Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science An Analyssi of Terrorism An Analyssi of Terrorism On September 11, 2001, every person was stunned with the earth shaking news that the World Trade Center (WTC), the highest building in the world was attacked by terrorist. This was done by hi-jacking two commercial airplanes which plowed the two famous sites. More than 5,000 American was feared dead. This was the most recent and most devastating terrorist act that brought terrorism into the timelight. Terrorism is a term of uncertain legal content. The term itself has no definition of illegality, except when terrorism commits acts which do apply to common law. Some of the acts that a terrorist commits are murder, bombing, kidnapping, hi-jacking, hostage taking and theft. All these acts have a law in the civil penal code that makes a terrorists activity a crime against society. Terrorism is also viewed as a political act against a government and it’s citizenry, secondly, it is viewed as a coercive means to change some policy through the application of violence upon society . Finally terrorism adheres to the unlawfullness of acts as a mode of political change. For the purpose of this study terrorism is defined as a strategy whereby violence is used to produce certain effects in a group of people so an to attain some political end or ends. Terrorism can be traced back in Iran since the 12th century. A group of Ismailis (Shiite Muslim) known as the Assassins, attacked religious and political leaders of Sunni Islam. Up until the 18th century, the purpose of terrorist attacks was religious. In the 19th century terrorist became more political, with the idea of attacking governments. Anarchists, people who don’t like the government, used terrorism in Spain and Italy. Before the world War I began in 1914, Russian terrorist attacked members of the elite ruling class. After World War II, terrorism became much more frequent and intense. In the last half of 20th century, terrorists were driven by beliefs in fighting for particular nations(nationalists) or certain ideas (ideology). Terrorist networks grew with the help of better transportation, more television, better telephones, and more sophisticated and deadly explosives. The conflicts between Israel and Arab countries after World War II led to intense periods of terrorism. 1970’s and 1980’s , terrorism spilled over into western Europe. The Palestinians liberation has set up organizations in Germany, Italy and Japan. Another army, fighting for the liberation of Northern Ireland from Great Britain. Before the airplane hi-jackings and attacks at the world trade center and the pentagon, terrorist attacked U.S. had been mostly the work of individuals. These individuals tend to hate government and corporations. The worst attack was in Oklahoma City in 1995 , when army veterans Timothy McVeigh and Terry McNicholas blew up the Federal Building killing 269 people. The Unabomber, Theodore Kasynski mailed homemade bombs to corporations, professors and computer companies. He killed 3 and wounded 23 people before captured in 1995. One exception was an earlier bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, which killed six people the core in 1993, which killed 6 people. Islamic radicals were found to be behind the blast. International terrorist Osama Binladen, the main suspect in this months attacks believed to have been behind that bombing as well. With all these facts on hand, the researchers felt disturbed and feel that their future is threatened. In view of this, the researchers decided to look into the national effects of terrorism not only in the Philippines but also in the world. Reasons for engaging in such terroristic would also be tackled in this paper. The aim of the study is to look into the root reasons of Terrorism and its effect on the government where it is experienced like in the Philippines and the world. To achieve this objective, the researchers sought to answers the following questions. 2. What are the Reasons for attempting to bring about radical change through terrorism? 3. Where can terrorism be traced back? (history) 4. Is terrorism prevalent in the Philippines? 5. Reaction of religious sects regarding terrorism. 6. What are the most common acts of terrorism The following terms are frequently used in this paper. ABATED. To reduce in amount, degree, or intensity; lessen. ABU SAYAFF. A group predominantly based in the Philippines, responsible for almost all teroristic in Mindanao as well as nearby towns. Feared by almost Filipinos in their outrage, furious acts of kidnapping, bombing, etc. ALLIES. Refers to countries confiding with common ideas, thoughts and nature ANARCHIST. One who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order ASSASINS. One who murders a politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives BULLY. A blustering browbeating person; esp : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker CONUNDRUM. a question or problem having only a conjectural answer; DIPLOMACY. the work of keeping up relations between the governments of different countries; skill in dealing with others without causing bad feelings. INFAMY. evil reputation brought about by something grossly criminal, shocking, or brutal; an extreme and publicly known criminal or evil act OSAMA BIN LADEN. The leader of a terrorist group which is believe to be the man behind the bombing of the Word Trade Center. OUTRAGE. an act that violates accepted standards of behavior or taste; an act of violence or brutality PERSECUTED. to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) PROPAGANDA. the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause RETALIATE. the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause TERRORISM. The systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion THEORY. a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action WARFARE. military operations between enemies; an activity undertaken by a political unit (as a nation) to weaken or destroy another WTC. In this paper, WTC refers to the World Trade Center September 11, 2001, is the new day of infamy that may change forever the way Americans live their lives. A small band of men armed only with pocket knives did what no other global super power has been able to do to the United States. They struck terror in our hearts by totally demolishing in a single hour an icon of American enterprise, the World Trade Center. They went further in their daring attack by destroying a substantial section of the Pentagon, the symbol of our military might. They exploded horror and chaos into our collective lives in ways no one of us had ever before experienced, not even the most seasoned war veteran. Thousands of people were murdered, millions of lives were disrupted, billions of dollars of business and income were lost. The nation and the world remain in shock at the unimaginable devastation that has become a defining moment for this generation. They are the new breed of “terrorists,” faceless people carefully programmed to destroy their enemy at all costs. They are likely to be educated, well trained, blindly obedient to authority, totally dedicated to a religious-cultural ideology, living in a time zone of present fatalism, with few possessions and nothing to lose except sacrificing their lives for a higher cause. They embody “creative evil” at its worst, and in a form that could become most terrifying to democratic nations everywhere. The bully, in a moment, can smash the sand castle that a child took hours to build. A vandal, in a moment, can deface a statue that an artist took years to create. Terrorists, in a moment, can destroy buildings that took years to erect, or end lives that took generations to nourish. Evil is the perversion of human perfection; it is the mind turned in on itself to hurt, harm, demean, and destroy other people, along with their possessions and their most valued symbols. If we take Good as the natural human condition, then Evil is its antithesis, and Heroism its opposing force. But that triad represents multiple facets of human nature. This terrorist attack on U.S. sovereignty represents a new level of creative evil in which human intellect serves the basest motives of violence and destruction. Thus, it is imperative not to underestimate the power and catalytic force of this new enemy. It is a shadowy force without identifiable territorial boundaries, but one that has the charismatic power to unite disparate allies in many nations and to clone kindred warriors with its fervent ideological mission and focused hatred toward America and its allies. We have begun to appreciate the extent to which this complex, expertly choreographed terrorist attack was the end product of extensive planning, training, and professional expertise that required financial resources and networks of co-conspirators living among us. This creatively evil enemy cannot be underestimated any longer. We have to change our perception of this attack as “senseless violence,” as has often been described. Of course, this tragic destruction of lives and property does not make sense to us because it is incomprehensible that any individual or group would engage in such evil deeds. But calling it “senseless”,“mindless”, “insane”, or the work of “madmen” is wrong for two reasons. It fails to adopt the perspective of the perpetrators, as an act with a clearly defined purpose that we must understand in order to challenge it most effectively. And such negative labeling also lulls us into thinking it is random, not comparable to anything we do understand, and making us disrespectful of the high level of reasoned intellect behind these deeds, however distorted or diabolical it may be. Constructive efforts at preventing future similar acts of international violence best begin with attempts to understand not only the Who question, but the What question as well. Our national leaders will seek out those who orchestrated this destructive attack against our nation and eventually bring them to justice. But even if the identifiable terrorist leaders were to be eliminated, would that stop future terrorism? It is unlikely, unless we know what are the root causes of the hatred against America; unless the ideological, political, and social bases of the mentalities of the next generation of potential terrorists are more fully appreciated and efforts to change them are engaged. Evil has always existed in many forms and will continue to flourish in different ways in different places. Surely, there are individuals we acknowledge as embodying evil, just as Lucifer and Satan do -- Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other national tyrants. They are all dead, yet evil flourishes throughout the world with nameless conductors orchestrating ever new violence. It is well for us now to go beyond our tendency to focus on dispositional evil as a peculiar property or characteristic of despicable particular individuals. Instead, we might consider focusing on the situational determinants of evil in order to recognize the generic forces of evil, to identify the breeding grounds that can seduce even good people to become perpetrators of evil. Even while acknowledging our individual and national need for retribution and punishment of the leaders of this terrorist attacks, we must realize that without altering the fundamental sources of anti-American and anti-democratic beliefs and values in other nations, new replacements will emerge for each tyrant leader we punish or kill. Much psychological research reveals the ease with which ordinary people can be recruited to engage in harmful behaviors against their fellows. In one classic study by Stanley Milgram, the majority of ordinary American citizens who participated in it blindly obeyed an authority figure and administered what they believed were painful, even lethal shocks to a stranger. Albert Bandura showed that intelligent students were willing to be extremely aggressive toward other groups of students merely because they were characterized with the dehumanizing label of being just “like animals.” In another demonstration from my own laboratory, normal college students recruited to role-play prison guards became their roles in a matter of days, behaving with escalating violence and sadism toward their prisoners-- other college students. We know that a cult leader, Jim Jones, reverend of Peoples Temple, was able to program his followers to commit suicide, or to kill one another on his command, and more than 900 American citizens did so in the jungles of Guyana. Research by John Steiner (an Auschwitz survivor) indicates that most Nazi concentration camp guards were “ordinary men” before and following their years of perpetrating evil. Many more examples could be culled to illustrate reasons why we should not demonize these terrorists as an alien breed. Instead, we should focus on a better understanding of the mind control tactics and strategies that might make even good people engage in evil deeds at some time in their lives, and that might recruit new generations of impoverished young people into lives of terrorism. We need also to acknowledge openly “the dark side of religion” in terms of how religiously-based value systems can be perverted to justify and reward the most horrendous of human deeds. Unbridled evil has been carried out in the name of religion and condoned in the name of god over the centuries by most nations of the world, and still is. The efforts of our military forces in tracking down and destroying the terrorist leaders has a collateral risk. It models revenge and retaliation at a national level which can become a stimulus for individual hostility toward innocent citizens in our own country whose ethnicity, religion, or appearance might be similar to those of the terrorists. Research by Dane Archer shows that homicide rates increase dramatically following all wars, the same for victor or loser nations, presumably because individuals learn to use violent means of conflict resolution as had been sanctioned by their national leaders. We cannot allow that transfer of hostility to develop, because it fuels the cycle of violence started by the terrorists. Terrorists create terror; terror creates fear and anger; fear and anger create aggression, and aggression against citizens of different ethnicity or religion creates racism and, in turn, new forms of terrorism. The people of the world face personal and collective danger from the spread of terrorism. The acts of violence carried out by lone individuals or small, unrepresentative groups of people bring tragedy into other people's lives. A number of causes for terrorism can be identified. In some ways, selfish, uncaring behaviour on the parts of groups of people mirror the adolescent stage of individuals, where personal concerns or grievances become out of proportion. In the Bahá'í view, humanity is nearing the stage of maturity, but has yet to understand the direction in which it will develop: "The human race.... has passed through evolutionary stages.... of infancy and childhood,.... and is now in.... its turbulent adolescence approaching its long-awaited coming of age." Part of the background to current waves of terrorism is the lack of a proper balance between the liberty of the individual and the needs of society as a whole. The rights of an individual to act as he/she wishes can never be absolute. On this subject, Bahá'u'lláh, the Founder of the Bahá'í Faith, wrote: "We find some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths of ignorance. Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose flames none can quench.... That which beseemeth man is submission unto such restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and wickedness." In many cases, the cause which the terrorist espouses is driven by a sense of injustice, as when a nation does not have independence in the family of nations, or where a minority feels that its rights are ignored. The world must ensure that no situations of political injustice continue, thereby removing this kind of terrorist's motivation, justification and support. Bahá'u'lláh emphasised the need for a universal conference at which the international frontiers will be fixed, and levels of national armaments reduced. Every minority would have its rights guaranteed. He expressed the desire that: "....weapons of war throughout the world may be converted into instruments of reconstruction and that strife and conflict may be removed from the midst of men." He spoke out against all violence, saying: "There is no glory for him that committeth disorder in the earth after it hath been made so good." "Spread not disorder in the land, and shed not the blood of any one, and consume not the substance of others wrongfully." Religion is also frequently used by the terrorist as an excuse for his actions, despite the fact that every religion forbids murder, and demands that individuals love others. The golden rule, found in each religion, is that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. The moral codes of true religion have lost their impact. According to the Bahá'í Writings, when the light of religion is dimmed, the "perversion of human nature, the degradation of human conduct,.... reveal themselves, under such circumstances, in their worst and most revolting aspects. Human character is debased,.... the voice of human conscience is stilled, the sense of decency and shame is obscured...." Although the fundamental Bahá'í view is that the ideal of world citizenship and the concept of the oneness of mankind should replace the narrower and more violent goals of the terrorist, there are also practical measures to be found in the Bahá'í social teachings. A world police force should be established, and this should be accompanied by world-wide laws. Terrorists use different states around the world as refuges from justice, and a number of countries harbour, supply, finance, train and sponsor terrorist groups for their own ends. Until some sort of world law is established, terrorism can never be completely eliminated: "The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established." "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." There is no danger in a rational level of patriotism, but what needs to be developed is a love of humanity as a whole. With this ideal as a goal, replacing the fierce nationalism that is used to justify acts of terror, a sense of world citizenship can be developed. Loving all the peoples of the world should include a love of one's own country. All the human sciences - anthropology, physiology and psychology - agree that there is only one human species, although we differ endlessly in lesser ways. The Bahá'í view is that the oneness of mankind should become a conscious goal of political, educational and religious life. Aggressive forms of behaviour must give way to more gentle ideals: "Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship." "Beware lest ye offend the feelings of anyone, or sadden the heart of any person...." The Bahá'í emphasis is on bringing about world unity. Every nation, race and tribe should have its rightful place in the family of mankind, but this will not be achieved through killing: "Fighting, and the employment of force, even for the right cause, will not bring about good results. The oppressed who have right on their side must not take that right by force; the evil would continue. Hearts must be changed." Bahá'ís are forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh from carrying arms unless it is essential. They are also enjoined to obey a just government. It is justice, indeed, that Bahá'ís believe should be the goal of every law. Then every individual should willingly accept the law, and help to build a world where violence is forgotten: "The law must reign and not the individual; thus will the world become a place of beauty and true brotherhood will be realised." Terrorism is much misunderstood. Like any form of warfare it can have horrible results. But the behavior of terrorists is not inexplicable. When a terrorist campaign is run well, there's a purpose behind everything they do. Warfare itself is equally explicable, and also can be horrible. But wars don't happen for no reason, and they don't always happen because of insanity. Sane and moral men can start a war if they think that the alternative is even worse. A war is fought because one side in a conflict wants something and cannot get it by diplomacy. In the great aphorism attributed to Clausewitz, "War is diplomacy by other means." But there are many ways in which a war can be fought; they're not all just armies maneuvering on a battlefield. In particular, that kind of war is only really possible if the two sides are approximately comparable in military strength. To take on an opponent that way when he is vastly more powerful than you is just a fancy way to commit suicide. But with proper tactics, numerical inferiority doesn't have to mean defeat. You can fight a guerrilla war, or a terrorist action. Terrorism is the lowest level of warfare, requiring the least resources for the inferior side. Terrorism is war on the cheap. And terrorists can win. "Terrorism" is actually misnamed, because the goal of it is not to sow terror (though that is a common tactic). The goal of terrorism is to sow discord and disruption and to provoke reprisals from your much stronger opponent. One of the paradoxes of terrorism is that when your opponent commits a major act of violence against your people, you (the terrorist) win and you become stronger. A war is always fought for a reason, and there are only three ways a war can end, all of which come down to eliminating the reason. First, everyone on one side can be exterminated. Or the losing side can abandon the struggle either because they no longer think they can accomplish their goal with acceptable losses, or because they have actually accomplished their goal. You can only win a war by appeasing your opponent, discouraging him, or exterminating him. The theory of terrorism was worked out in the middle of the 20th century. Terrorists can win in several ways: by making their opponent weary of the struggle and, even with superior strength, give up, or by increasing the power of the terrorist side through recruitment so that the campaign can be converted to more normal guerrilla action or outright military campaign, or by inducing outsiders to impose a peace more favorable to the terrorist's side. There are seven critical participants in a terrorist campaign (or in any war): our forces, our people, their forces, their people, our allies outside the zone of conflict, their allies, and the rest of the world. Our forces consist of all people who are actively participating in the struggle on our side. Our people consists of everyone who might possibly be a recruit for our side in the conflict, or who support our campaign through contributions or taxes. Their forces and their people are comparable. Our allies are any groups or governments outside the zone of the conflict who might be feeding us material support or who might be able to bring diplomatic pressure to bear in our favor, and of course our opponents also have allies. And the rest of the world consists of people who might become involved on one side or the other or who might ultimately bring about a settlement diplomatically or by other means (including armed intervention). In our campaign as terrorists, our goal is to continually strengthen ourselves and to continually weaken our enemy, so as to redress the inequality of power between us. We want to recruit our people into our forces. We want to recruit international neutrals to become allies. We want to convince powerful neutrals that it is in their best interests to impose a solution on our enemies. These are all desirable and efforts will continue on all of these simultaneously, as long as the struggle continues. All of these require propaganda, and a successful terrorist campaign will always involve a cagey relationship with the international press. The ultimate and essential weapon of terrorism is publicity. If we are terrorists then we are weak and few. We must hide, probably using a cell structure. Our weapon of choice is terrorist acts. We appear out of nowhere, commit an act which disrupts the normal flow of events, then vanish again. When we are not actively campaigning, we appear to simply be no different than any of the rest of our people. When we commit a terrorist act, our goal is to invite violent reprisals from our opponent's forces. But since they don't know who we are, they will make their reprisals against our people -- which will increase the will of our people to resist, and make them more open to joining our forces. Thus each time we successfully inspire a major reprisal, our recruitment will become more successful and our forces will grow. Unlike us, our enemy's forces are not hidden. They are public and well known, and though they cannot target our forces, we can target theirs. In some cases we might decide to target their people, but often we'll try to target their forces. Another effect of this is to cause fatigue and loss of moral will among their people, leading to a loss of political will. It may even lead to our victory without a conversion to standard warfare; they may give up and leave without a full scale war. Or we may deliberately and directly target our enemy's allies, hoping to cause them to decide that the price they pay for the alliance is too high. They may abandon our enemy, or they may pressure them to end our disruption on terms favorable to us. But this leaves our enemy in a bind; increased reprisals do not end our struggle as long as even one of us continues to resist, so they may end up being forced to grant us concessions -- which may be sufficient to achieve our goal. Of course, our enemy's reprisals will likely cost the lives of many of our people. But war is an unpretty business, and when we embarked on it we knew we were going to lose people, but we decided it was worth it anyway. (And sometimes our goals are worth losing people over.) Our forces are not weakened when our people are killed; and indeed our forces can be strengthened through increased recruitment and support from our people. Also, as our enemies retaliate against us violently, this can cause moral outrage among our allies (causing them to support us more directly, possibly even logistically) and may cause international neutrals to come onto our side. It can even cause moral outrage among their allies, decreasing their support both materially and politically. Of course, all of this requires that we are in tune with the general feelings of our people. If we aren't, then we won't gain recruits even if there is a violent response. The extreme example of this would be a lunatic like Ted Kaczinski (the "Unabomber"), a lone terrorist who never did gain any allies during his fifteen year campaign. Once he was captured, his terrorist movement ended. But for fifteen years he was an army of one. And had he actually been in tune with his people, those sympathetic to his cause might have joined him. Let us examine four classic terrorist campaigns from history: the Maquis, the liberation of India, the American Civil Rights movement, and the Palestinian struggle against Israel. Right off, your reaction is to wonder why it is that I consider Gandhi and King to be terrorists. After all, they were upstanding and moral men who are honored by history. But terrorism doesn't require violence, and if you go back and reread my description of the strategy you'll notice that I never once said that our side had to commit violence in our terrorist campaign. We commit disruption but we do not have to be violent doing so. Our goal is to make our opponent be violent, and often being violent ourselves will cause that. But depending on our situation, a non-violent terrorism may be the best way to accomplish our goal. But first, a classic violent terrorist campaign: the Maquis. This was the French resistance against the German occupation during WWII. They operated in a cell structure, using arms which were stolen or smuggled in from the UK. They targeted militarily useful infrastructure, and enemy forces, and collaborators. The German response was orchestrated by their Army and in particular by the Gestapo and was particularly brutal. The casualty rate among the Maquis was appalling (I've seen estimates that the average survival time after joining was ten months) and the fate of those who were captured was terrible, because they were routinely tortured for information. On the other hand, the response by the Germans was quite broad-brush, leading to many innocent French being killed and tortured at the same time as captured members of the Maquis were. This inflamed the hatred of the French, already high anyway after the military catastrophe of 1940, leading to a steady stream of new recruits. So while casualties among the Maquis were high, recruitment more than made that good and as the war progressed their numbers and strength increased. This also served as a propaganda victory in the West, helping in particular to convince the American people to support an invasion of France. The American leaders always were willing, but it was necessary to convince the American people that the losses and expense in American lives and treasure was worthwhile. (I think history has shown that it was.) The payoff came in 1944. On a radio signal from London, the Maquis converted from terrorism to guerrilla action and mobilized its strength. Its military goal was limited but critical: interdiction. Maquis forces met Canadian and British and American army forces and gave them help (sometimes armed but more often in the form of fresh information, which was often critical), but more important was that they operated in strength behind German lines and attacked railroads and bridges and highways and convoys and communications, the goal being to impede the German ability to move forces and supplies to Normandy to fight the invasion. Of course, the Maquis were spectacularly successful overall, achieving everything they could possibly have hoped for. The Germans were kicked out, the Americans and British and Canadians turned out to be that most rare of historical artifacts: an "Army of Liberation" which really did liberate -- and then left afterwards. The Maquis paid dearly for its victory, but its victory was complete. Gandhi's Congress Party used a much different kind of terrorist campaign against the British in order to gain India's liberation. This shows how tactics and strategy must always be adapted to the current political situation, for the situation in India was far different than in France. A non-violent campaign in France would have failed, but a violent campaign in India would also have failed. First, violence was morally repugnant to the majority of Indians for religious reasons, and a violent terrorist campaign would have lost the support of the Indian people. Second, the British public entertained the fantasy that they were actually serving the Indians even as they ruled them, and indeed British rule did help the Indians in many ways. British rule was far from benign, but it was not vicious either. The British people, therefore, believed that it was in both the interest of the UK and of India that the British continue to rule, and Gandhi's goal was to convince them that this was not true. So he adopted non-violent public terrorism. Instead of hiding, he made himself and his top leaders clear and obvious targets. Instead of bringing reprisals onto his people, he accepted them himself, knowing that the British were too decent to simply take him out and shoot him without trial (the way the Gestapo would have). And the ultimate result was to set him up as clearly being morally superior to his British opponents in the eyes of the British people. If such an outstanding and moral man thinks that we, the British, are harming India and if he wants us to leave, then how can we stay? Gandhi won his war when the British people began to ask themselves that question. And when the British saw their own people being violent and cruel to the Indians, who did not respond in kind, then the British self-image of decency was damaged. Gandhi in fact did use violence -- but it was violence to self. Instead of murder, he threatened suicide. He didn't invent the hunger strike, but he perfected it. However, the hunger strike is only effective under very special circumstances. Usually it is a failure. Martin Luther King Jr. used public non-violent terrorism in the American South in the 1960's, but with somewhat different goals. Again, he adapted his campaign to the local political situation, to take advantage of the significant political division among American whites. He did not expect to convince the Southern Whites to voluntarily end the apartheid system; his goal was to bring the Northern and Western Whites into the struggle on his side so that they would use their might to force the Southern Whites to end apartheid. Like Gandhi, the best way to achieve this was to force his opponents to make themselves look despicable, so as to gain the sympathy of outsiders. King was jailed many times and each time he emerged from jail more powerful. Every time southern police beat non-violent black demonstrators (filmed and broadcast on the national news), King's movement was strengthened. And like Gandhi, he knew that he was unlikely to be killed by his captors when he himself was arrested. His non-violent terrorist acts (in the form of sit-ins and demonstrations and boycotts) became larger and more disruptive as recruitment brought more people into his forces. But he knew he'd won when Northern Whites began to travel to the South to join his forces in numbers. Then it was only a matter of time. Ultimately he inspired the more moral white political majority of the US to use legislative power to force the Southern states to grant him what he wanted. This included the threat of using armed force by the Federal Government. Before he began his struggle, this had actually already happened in Arkansas, where the US Army was used by Eisenhower to force integration of the schools after a Supreme Court decision. So he knew Federal military force was possible, and so did his opponents. With the passage of the Voting Rights act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it became a matter of implementation, with the full power of the US behind King's movement. The struggle continued, and the walls fell slowly, but the lot of the Negro (his word) in the US is now vastly better than it was in 1955, and the momentum is now unstoppable. Unfortunately, it cost both Gandhi and King their lives. By making their roles in their respective revolutions so public, they set themselves up for assassination. But soldiers in a war often pay with their lives. Terrorists are no different. It must be clear at this point that terrorism is a stratagem and not necessarily a moral evil. It can be evil, but it isn't necessarily so. Even violent terrorism can be morally correct; I doubt that anyone would condemn the Maquis even though they killed thousands during the war. And of course, we revere Gandhi and King as men of towering morality. In some cases a violent terrorism campaign is an evil embarked upon to prevent an even greater evil in the eyes of those launching the campaign. Suppose that you are fighting against a terrorist campaign? How can you win? As with any warfare, there are only three ways: appeasement, extermination, or destruction of enemy morale. Of the three, destroying the morale of the terrorists is the most difficult and it is very rare for it to succeed. Extermination is nearly as difficult. And yet, a combination of extermination and assaults on morale is the approach nearly every country attempts to use when facing a terrorist movement. Perhaps that's because of the paradox of terrorism, that provoking reprisal is a victory. In any other level of warfare, one of your goals is to annihilate your enemy's forces, because without a force he cannot win. Indeed, this is a truism in war: your goal is not to take ground; it's to defeat your enemy's army. If you defeat his army, you can take all the ground you want. If his army still exists, taking ground does no good. So countries have become used to the idea that you respond to violence with violence of your own. But for a terrorist, this is exactly what he wants you to do. When you respond violently to terrorism, the terrorist wins. You can try to annihilate his forces -- but this is exceedingly difficult unless the terrorists are not actually in sync with the views of their people. He uses a cell system, and espionage is slow, inefficient and risky. And as long as even one cell continues to exist, the potential exists for it to reproduce and spread again through recruitment from his people who agree with his goals. Terrorism is a difficult disease to stamp out. Or you can remove the reason why terrorists resist by negotiation, to give them perhaps some, but not all, of what they want. The hope is that this will be sufficient to cause them to give up the struggle. (It can sometimes encourage them; this is a problem.) Which brings us to the Palestinian campaign against Israel, which has been going on intermittently for fifty years. Let us look at the situation through the eyes of a Palestinian patriot for a moment, shall we? Remember that he has a different attitude towards things than we do, and that he may be wrong. But his decision to fight is based on his world view, so whether we think he is right or wrong, we need to understand what he sees. Without that, we have no chance of dealing with him. So for one paragraph, we're going to be Palestinians: In the 1940's, we and our people had a homeland. In the late 1940's, Europeans in large numbers began to move in, and in 1948 they usurped power and forced all of us out. We were beginning to respond to take back our land which these invaders had stolen when the United States and Great Britain imposed a completely unfair peace on us, for whatever reason. The US and UK were motivated by guilt about an event which took place somewhere else which had nothing to do with us, but we were punished anyway. As a result of this, these invaders ended up with most of the best land, and we ended up living in abject poverty packed into refugee camps. Since then, they have gotten richer and richer and we have gotten poorer and poorer. Our children die of disease and poverty, and the future looks ever more grim for us. Small wonder we hate them. That's his world view, and there's enough truth in it that it will be hard to shake. Add to that long-standing religious conflict and fundamental racial issues and a religion which venerates martyrs and you can see that the divide is deep and the motivation to resist is strong. The Palestinians are not going to give up. I think they accept now that they won't be getting all their land back, but they definitely want some of it so that they don't have to live in refugee camps any longer. They want what we all want: a brighter future for their children. Like all adults, they'll do almost anything for their children. Israel cannot defeat this violently. They've been trying to fifty years and haven't succeeded yet. When conditions are right, terrorist movements spontaneously appear, and right now there are at least five independent ones operating in that area against Israel. Even if they could all be found and exterminated, others would pop up. The situation for the Palestinians is intolerable, and there are enough of them who feel this way that there will always be an armed struggle until the situation gets better. Israel's course right now is to retaliate on each terrorist attack against the Palestinian authorities. There is a feeling in Israel that these terrorist groups really do work for the Palestinian authorities (the ex-PLO, once terrorist itself) and that they could be called off. It's even possible that one or two of them do, but extremely unlikely that they all do, and the only real result of the Israeli retaliations is to strengthen the terrorists. Israel must compromise. This struggle will only end when peace is a more attractive alternative to the majority of Palestinians than struggle, when they have more to live for than to die for. Annihilation of the terrorists is not possible, and the Palestinians cannot be disillusioned into believing that struggle will be pointless. Only appeasement can end the conflict. "Appeasement" is a dirty word. It's also the only chance of success. But it's not going to happen, because it's politically impossible for the Israeli government. The Israeli voters are apparently not willing to accept this as an alternative. So each side in this conflict has come to recognize that it cannot directly defeat its enemy, and both are looking outside the country for help. Over the course of the last fifty years, the Palestinians have three times convinced neighboring Arab countries to attack Israel -- and all three attacks failed. There have been no further attacks since 1973 and probably will never again be any. Which leaves only the possibility of political or economic pressure imposed on one side on behalf of the other, and that is what both sides have been attempting to do since 1973, with singular lack of success. In the mean time, the Palestinian terrorists continue to attack Israeli targets, and the Israelis continue to make tit-for-tat reprisals. NO ONE can deny that war is a dreadfully cruel undertaking. But just as non-violent alternatives are always more desirable, we must give credit where credit is due. War can achieve a great deal when it is implemented on an extensive and energetic scale, a recent historical example of this being the 1990 Gulf War. Then, the United States, in employing overwhelming military force, soundly defeated Saddam Hussein's invading legions and drove them out of the tiny oil emirate of Kuwait. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, there are two equally intense military campaigns taking place, this time with the goal of eradicating terrorism at their core. The first campaign being the US-led attacks in Afghanistan, the second involving the Philippine government's struggle in Mindanao. The American and Philippine governments, the respective sponsors of these two campaigns, are confident that they will eventually attain results similar to what was seen in the Gulf War: the emasculation, if not outright annihilation, of a dangerous adversary-the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban militia in the case of Afghanistan, and the Abu Sayyaf extremist group in the case of the Philippines. With the prospect of major military victories in the offing, the United States and its allies, along with the Philippines, hope to once and for all destroy terrorism as an entity that can gravely threaten the safety and security of their all-too vulnerable societies. Military might however, has its limits; no matter how vigorously it is exercised, no matter how long it is waged, sheer military force cannot in and of itself eliminate the root causes of terrorism, which are very complex and profound. This is certainly the situation when it comes to the al-Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf. Before going into the motivations of those groups though, it must be stated that it is wrong to believe that terrorism emerges from some kind of nihilistic, irrational vacuum; terrorists quite the opposite, rather than existing in an amorphous universe of utter lunacy with no beginning and no end, depend on a rhyme and a reason for what they are trying to accomplish. Terrorists, unbeknownst to those who label them simplistically as "madmen," develop explicit convictions about the world based on arguments that are frightening in their rationality and calculation, and turn those arguments into uncompromising justifications for their actions. Of course it is unsettling to suppose that cogent viewpoints constructed within a rationalist paradigm are what encourages a person to willingly fly a jet airliner into a building, to literally wrap himself or herself in explosives and detonate them in a crowd of people, or to mutilate the bodies of their hostages after having already murdered them. But that is exactly one of the things that makes terrorism so disturbing: it is not merely the horrific violence that it generates, or the fanatic zeal that it expresses, but the notion that such abhorrent actions are much more likely than not, the product of deductive reasoning. Going on that premise, it should not be beyond our comprehension that the seemingly-demented activities of Osama Bin Laden, the al-Qaeda network, and the Abu Sayyaf are in fact, logically spiteful responses to the social, economic, and political repression that has been perpetrated for decades upon the Muslim populaces they originated from. In saying that we should understand what these terrorists are calling for is not to be mistaken for bestowing praise or apology on their deeds. On the contrary, the actions of terrorists are deserving of nothing less than total condemnation. But while we rightfully denounce the conduct of the al-Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf, should we not also be taking to task the policies that fomented so much hatred in the first place amongst their leaders and members? Osama Bin Laden's main raison d'être, now that the atheistic menace of Soviet Marxism has collapsed, are the policies of the United States in regards to the Middle East and the Muslim nations that reside in that region. Bin Laden virulently rails against several US policy decisions: what he sees as America's conspiratorial collusion with Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people; its duplicitous support of dictatorial regimes in Muslim countries; its economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein which are barely making an impression on his murderous regime, but that are devastating the Iraqi people; the "infidel" presence of American soldiers in the Islamic holy lands of Saudi Arabia, intended, according to Bin Laden, to ensure the continued Western exploitation of Saudi oil and the protection of the kingdom's corrupt ruling family. The Abu Sayyaf's grievances are perhaps not as geopolitically-weighty as Osama Bin Laden's are, relatively speaking, for their implications apply principally to a smaller, more localized arena-the Muslim areas of the southern Philippines. However, the conditions that spawned the Abu Sayyaf mirrors much of the plight of the wider Muslim world. True, the Abu Sayyaf has deteriorated into a vicious, undisciplined bandit grouping with little if any semblance of organizational unity or remaining association to its early ideological moorings. Time and time again the Abu Sayyaf have professed that it champions the rights and the welfare of Mindanao's Muslims, tragic victims of the Filipino government's repressive policies and of Filipino Christian hegemony. Whatever the true, underlying motives of the Abu Sayyaf are nowadays, it must be made clear that the group has not always been a horde of indiscriminate, bloodthirsty outlaws, primarily concerned with profiting monetarily from their marauding ways. The Abu Sayyaf once advanced a semi-structured ideology of extreme Muslim nationalism as a reaction to past efforts by Filipino Christian civilians and political leaders to confiscate Muslim lands, to mute Muslims' political voice, and to eradicate Islamic culture. As Filipino Muslims in the south continue to suffer subjugation, neglect, and deprivation in the grip of Christian and governmental domination, the Abu Sayyaf only finds more inspiration and impetus to resort to violence. Simply put, the group's kidnappings, bombings, and executions will not be solved by military action alone. These activities will be stopped only when the source of the social, political, and economic discontent that gives rise to them is eliminated. Strangely in a way, even in the wake of some of the worst crimes against humanity, one can detect a mortal, almost subconscious longing that reverberates under the surface of terrorist ideologies. Anyone living in a free society can easily identify with it, for it is the yearning for the human ideals of freedom, equality, and prosperity. At first glance, terrorists appear to be working at reversing these values. But in reality, the terrorists kill innocents because they, and the people they claim to represent, have been denied these very same ideals. Deprived of these rights while enviously, it can be said, watching them thrive in other countries, terrorists become driven by what Friederich Nietzsche referred to as "resentment": an acute sensitivity to perceived humiliations and oppressions which induce, according to him, "submerged hatred" and the "vengefulness of the impotent." Resentment furthermore, compels the offended party into what Nietzsche said was an "act of most spiritual revenge." George W. Bush only deceives his audience when he declares the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington to be an endeavor to crush America's democratic way of life, something that those in repressed societies can only dream of. The very denial of liberty, equality, and opportunity in the pursuit of happiness, is what forms the subtext of the terrorist actions, and until we understand that, we will never be rid of the scourge of terrorism. Terrorism is hard to define. In its broadest sense terrorism can be thought of as the use or threatened use of force against civilians designed to bring about political or social change. Moreover, while we think of terrorism as being both a political and irrational act (especially suicide terrorism), terrorism can also be thought of as a rational act conducted specifically because of the impact -- fear, confusion, submission -- it will have. Given the U.S. government's pledge to wage a war against terrorism, it is important to look at its definitions. According to both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the FBI, terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The DOD definition adds that a goal of terrorism can be "inculcating fear" (thus the psychological dimension), while the State Department is more elaborate, specifying that terrorism may include the use of biological, chemical or nuclear devices as well as the act of "assassination." The latter would suggest that assassinating bin Laden would be a terrorist act by our definition of the word; the former that allied forces in the fire bombings of cities in Dresden, and specifically the U.S., through its use of nuclear weapons to end World War II and of chemical weapons in Vietnam, has already engaged in terrorist activities, although the moral calculus and justification for these actions varies widely and in comparison with the terrorism of the enemies, such as Nazi Germany. This is the grand conundrum of defining terrorism; it is very difficult to separate it from acts of war, just or unjust. We all have heard the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And indeed, Osama bin Laden and his comrades were hailed as freedom fighters in the 1980s by the American government at a time when politicians like Dick Cheney considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Further, the UN definition of terrorism states that "all war crimes will be considered acts of terrorism," in which case most every government in the world (especially the major military powers, Pakistan, Israel, the major Muslim states, most Latin American governments) has committed terrorism, though few have ever faced justice or even opprobrium for doing so. 2. Reasons for attempting to bring about radical change through terrorism. Terrorist actions may be committed by a single individual, a certain group or even governments. Most terrorists, unlike criminals claim to be dedicated to higher causes and do not believe personal gain. There are many reasons why political group attempt to bring about radical change through terrorism. People are often frustrated with their position in society. They may in some way feel persecuted or oppressed because of their race, religion or they feel exploited by a government. Any group that uses terrorist actions have very complex and powerful reason to engage in those activities. Acts of terrorism have been committed by individuals or groups who seek national independence. One such act was the assassinations of the Arch Duke of France in 1914. The assassinations had sought to win Bosnia from Austrain rule, but failed and led to the outbreaks or World War I. While many groups have engaged in terrorism throughout history, the Anarchist political groups in the 19th century are most remembered. These groups were especially strong in Italy, France, Spain and the United States, but their roots lie within the Russian peoples will movement. Anarchists believe that by nature people are good, and that in the right circumstances can leave in peace. They oppose all centralized state and think it is an oppressive force that prevents people from cooperating with one another. In addition to terrorist groups, governments today also engage in terrorism. Countries sometimes use terrorism as a substitute for traditional warfare by providing money, training and weapons to terrorist groups whose activities serve their national aims. Governments may also plan and carry out terrorist actions themselves, although they usually deny responsibility for them. The first recorded use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" was in 1795, relating to the Reign of Terror instituted by the French government. The use of "terrorist" to signify anti-government activities was recorded in 1866 referring to Ireland, and in 1883 referring to Russia. Throughout history humans have terrorized their neighbors to generate fear and compel changes in behavior. At the dawn of China's imperial age, T'ai Kung, the first Chinese general and progenitor of strategic thought, described the "spreading of civil offensives" to sow dissension, demoralize the populace and incapacitate the government. In the modern period, all regular armies have recruited "irregulars" to do their dirty work: Cossacks, hunters, Hussars, all were used to draw a civilized veil over the actions of their sponsors as they raped and pillaged in towns and across countrysides. (Ironically, Ivan the First had to subdue the very Cossacks he used to pacify the Muslim regions of Russia; today the U.S. is forced to "subdue" the Muslims we used to pacify Russia.) Today terrorism must be viewed within the context of the modern nation-state. Indeed, it was the rise of a bureaucratic state, which could not be destroyed by the death of one leader that forced terrorists to widen their scope of targets in order to create a public atmosphere of anxiety and undermine confidence in government. This reality is at the heart of the ever more violent terrorism of the last 100 years, from anarchists' assassinations to hijackings and suicide bombings. The first recorded act of terrorism in the Philippines was in 1991 when Abu Sayaff introduced itself by a bomb attack in Zamboanga City and Davao City. Abu Sayaff is the only radical group identified to practice terrorism in the country. The real name of this group is AL HARAKATUL AL IGLAMIYA of the Islamic movement founded by Ustadz Abdurajack Janjalani, a soft-spoken Islamic preacher whose exploits as a Mujahideen in Afghanistan has gain him the reverence of Muslim Youth. The objective of the group is to establish an Islamic state in Mindanao. Abu Sayyaff continued on with their terrorist acts in 1993 when they kidnapped “Luis Ton-Ton Biel,” five years old and his grandfather, owner of a bus company in Basilan. They released the older Biel two days later, but held on to the little boy. In his first presscon, Ashmad announced they were holding Ton-ton until their demands were met. These demands were: 1) Remove all Catholic symbols in Muslim communities; 2) Bam all foreign fishing vessels in Sulu and Basilan seas; and 3.) Bring the Ulama into the negotiations. In January 1995, Abu Sayyaf was linked to a plot to Assassinate Pope John Paul II who was visiting Manila. Several suspected foreign terrorists, allegedly in cahoots with the Abu Sayyaf, were rounded up in a wave of arrest on Metro Manila. The foreign terrorists bolstered military suspicions that a bigger group was controlling Abu Sayaff. Military reports traced the links to a low – key Muslim businessman named MUSTAPHA JAMMAL KHALIFA, married the sister of world terrorist Osama Bin Laden. The military said Bin Laden funded Abu Sayyaf through foundation set up by Khalifa. The group is now the government’s biggest enemy followed by kidnappings of foreigners in Sipadan dive resort in Malaysia last year and recently of tourists in the Dos Palmas Resort in Palawan Military pursuit operation against Abu Sayyaf are continuing in Basilan Island with American hostage Guillermo Sobero believed have been beheaded. 5. Terrorism and the Religious Sects. The concept of terrorism arose centuries after the classic texts of the three religions were handed down to humanity, so it is difficult to discuss the concept of terrorism in this sense. However, all three Abrahamic faiths allow war and set limits on when, how and against whom it can be waged. Judaism. If we start with Judaism, certainly the Bible, in the Ten Commandments, admonishes "thou shalt not kill," which clearly would prescribe any sort of violence against non-combatants. Indeed, the Prophet Hosea warned Israel that her sins would cause "the tumult of war [to] arise among your people, and all your fortresses shall be destroyed… mothers dashed in pieces with their children." Yet the Bible also describes the Lord as "a man of war" who orders Israel to "go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." In one sense, this is not an act of terrorism, since the goal isn't political. Yet in the larger context of teaching a lesson to Israel's enemies by making Am'alek an example, it would seem to meet the criteria. Moreover, if we consider the Egyptians' killing of all the first born of the Hebrews, and God's doing likewise to Egypt as the tenth plague preceding the Exodus, both could be interpreted in a modern context as "terroristic" because they involved the killing of innocent non-combatants for political ends -- i.e., the changing of attitudes and policies on each side. Of course, by definition God cannot engage in an act of evil, yet when Job questioned God, He did not answer directly, but instead replied, "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand... Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?" Even the prophets could not answer the question of evil and innocent suffering in a world created in God's image. Christianity. If we turn to Christianity, the example of Jesus's doctrine of blessing peacemakers and turning the other cheek has influenced pacifist movements to this day. Instead of an "eye for an eye," Jesus said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Yet he did not challenge the Roman soldiers to give up their profession—which certainly included "terrorism" as a matter of course—while Paul in Romans exclaims that "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil." As Christian theology developed with Augustine and later Aquinas, the doctrine of "just war" helped define the rules and limits of war, and are now being used by the Vatican to indicate its support for the war against terrorism. Augustine explained, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace." Such solipsisms are easily distorted to justify any sort of barbarity, even as the just war doctrine prohibited "private individuals" (like Osama bin Laden) from "summoning together the people," to quote Aquinas. Yet Augustine's definition of a just war as "one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly" sounds just like the justifications offered by terrorists everywhere for their extreme actions. And indeed, the commonly accepted contemporary criteria for a just war -- having a "just case," being under "proper authority," fighting for justice and not reasons of self-interest or aggrandizement -- can all be claimed by terrorists as well as "just" states. Finally, we should remember that the Crusades or Inquisition, which were executed largely through terroristic means, were authorized directly by the Church. Islam. Arriving at Islam, the concept of Jihad, or "struggle," which in recent decades has been at the theological core of justifying Muslim acts of terrorism, traditionally meant the spiritual and moral struggle of an individual Muslim against his or her evil inclinations. The lesser jihad, that is, war against other human beings, is in classical Muslim sources a "defensive" war with limits that cannot be "transgressed," even when fighting those who "try to force you to adopt another religion or to leave your home." In fact, the conservative Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran just called the fight against terrorism a "holy war" -- that is, a jihad. Yet while the Koran has plenty of verses that talk about peace, even with Muhammad's enemies, there are also verses that advocate war and violence. Indeed, God exclaims in Sura 8:12, "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." Moreover, while the Koran prohibits suicide, and the Prophet clearly prohibited killing noncombatants, women and children, destroying property or even poisoning wells (the precursor to chemical warfare), there are hadith (prophetic sayings) that list jihad as among the highest religious duties, higher even than performing the pilgrimage to Mecca, which is one of the five pillars of the faith. And although it is not always clear which jihad is being spoken of, the fact that the Prophet is quoted as saying that booty will be the reward for "Jihad for God," and that women should make the pilgrimage instead of jihad, one can assume that the martial sense of jihad is intended at least some of the time. Since 1968, when the United States government began keeping such statistics, more than 7,000 terrorist bombings have occurred worldwide. The State Department currently lists 30 "designated foreign terrorist organizations" and another 14 as "other terrorist organizations" . According to the State Department, the number of terrorist acts has hovered between 300 and 500 per year during the 1980-1999 period. Perhaps surprisingly, about two thirds of all acts of terrorism are against business, numbering five-fold more than attacks on diplomatic, military and government personnel or property, or civilians. Moreover, while the Middle East dominates media coverage of terrorism, in fact Latin America, followed by Western Europe, suffered the most attacks in 1999 (96 and 30 respectively out of a total of 169), with bombings the most popular method of attack, followed by firebombing, kidnapping, arson, and hijacking. But the State Department numbers are misleading, because an incident is classified as international terrorism only if it involves the citizens or territory of more than one country; thus terrorism within countries not harming foreign nationals is not counted. A more accurate accounting comes from Pinkerton Security's Annual Risk Assessment, which show an average of almost 5,000 incidents per year during the last decade, with terrorism confined to one country. Yet even these numbers don't account for terrorist actions by governments. Indeed, while hijackings and suicide bombings get the most attention, the fact is that the most common act of terror is torture committed by states against their own citizens, as Amnesty International reports that tens of thousands of cases of torture and extra-judicial killings occur each year (and complains that more often than not, the U.S. "shares the blame" for them). Terrorism by the IRA, the PLO and other Palestinian groups, Sikhs, Tamils, Basques, Philippino Muslims -- none of these has succeeded in altering the policies of the affected states. Neither has state-sponsored terror by Rogue states led to the defeat of an enemy. However, if the goal of terrorist acts by these groups is to prevent peace and reconciliation, terrorism has worked. The variables determining the success or failure of acts of terror are thus indeterminate and complex. Perhaps the most we can say is that terror can help the stronger party in a conflict win more quickly and with less loss of life on its side (the rationale underlying the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings or the massacre of Palestinians in 1948). Yet as perpetrators of terrorism move away from single issue causes (freeing Northern Ireland or Palestine) and become more apocalyptic, hoping like Osama bin Laden to start war on a global scale, the standard for measuring success changes, as the worst possible scenario on all sides is exactly what is hoped for. In such a situation it becomes all the more important for citizens and leaders in the West and its allies in the Muslim world -- in fact, all people everywhere -- to understand the role their policies, and indeed the whole world system as presently and unequally structured, plays in the fostering and sustaining this new generation of terrorists. Yet the scope and horror of the violence inflicted by the new terrorism makes such introspection all but impossible. In this sense, Osama bin Laden and his comrades around the world might achieve their goals through their very destruction. The effect of terrorism is like a stream of water which tackles down to the most innocent being…. (World) The effect of terrorist attacks has a great magnitude on global economy. After an attack on a country like the US, the world’s economy will collapse because of the fear of more attacks or of revenge from the victimized country. Because the horrifying attack on the US, all stock exchange markets in that country closed all operations early in the morning after the incident. As a result of that, other markets around the world closed also, after terrible falls like the “Bolsa Mexicana de Valores” which closed with a 5.5% loss, In Brazil the BOVESPA index closed after an 8.11% loss, the Argentinean market closed with a 5.18% loss and in Paris it closed with a 7.39% loss. Another important effect of terrorism greatly lies in the tourism industry. As we all know that a great percentage of a country’s income are from this industry. After a country has suffered from a terrorist attack the magnitude of the one that shook the world, especially Americans, today, will surely affect the trust that people have on that country’s security system. It will make tourists think twice when planning to visit the country. This has already happened recently in some countries of the Asian region as well as in the United States. In a statistics conveyed by a major American firm insurer, the terror attacks on the United States brought this year's global disaster losses to more than $115 billion. Already, 248,000 jobs have been lst because of the attacks, and an additional 5.6 million are expected to be lost this year.. (Philippines) In the Philippines of the major causes of the country’s economic depression is the terroristic acts of Abu Sayaff. Ever since Abu Sayaff raided and abducted foreigners in nearby Malaysia, Tomist and business investors shied away from our country thus terrorism industry crashed not even our neighboring Japanese tourist would dare come and visit our country. The Philippines is included in travel advisories of other countries as a dangerous place to visit. With this circumstances, not only travel agencies suffered but local Tourist communities as well. Dollar became a scare commodity which also affected the lives of those poor people who are dependent on the revenue brought in by tourist. Another industry that is very much affected is the Business industry which directly affects the labor industry. Ever since Abu Sayyaf raided and kidnapped Dos Palmas resort in Palawan, many potential investors shield away from the Philippines. This move deprived employment to many Filipinos. Foreign investors who has businesses in the Philippines before the kidnapping, severed their contracts which resulted in the lay-off of many workers and laborers thus increasing unemployment rate. All we have to do is look at both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide to understand that violence, including terrorism by a state or occupied population, rarely stops further violence as long as the grievances motivating them are not addressed. In that context, 15 years ago Connor Cruise O'Brien warned that "the free, or capitalist, world provides highly favorable conditions for terrorist recruitment and activity." Why? Because the number of frustrated were increasing along with their awareness of how good life was for the few and better off. Ten years later, Bill Clinton made the "war on terrorism" a lynchpin of his reelection campaign just as the neo-liberal paradigm of globalization he championed achieved unparalleled power in international policy-making. It should come as no surprise, then, that in pushing for Star Wars funds, the U.S. Space Command's pamphlet "Vision for 2020" argues that "the globalization of the world economy" will widen the gap between haves and the have-nots, and thus the U.S. government has a mission to "dominate the space dimension of military operations" in order to protect the U.S. from the rest of the world. In the context of a world were conservative estimates declare half of humanity to be living on less than $2 a day, asking the CIA or other military agencies to fight terrorism is probably not going to work, as the "blowback" from policies that produce ever-widening gaps between rich and poor between and within countries will likely be at least as bad as the blowback produced by the CIA overthrow of the Mossadeq Government and installation of the Shah of Iran in 1953. Even on an operational level, as former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote only months before the 9/11 attacks, it has proved impossible to place even the best trained Muslim operative into the tight-knit structures that constituted contemporary terrorist organizations. As for America's technological supremacy, President Clinton sent dozens of cruise missiles after bin Laden, none of which hit their target. From a broader perspective, the ever growing world trade in arms, which fuels violence at all levels, has multiplied opportunities for anyone with a grievance to spread terror anywhere, including here. Yet our entire military-industrial system is based on the large-scale trade in arms, which helps to fund our own defense budget. Finally, since much of the rest of the world, especially citizens of the Global South, harbor deep resentments against the United States for its "cultural invasion" as much as for its economic and foreign policies, using unilateral acts of large-scale violence in the war against terrorism will only feed that hatred. Terrorism in the past years has been politically motivated, in the future; it will be religiously motivated. This might cause a major problem in the future because each year more and more people create or advance a religion to suit their liking. They now will have a sense of what is supposed to be right and will do anything to get that across. Terrorism will never end; it is up to the human race to be better educated in the subject and to make the right decision. There is no final solution to a problem as complex as this, no quick fix for the problems whose pressure has embittered this small part of the world’s population. Poverty and discontent exist; however, with work and wisdom there is hope. But a substantial fraction of real acts of retail terror arise out of world failures to alleviate widespread misery and injustice and to deal intelligently and humanely with local and regional grievances. These more important causes of retail terrorism could be alleviated by responsible policies addressed to sources of endemic conflict and mass distress. Based on the data gathered, the researchers therefore conclude that: 1. Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force against civilians designed to bring about political or social change 2. Terroristic acts have been the resort of peoples who often frustrated with their position in society. They may in some way feel persecuted or oppressed because of their race, religion or they feel exploited by a government. Terrorists conduct their acts of violence outside the boundaries of societal norms. 3. As early as the 17 hundredths (795), terrorism can be traced back, relating to the Reign of Terror instituted by the French Government. 4. The proliferation of the Abu Sayaff group in the Mindanao as well as rebel groups all over the Philippines is an instantaneous proof the terrorism is prevalent here in our country. 5. The theological roots of terrorism or war in general would seem to be moot, for religion has long been used to justify politics and warfare. Nonetheless, this has not stopped the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon from considering themselves to be good Muslims, nor the Jews who uproot Palestinian homes or Serbs who kill Muslims in Bosnia from considering themselves to be good Jews or Christains. Arguing with them about the "true" nature of their religion is a waste of time. They might indeed by "good" Christians, Muslims or Jews, but are in the end bad human beings. 6. Furious activities such as bombing, kidnapping, hijacking are frequenty used by terrorist to initiate and reiterate their demands. 7. As can be viewed and traced back in the History, no Terroristic groups had ever succeeded in altering the policies of the affected states. Neither has state-sponsored terror by Rogue states led to the defeat of an enemy. However, if the goal of terrorist acts by these groups is to prevent peace and reconciliation, terrorism has worked. 8. Terrorism imposes a magnitude on the global economy. World’s economy will collapse because of the fear of more attacks or of revenge from the victimized country, thus hindering the investors from building up and opening their business. Terrorism greatly impose a great threat in our country specially to the tourism industry which has been the primary source of the country’s income. 9. The theological roots of terrorism or war in general would seem to be moot, for religion has long been used to justify politics and warfare. Nonetheless, this has not stopped the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon from considering themselves to be good Muslims, nor the Jews who uproot Palestinian homes or Serbs who kill Muslims in Bosnia from considering themselves to be good Jews or Christains. Arguing with them about the "true" nature of their religion is a waste of time. They might indeed by "good" Christians, Muslims or Jews, but are in the end bad human beings. Based on the Conclusion, the researchers recommend the following: 1. Conduct a survey and indepth analysis of the causes of terroristic acts.. It is by understanding the root cause the one can seek solutions. 2. We must all join forces and fight against terrorism, because what happened today in the United States of America is not a human act. There is no good reason for killing thousands of innocent people just because you don’t like the way it’s government behaves. Bibliography: Word Count: 12820
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.