism are sometimes named “Freedom Fighters”, as a kinder title to the group. With Robin Hood, terrorism was used to pressure the infamous Sheriff of Nottingham, as well as the prince. He used subtlety and carefully planned actions against larger forces, completing an objective before the enemy had a chance to defend itself. He increased his support with the common people of the village, and recruited others through those avenues, while at the same time scaring the noble quarter and causing instability. Now, because he was, after all, a legendary man, he was able to stage an assault against the castle and win control. Unfortunately, this is almost never the case that happens in the real world.
In reality, terrorism, though often quite effective at making a point and giving an advantage to a side of negotiation, it can almost never fully remove an entity from a place. In some cases, civil instability may cause a collapse in the governing force of that entity, it will likely only spawn additional factions. A conventional force, or at least an open force would be required in order to take governing control of the country. The problem with this is that removal by terrorism does not destroy the original entity, it merely breaks it into multiple pieces. Some of these may submit peacefully to the new force, and others make take up a terrorist principal in order to achieve revenge and/or try and removal the foreign group from power. A good example of this is the peninsula that houses the nation of Vietnam. It was not always know by that name, having before been a French colony by the name of the French Indochina. Because of the poor governing in the region, a nationalist faction that had already existed strongly in the culture took up a principal of independence, and took to using terrorism to remove the French from power. The governing entity collapsed, and the country became their own, for a short time. Two different ideals had evolved, and it resulted in a split, and then invasion. When the US intervened, the same tactics from the past were employed to remove the stronger entity from power. The entity was never entirely destroyed, but found no support with them and no profit in holding the territory. They vacated.
In some cases, terrorism may have the opposite of the intended effect, a risk that some often take. In cases that the victim entity may be on less-than-amiable terms with the enforcing terrorist group, it may strengthen (Or create) the resolve to remove that terrorist group. In some cases, it is enough so that the victim entity may desire the same fate to any terrorist group that uses similar tactics or has similar principals to the perpetrating enforcer group. These times the effects of terrorism backfire completely, and all the negative effects intended to the victim can easily fall upon the enforcer. Such is with the September 11th incident. It can be said that in cases of terrorism, first the power behind a victim entity must be crippled, or at least paralyzed, before one can break the victim entity’s spirit. If an adequate repercussion can be amounted, any fear or misgivings can be transferred into anger to be used against the enforcer. The more powerful the source of morale, the more anger can be produced (As such, an attack on the Statue of Liberty might’ve had such dire consequences that our actions could be considered at one point “Crimes of Passion”). Only when the options of a victim are deprived can damage be truly dealt.
Now, with that brief history, one can divulge the reasons behind terrorism, and what it is today. Terrorism is caused by many, almost infinite sources. It can be the desire of independence, as with Vietnam, freedom from corruption and oppression, with the French revolution and the Russian revolution, or maybe it is simply a religious principal, as with some more radical forms of Islam or Christianity. Any idea or tradition that takes a radical form and comes into conflict with another idea is a viable formula for terrorism. The Ku Klux Klan is another prime example. By having the idea that the white race is superior to all others (Which, genetically, can easily be false) and disliking the idea of the government’s granting of freedom to live in “their” lands, they become a terrorist faction in that they try to put pressure on non-white communities, sparking fear in them. However, it is a terrorist group organized like conventional group, and having that openness in action and formation opened it up to the victim entity guardian, a.k.a. the United States government remove the threat fairly effectively.
Unfortunately, a guardian entity can become apathetic if its views are split between the terrorist faction and the victim entity. Such is with abortion-based terrorism. Policing forces meant to guard the abortion entity may be divided in their desire, and may not provide adequate protection or retribution. The problems with these terrorist groups is that they usually aim to achieve only destruction of the victim entity to satisfy their dogma, a goal nearly impossible to achieve with a terrorist organization. The results usually end in unintended division or irreparable damage to the entity group or the guardian body. Damage can result of it, or perhaps the victim entity will seek protection of its own design.
Osama Bin Laden can be described as the “classical” terrorist. He aims to destroy a larger body than himself through the use of terrorism ideals, through use of low-cost, easily carried out plans that cause as much damage as possible. The problem is that the only places where high damage can be caused are points of morale supplement. Military entities tend to be more resistant to terrorism through various means (Defenses, layouts, multiple placements) than these civilian entities. Though these means are usually meant for conventional enemies, they can also apply to terrorism.
This paper is meant to provide insight to the reasoning behind terrorism. It is not black and white. There are no groups who simply desire chaos and destruction. Whatever their goal is, no matter how twisted, it is a goal that they want to achieve, that they think will make society better for, theirs if no one else’s. The grey areas must be studied and meditated upon to learn the most from past events. There is no black and white, there is no good nor evil. Only the twisted mind that is humanity.
Note: It is this author’s belief that many common ideas that are incorporated into humanity would be better non-existent. One example is religion, is dangerous in that it is an influence, created by man but at the same time, thrown out of our reach by man. It is an influence that is twisted by this forced isolation, an isolation that, while at the same time of being thrown out of reach, those same people who do this try and grasp at the thing they throw out of their reach. If it did not exist, it is likely that the moral conflict behind abortion, the mid-east, race and evolution would be gone. They would understand each other better and could advance in regions which were totally taboo because of religion, such as sex education/protection. On the flip side, people would need it as an option to oppose terrorism, as it is a force of morale that can inspire them. But that same option can be used to create more terrorist groups. And, it is such a volatile idea, as volatile as the human minds from which it was crafted. In the renaissance, sex was considered a normal, even encouraged part of life. In the 1800's, exposing your arms was considered a sin. Volatile.
Also, the term terrorism is used loosely, in its most technical, encompassing sense. Our own revolutionary soldiers could be termed as terrorists, by modern definition. As I have stated before, terrorism in this sense is not always a bad thing.
