A group project by myself, Fabiana Buchanan, Thais De Oliveira and Regina Whelan:
Napoleon Bonaparte: An Academic Perspective of his Campaigns and Life
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
UMass Boston History 112: Essay#6
Of all the varying forms of terrorism, Mark Juergensmeyer emphasizes religious terrorism as being the most common form. He defines terrorism as being religious, when a spectacular act of destruction is justified by beliefs of a particular religion, serving as the ideology, the motivation and the organizational structure for the terrorists. While terrorist attacks justified by religion cannot match the scope of state sponsored terrorist attacks due to limited military resources, the inability to predict such attacks, the immense size of the organizational structure as well as the devout loyalty of the followers to the religion are all key aspects of religious terrorism that lends to its considerable influence.
One possible cause for terrorism is when public officials seek to dominate a given state’s population, or “state terrorism.” One example that Jeurgensmeyer provides of which my ancestors were victims was the Russian pogroms. Being Jewish citizens of Russia, my great-great-grandmother (then a little girl) and her family were chased along with fellow Jewish villagers out of Russia by the pogroms into Yugoslavia (later to arrive in the United States). A sponsor of state terrorism who affected the lives of my wife and her family was that of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. His “Batallón de la Dignidad” or “Battalion of Dignity” terrorized the citizens of Panama with brute force and random acts of violence at their own discretion. One of the most shameful acts of state terrorism committed by the United States was the use of the atom bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. While the U.S. government claimed it was for purposes of ending the war, it is well known that the bombs were dropped after Japan refused the United States an unconditional surrender, which would have opened up their aluminum, rubber and tin resources to material exploitation. The bombs were intended to terrorize the Japanese into submission.
Mostly, terrorism is known for being committed by groups of people believing themselves disenfranchised and seeking leverage in a society. Their motivations can range from leftist and secular to religious. More often than not, it is the targets of the destruction that apply the label of “terrorists”. The terrorists and those who share their ideologies see themselves as freedom fighters. For example, the West considered Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter when he was being armed by the United States to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. To the Russians, bin Laden was considered a terrorist. Following his destruction of various U.S. installations around the world due to their presence in Saudi Arabia and support of Israel, the West now no longer considers bin Laden a freedom fighter. He is now the most sought-after terrorist in the world.
An example of a leftist secular terrorist movement who considered themselves freedom fighters is the IRA, or the Irish Republican Army. Enraged by the British occupation of Northern Ireland, the IRA engaged in many acts of deadly terrorism in both Ireland and England before renouncing violence, disarming and participating in the political process via their political party Sinn Fein. While the West previously considered the IRA a terrorist organization, it merely sought sovereignty from the British, much as the Americans did centuries ago. Another example of a leftist secular terrorist movement who considered themselves freedom fighters against the British was the Irgun and the Hagana. They were underground Jewish Zionist terrorists who ultimately succeeded in terrorizing the British soldiers stationed in Palestine. With a slogan of “An eye for an eye,” these groups managed to augment Britain’s post-war rationale for evacuating the territory for the United Nations to divvy up between the Jews and the Palestinians.
The most prominent example of a religious terrorist group would of course be Al Qaeda. Their organizational structure relying on that of fundamentalist Islam extends internationally, and has even extended into the very Western nations it seeks to topple in appealing to discontented sympathizers. With bold and inspirational declarations of Jihad by charismatic leaders such as Osama bin Laden and promises of a hundred virgins awaiting all martyrs in heaven, Al Qaeda has successfully appealed to those seeking to violently instantiate an international Islamic reign in the wake of their suicide attacks. Another example of a religious terrorist group would be an American group called The Army of God, which has been linked to bombings, shootings and killings over the hatred of abortion, homosexuals, Jews and foreigners. Their goal as an organization is to ultimately establish a theocracy in America by way of violence. Apparently, the irony is lost on groups such as Al Qaeda and The Army of God that among the most fundamental tenants of Islam and Christianity are to promote peace and love.
As Juergensmeyer points out, the reaction to the destruction wrought by terrorists has a lot to do with what enables terrorism. Being that terrorism strictly defined is to cause terror, it is apparent from its very definition that the biggest enabler of people causing terrorism is the people whom are being terrorized in their reaction of terror, the consequent media coverage and the prospective political circumstances brought about. In some instances of leftist secular as well as religious terrorism, the sheer despondence and powerlessness of the terrorists’ dispositions can certainly lend to the terrorists a sense of determination and entitlement in their intention to terrorize. In the case of leftist secular terrorists, their motivations might be enabled by a sense of entitlement over ethnic or regional separatism. In the case of religious terrorists, there is the uniquely applied moral presumption of the religion itself, which serves as a powerful enabler. Other powerful enablers common to both forms of terrorism is the support of other like-minded participants, the legitimacy of its ideology as well as organizational support. In the case of state terrorism, access to superior and ample military technology, the ideology of the government, the organizational support of the government as well as any circumstantial justification (fabricated or otherwise) all serve to enable heads of state to commit terrorism against a populace.
While not a new concept, the examination of the causes and components of terrorism has taken on significant importance following the success of Al Qaeda in their attacks on U.S. installations domestically and abroad, as well as attacks in Spain, England and other nations. It is my hope that the more people are able to understand the workings of terrorism, care might eventually be taken to avoid creating circumstances such as the Iraq War which has succeeded in breeding further terrorism as opposed to stemming it.
One possible cause for terrorism is when public officials seek to dominate a given state’s population, or “state terrorism.” One example that Jeurgensmeyer provides of which my ancestors were victims was the Russian pogroms. Being Jewish citizens of Russia, my great-great-grandmother (then a little girl) and her family were chased along with fellow Jewish villagers out of Russia by the pogroms into Yugoslavia (later to arrive in the United States). A sponsor of state terrorism who affected the lives of my wife and her family was that of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. His “Batallón de la Dignidad” or “Battalion of Dignity” terrorized the citizens of Panama with brute force and random acts of violence at their own discretion. One of the most shameful acts of state terrorism committed by the United States was the use of the atom bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. While the U.S. government claimed it was for purposes of ending the war, it is well known that the bombs were dropped after Japan refused the United States an unconditional surrender, which would have opened up their aluminum, rubber and tin resources to material exploitation. The bombs were intended to terrorize the Japanese into submission.
Mostly, terrorism is known for being committed by groups of people believing themselves disenfranchised and seeking leverage in a society. Their motivations can range from leftist and secular to religious. More often than not, it is the targets of the destruction that apply the label of “terrorists”. The terrorists and those who share their ideologies see themselves as freedom fighters. For example, the West considered Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter when he was being armed by the United States to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. To the Russians, bin Laden was considered a terrorist. Following his destruction of various U.S. installations around the world due to their presence in Saudi Arabia and support of Israel, the West now no longer considers bin Laden a freedom fighter. He is now the most sought-after terrorist in the world.
An example of a leftist secular terrorist movement who considered themselves freedom fighters is the IRA, or the Irish Republican Army. Enraged by the British occupation of Northern Ireland, the IRA engaged in many acts of deadly terrorism in both Ireland and England before renouncing violence, disarming and participating in the political process via their political party Sinn Fein. While the West previously considered the IRA a terrorist organization, it merely sought sovereignty from the British, much as the Americans did centuries ago. Another example of a leftist secular terrorist movement who considered themselves freedom fighters against the British was the Irgun and the Hagana. They were underground Jewish Zionist terrorists who ultimately succeeded in terrorizing the British soldiers stationed in Palestine. With a slogan of “An eye for an eye,” these groups managed to augment Britain’s post-war rationale for evacuating the territory for the United Nations to divvy up between the Jews and the Palestinians.
The most prominent example of a religious terrorist group would of course be Al Qaeda. Their organizational structure relying on that of fundamentalist Islam extends internationally, and has even extended into the very Western nations it seeks to topple in appealing to discontented sympathizers. With bold and inspirational declarations of Jihad by charismatic leaders such as Osama bin Laden and promises of a hundred virgins awaiting all martyrs in heaven, Al Qaeda has successfully appealed to those seeking to violently instantiate an international Islamic reign in the wake of their suicide attacks. Another example of a religious terrorist group would be an American group called The Army of God, which has been linked to bombings, shootings and killings over the hatred of abortion, homosexuals, Jews and foreigners. Their goal as an organization is to ultimately establish a theocracy in America by way of violence. Apparently, the irony is lost on groups such as Al Qaeda and The Army of God that among the most fundamental tenants of Islam and Christianity are to promote peace and love.
As Juergensmeyer points out, the reaction to the destruction wrought by terrorists has a lot to do with what enables terrorism. Being that terrorism strictly defined is to cause terror, it is apparent from its very definition that the biggest enabler of people causing terrorism is the people whom are being terrorized in their reaction of terror, the consequent media coverage and the prospective political circumstances brought about. In some instances of leftist secular as well as religious terrorism, the sheer despondence and powerlessness of the terrorists’ dispositions can certainly lend to the terrorists a sense of determination and entitlement in their intention to terrorize. In the case of leftist secular terrorists, their motivations might be enabled by a sense of entitlement over ethnic or regional separatism. In the case of religious terrorists, there is the uniquely applied moral presumption of the religion itself, which serves as a powerful enabler. Other powerful enablers common to both forms of terrorism is the support of other like-minded participants, the legitimacy of its ideology as well as organizational support. In the case of state terrorism, access to superior and ample military technology, the ideology of the government, the organizational support of the government as well as any circumstantial justification (fabricated or otherwise) all serve to enable heads of state to commit terrorism against a populace.
While not a new concept, the examination of the causes and components of terrorism has taken on significant importance following the success of Al Qaeda in their attacks on U.S. installations domestically and abroad, as well as attacks in Spain, England and other nations. It is my hope that the more people are able to understand the workings of terrorism, care might eventually be taken to avoid creating circumstances such as the Iraq War which has succeeded in breeding further terrorism as opposed to stemming it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)