Global terrorism, what are its roots?
global terrorism
16 Answers
"I hate the term "terrorism." These people see themselves as at war with an evil empire and calling them terrorists is simply propaganda."
I will have to respectfully disagree. Anyone who can strap on a bomb and blow themselves up taking as many people as possible with them deserves in my opinion to be labeled a terrorist. Anyone who can put a bomb on their child and send them out to stand in front of a convoy of military vehicles in hopes that they will stop to avoid hitting the child and be blown up by the bomb on that child deserves the label terrorist. Whether they feel that they have a just cause is irrelevant. The main purpose of terrorism is to cause others to fear. In my opinion, people will be less likely to focus on the message they are trying to get across and more likely to disregard them due to the way their message is "delivered".
I like Martin Luther King, Jr's way a whole lot better...
Can't we all just get along?
Global terrorisms roots lie in religious extremism. It isn't anything that's new. Look at the Biblical account of the Jews exterminating entire nations and the Catholics forcing people to convert or die (that along with the Crusades).
Then, of course, there is the desire to be recognized as your own soveriegn state. (See IRA, PLA, USA, Communist China, Russia, Cuba, Viet Nam, etc.)
It's roots are intolerance and misunderstanding, but don't think for a second that it is anything new.
It comes from the fact people do not understand each other and therefore do not communicate which implies that anyone participating in growth and popularization of this site in fact fights against terrorism. 
The goal of any violent activity is to gain control. Control of thoughts, property, people...
Very interesting thought, I agree with you bene. We have a serious problem with terrorism in my country
I don't think the Boston Tea Party had anything to do with religion ... I think it had something to do with taxes. I think the Oklahoma federal building bombing was less (if at all) about religion than another case of anger at the government. I don't recall the unabomber's manifesto mentioning religion.
Nathaniel seems to imply that revolutions - which can, I'll admit, often be interpreted as terrorism - are rooted in intolerance and misunderstanding ... I think the revolutionaries would disagree they were "intolerant of" or "misunderstood" their oppressors.
If there had been an uprising of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, Jews in Nazi Germany or slaves in the USA ... I don't think anyone would have bought into the slave owners' saying the slaves were terrorists or that the they, the slave owners, were "misunderstood."
I hate the term "terrorism." These people see themselves as at war with an evil empire and calling them terrorists is simply propaganda. Their methods might be different than, say, a country with nuclear weapons or the means to launch an air or ground attack but the fact is we're playing games with words.
the establishment of property, haves vs have nots, and political boundaries. The goal of any violent activity is to gain control. Control of thoughts, property, people.... Let's say control is ownership. Ownership is a "civilized" concept from long, long ago. "Mine" and "yours" is a "modern" development. Terrorism is a violent activity to establish control over people for economic (property) or religious/philosophical (thought) reasons. That is the root of terrorism.
I think someone needs to define "terrorism."
The goal of some violent activity is to gain freedom. Of course, that is the freedom to control oneself, one's own thoughts, one's own "property."
If a woman is being raped and shoves her car keys into the rapist's eye socket, I don't think she's engaging in any "wrongdoing" or act of "selfishness."
I think of some people in history who used religion in a very different way - Mother Theresa, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus, Ghandi,
The war on global oppression is to be fought on three fronts.military force being the first,monetary stability,and most impotantly control of information,and communications.
"The war on global oppression..." I am really not sure what to make of this statement other than to say that it seems paradoxical in nature. Any act of military force to justify a means is an act of oppression in itself. Threatening or following through on a threat of violence in order to gain compliance from another person or group (i.e. military force) is itself an act of oppression.
It boils down to the problem posited by Plato in the Republic
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I think that the noble lie has failed on two accounts. The "guardians of freedom" have become arrogant in themselves and there never did develop, amongst the so-called guardians, a distaste for either power or privilege.
The desired affect of an"actof terror" is not only destruction,but a tactical means of gaining attenion,ie;a boy hitting his brother in front of his parents to gain attention for whatever desired result.
What would be even more outrageous and even more parodoxical would be if the parents were to "tactically" murder the offending child in front of the brother in order to gain the attention of the other child in order to let that child know that they have enacted a "War on violence" in their household.
Does a odious behavior really require an escalation in the same type of behavior to stop it? If someone won't comply to the standards set by others, is the best solution that they be eliminated?
I will have to respectfully disagree. Anyone who can strap on a bomb and blow themselves up taking as many people as possible with them deserves in my opinion to be labeled a terrorist.
I would have to imagine that launching missiles and firebombing whole neighborhoods is generally more destructive and devastating than a bomb strapped to a lone individual or to a roadside mine/bomb. Yet even though they are more destructive and I would imagine just as fear inducing, these are called "tactical strikes."
Anyone who can put a bomb on their child and send them out to stand in front of a convoy of military vehicles in hopes that they will stop to avoid hitting the child and be blown up by the bomb on that child deserves the label terrorist.
What about the children or women or men who are blown up by these "tactical strikes" in the hopes that they will also blow up "suspected targets."
Whether they feel that they have a just cause is irrelevant.
I would agree with your last statement; however, to label one injustice in terms of "tactical strikes" and the other in terms of "terroristic behavior" seems to be a bit hypocritical.
In my opinion, people will be less likely to focus on the message they are trying to get across and more likely to disregard them due to the way their message is "delivered".
I think that this statement could probably be applied to both sides.
Fact: Terrorism started in ancient Assyria. The Assyrians would scare their opponents inorder to influence them to submit to their rule. Then, they would assimilate them and crush their culture. Now, relate this to today. Its the same thing. Well attempted.
One of the reasons of global terrorism is that Islamic Extremist (to be respectful) mainly targets Americans, doesn't matter inland or American territories. Second reason, most of the entire world is consuming prohibit meat agaianst God (or Allah if from the Middleeast). Third reason, women are close to get equal rights in Modern-day Western countries, while Islamic nations ban women to vote, ride a bike, drive a car, expose the entire face to other men, and so many rules of Muslim Culture.
The roots of global terrorism stem from imperialistic views created to exploit land,plants,and beast,including of coarse human beings. The modern understanding,as I see it is used to vilify those who stand against such tyranny,often misguided and willing to obtain its objective,be it justifiable or not, indiscriminately,with no regard to innocents.
I hate the term "terrorism." These people see themselves as at war with an evil empire and calling them terrorists is simply propaganda.
Just to play Devil's advocate for a second...if the shoe were on the other foot, it would be just as easy to turn your sentence around and say
These people see themselves as at war with evil terrorists and calling them an evil empire is simply propaganda.
Personally, I see some truth in both of these statements. I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but for the past 8 years or so, the rhetoric regarding the evil of evildoers has reached such ludicrous proportions that these terms verge on becoming trite or meaningless expressions.
I think that Noam Chomsky has some interesting ideas about the use of language to incite violence when he said, You never need an argument against the use of violence, you need an argument for it.
While you may look at it as two different sides of an argument, on both sides, the argument is the same. More importantly, it is almost invariably the poor and dispossessed who are placed in danger by the inflammatory speech of those who stand to gain (or maintain) the most (which usually boils down to maintaining or extending hegemony) while risking the least.
Smedley Butler expressed this best in his short book War is a Racket when he wrote:
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
Have a read of the book called "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. It may give you another way of looking at modern history - it did that for me. Terrorism is not new but "Global" terrorism maybe is.
One man´s terrorist is another man´s freedom fighter. Not that I agree with this saying, after all, there are two sides to every argument, however, to convince by violence must be wrong.
