Comparative Politics: Terrorism Edition
Over the last couple of decades, terrorism has risen from near-obscurity to become a commonly held fear among members of society. Up until the late 90’s, incidents of terrorism never rose past 500. The numbers spiked the years following, reaching over 6,500 in 2006. (Mohamed, Roser) No longer can we dismiss acts of terrorism as irrelevant or isolated incidents. At first glance, terrorism seems irrational with motives too diverse to narrow down. For the sake of our lives and the safety of future generations, we must find ways to explain terrorism and discover ways we can stop its reign of terror in modern society. Answering these questions call for an examination and application of rationalist, culturalist, and structuralist approaches, as well as thorough investigation into a mixed design case study regarding the issue.
A rational approach method can explain terrorism by identifying responsiveness to incentives, narrow self-interest, and rational expectations underlying the motivations of terrorists as individuals. We know that Mohammed, for instance, promises paradise to all who fall in “a holy war”. (Caplan) Once we identify what these cultures value and believe, we can begin to understand the rational thought process behind these acts of terror. The independent variable would be ‘the general degree of radicalism’ and the dependent would be ‘terrorism incidents’.
Most terrorism attacks in the past decade have taken place in the
Modern terrorism, as deduced from this literature, is acts to violence strategically used by secular groups spanning international borders with the aim of achieving a desired outcome. Further, it can be seen as organized activity whose genesis can be traced back to the 1880’s. From then to now there are identifiable traits and patterns observed from different (terrorist) groups which have allowed for the conceptualization of the term modern terrorism. This concept therefore, can be best explained in the context of being a wave or having a life cycle. That means it is a cycle of activity demarked by phases from inception and expands along the way then eventually it declines. The world, thus far, has experienced four waves of modern
political and social circumstances; that is, terrorism involves variables that can be measured on a criminological scale. The measurable by-product can be examined through psychological factors that vacillate with political circumstances. Ross's conclusions lead to two practical considerations.
“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para
This paper will seek to understand what really motivates terrorists to commit the acts that make them so infamous. We are assuming that the chief motivating factor behind the decisions of terrorist organizations is the political outcome of their acts balanced against the risk and collateral damage inflicted to achieve this end. We will also weigh in the appeal of terrorism on potential recruits in weak states and determine how the motivations of the group become the motivation of the individual and how this benefits the decentralized organization of terrorist organizations like al Qaeda.
Additionally, John Mueller lambasts what he labels as the socially constructed ‘terrorist industry,’ which he attacks for artificially inflating concerns over terrorist attacks. Instead, Mueller confirms that the damage caused by terrorism is not materially significant but stems primarily from the fear that it creates. Violent retaliation is viewed as a form of ‘self-flagellation’ that provides the terrorists with exactly what they want. As mentioned, realist definitions of power, self-interest and rationality lack explanatory prowess when non-state actors are able to subvert states thanks largely in part to the use of suicide-terrorism. The proliferation of terrorist groups and their use of suicide-tactics in many ways defies realist expectations and conclusions.
Throughout the world, terrorism affects cultures in a myriad of ways. The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as, “ the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (DOD). Terrorism has emerged in the last ten years as one of the most crucial issues governments attempt to tackle. Many movies and documents can help people better understand the major strain of terrorism. As seen by the effects of the September eleventh attacks on American security, tourism and economy, the Taliban, and Somali piracy, terrorism has had an utmost impact on the world.
In Statecraft, from turn zero it was apparent terrorism was going to be a prevailing issue. In fact, only one nation, per the Bush Doctrine, was not a state sponsor of terror. An important element of the Bush doctrine was the lack of distinction between terrorist and anyone including the states who aid the terrorist. With terrorist surrounding my nation from the west and south supporting terrorist organizations, I advised our nation’s leader to adhere to the Bush doctrine. Unfortunately, my fake nation’s leader focused on other things such as recycling. After our leader continually ignored numerous warnings, our Capital and other cities were continually attacked by OLF and the Typhoon pirates. Not being President, all I could do was the minimal, and otherwise was forced to sit back and watch not only Elferians but the citizens of the entire Statecraft world lose their family and friends from terrorist attacks.
In his book Talking to the Enemy (2010), Scott Atran uses his experiences in the countries often perceived as the origin of most global terrorist actions against the United States combined with scientific proof from a wide variety of sources to argue for new methods of understanding and stopping terrorism as it exists today. Though many examples and analyses of terrorist acts are examined in the book along with many different explanations for the social and psychological mechanisms that may cause them, one of the central ideas is the power of social bonds to drive people to commit actions that they never would have considered alone. This paper will analyze Atran's argument as
In spite of the fact that the distinctive types of terrorism may emerge for various arrangement of reasons however a portion of the real causes might be recorded as political disappointment, financial hardship, local incongruities and intercession into religious, social; and individual opportunity of the general population . Any or these may on occasion make circumstance where worldwide personal stakes discover t simple to mediate and to animate the propensities towards terrorism for further their own particular targets at the expense of honest individuals .
As we move past defining terrorism we are now looking to give it an identity. Terrorism is an act that is acted out by groups and individuals. There are always some command grounds in differences when you evalute one terrorist to another. Person or group. Some command areas might be methods of employement and desired end result. One of the biggest difference between terrorists (group or person) is politics or motivatoin behind the act and a countinuing agenda. In order to obtain data and provide comparisons to such items as mentioned two executors of terrorism were selected. One individual Timothy McVeigh(domestic) and one group al-Shabaab (international). The intent of this paper will be to compare the key similarities and differences between Timothy McVeigh and al-Shabaab, reference one terrorist activity and the motives of the attacks for each and provide an assessment of which is a greater threat to the United States (threat should be interpreted as threat to the national security of the United States).
Terrorism has been an important part of social behavior for over 2,000 years. Between the years of 1980 and 1995, terroristic groups motivated by religious beliefs had increased by 43% (Hoffman). Religious beliefs and culture are a main reason groups and individuals resort to terrorism. Groups resort to terrorism as a consequence of seeing their culture demolished, as well as religious motives. Terrorist groups have many intentions when it comes to acts of terrorism. They main ones are they want to create fear globally, weaken the government, and obtain universal recognition for what they have done. Religiously motivated terrorist groups usually have high authority targets. These targets include government offices, banks, and national airlines. From the group’s perspective, terrorism is the only practical option. Groups are formed centered on certain factors like culture and religion. Many terrorists will receive support from their followers
Terrorism can be defined and viewed in many different ways. As discussed in “Terrorism and Political Violence,” by Alex Schmid, there are multiple frameworks in which terrorism can be defined (Schmid 2010, 197). In Schmid’s article, he discusses the five ways he feels terrorism can be looked at, terrorism as/and politics, terrorism as/and crime, terrorism as/and warfare, terrorism as/and communication and terrorism as/and religious fundamentalism (Schmid 2010, 197). This is interesting because it explores the concept of terrorism in different lenses, where each has its own motives, its own background and its own participants. This is important to understand because not every act of terrorism is done in the same light and for the same purposes. Just as any other crime, there are reasons behind the act. When studying terrorism, understanding motives makes all the difference, and understanding what is at stake for the attacker or the attacked helps fully conceptualize the matter.
Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.
The immediacy and the primacy of any truly potent force is the ability to perpetuate itself. Sharp and energetic outbursts have their place, and can be known to have great effect-cataclysmic forces, despite their maximum destructive potential, are temporary in their total effects in relation to some absolute goal. In other words, they are generally limited in scope, and well defined in purpose; there is a tactical objective, which is usually consummated quickly. The more dreaded force creeps along, escalating incrementally, and while it may abide a strategic goal, or even a policy, it is generally open-ended. This sort of ambiguity I am referring to differs from the flexible tactical necessity in that strategic outcomes are very much