Personal Reflection On The Meaning Of Terrorism In The Film 'Mumbai Massacre'

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

In the 12 years since the terrorist attacks on the world trade towers in New York city, thousands of hours of research and interviews has been conducted, scores of books have been written, and countless documentaries and films have been produced in an effort to help us understand how and why terrorists were able to carry out the massacre of nearly 3500 people. Despite the plethora of religious and nonreligious beliefs represented by the friends and family of those who died, one universal belief binds them all: the belief that an unspeakable act of cruelty has changed our nation and our people for all time. The name ascribed to this act of terrorism is debated widely. Some call it evil. Others call it nothing more than supreme cruelty.

This article by Isabelle Duyvesteyn starts off by summarising the objectives that challenge the perspective of terrorism since the last decade of the twentieth century is fundamentally new. In this article certain questions have been debated regarding new aspects of terrorism and they are: “transnational nature of the perpetrators and their organizations, their religious inspiration, fanaticism, use of weapons of mass destruction and their indiscriminate targeting.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)In order to understand the depth of aspects of new terrorism the article talks about “national and territorial focus of the new terrorists, their political motivations, use of conventional weaponry and the symbolic targeting that is aimed in order to achieve a surprising effect.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)

“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

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Butko (2006; Freedman, 2005) slightly reflects on Symeonidou-Kastanidou’s (2004) definition in less mechanical way by adding to it that there should be certain psychological effect on innocent victims. In case of the Gunpowder Plot, if the Plot would have failed to achieve its intended purpose, plotters expected at least to evoke condemnation of the society towards the King. The most definitive feature of terrorism in Butko’s (2006) opinion is the threat of violence or use of violence towards ‘innocent’ people, if all of the barrels with the gunpowder would have been ignited the casualties would have been enormous and it is not that hard to imagine, in light of the September 11, the state of horror it would have inflicted upon the London and the whole

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.

Research into terrorism is another challenge in defining terrorism. According to James Rinehart, “those who write about terrorism, tend to possess a preconceived bias of a ‘problem-solution’ orientation in which he or she is simply attempting to justify a set of counterterrorist prescriptive” (4). This research is unreliable at best because as mentioned previously, preconceived biases and stereotypes tend to become involved. Furthermore, there is little research into the why of terrorism, and also very little research into the psychology of terrorists by actual psychologists. The scarcity of primary, first-hand research and due to the private nature of data that is out there, the challenge to defining

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.

During this week, I learned about the face of terrorism, as well as terrorist organizational models, and the psychology of terrorism. As a result, I am able to identify what terrorism is by identifying the political, psychological, violent, and deliberate objectives of a group. In addition, I now understand the structure of a terrorist organization and the four levels that make up a terrorist group, as well as the human behaviors that lead a person to become a terrorist.

Additionally, to understand terrorism, we must understand the motivations. In the 21st century, it is fair to say that many organisations are religiously and politically motivated. Which are primary observations from the film as well, however what is also manifested in the storyline is the idea of personal vendettas or struggles, honour and the need for recognition. What I have learnt this semester is that along with the interpretations of Islam, there are many diverse people, who are then motivated differently. In week 3 for example one of the readings discussed child radicalisation, and most definitely these children are

Analysis of this story reveals to me that the supreme targets for terror attacks certainly, is the minds and souls of the civilized people of the world, consequently, the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon, the four commercial jetliners, and all the victims of September 11, 2001, attack ordinarily, are not the discourses for terrorist ideological nihilism. Obviously, the supreme goal of this terroristic attack is to destroy the mind and consciousness of the American people. The Al Qaeda group is not in contention with buildings and aeroplanes, or innocent victims, Al Qaeda is ferociously angry about the ways Americans think, and consequently, feels that with their hallucinatory

There has also been long time assumption among professionals and average citizens that terrorists are ‘mentally ill’ individuals. However, there is yet again no evidence that supports that theory. As a matter of fact, there is countless examples in history that counters that said theory of being ‘mentally ill’ and this article provides those examples; as well as, providing the avenue in which an individual can and has been radicalized. Moreover, this article articulates and lays out a method in which could be used to counter the radicalization

Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.

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.