Revised Terrorism - U.S. War on Terror/Al Qaeda

David Solomon

Professor Shirk

POL 357-B

5 May 2017

Revised Terrorism Essay

When looking back on the paper I wrote in February it is very clear that I was confused and found it difficult to define the term terrorism. I wish I could tell you that throughout the semester I was finally able to come to a definitive conclusion on how I define the term, but unfortunately that is not the case. Nevertheless, the various case studies we looked at during the course of the semester did make me question the definition I ended up providing in my last paper. In that paper my definition of terrorism was, “ terrorism is the natural progression throughout time of non-state groups using terror as a tactic against states in an attempt to achieve their own agenda.” For the most part I have not changed my mind on this definition, as I still see terrorism as a tactic used by non-state actors. However, my understanding of the difference between the terms terror and terrorism have become much more succinct. By discussing the strategies imposed by the U.S. War on Terror and the actions taken by Al Qaeda, I hope to show the difference between these two words and how it is vital in understanding why the word terrorism is even used. My new definition of terrorism is the strategical use of terror by non-state actors to promote and ultimately achieve their political agenda.

By labeling the U.S. War on Terror as terrorism one only blurs the lines between that and terror. When looking at terror itself, the sources of its provocation can come from a multitude of places. Terrorism on the other hand (as noted earlier) is a strategy a group inherits to accomplish a political goal. As we can see, just because terror can be observed in a certain situation it does not explicitly mean that terrorism was its cause. No one is denying the fact that use of drone strikes, torture, rendition, and bulk collection cause terror. However, since the United States is a sovereign nation it is seen on the international stage as being in a war, hence the title “War on Terror.” These so called acts of terrorism are thus deemed tactics of war and the causation of terror is simply a consequence of this fact. If a state were to commit terrorism it would be subsequently at the same time denying its legitimacy. Hypothetically speaking, this means that if the United States government were to start drone striking American citizens to enforce its authority, that this would not be deemed terrorism but rather something else. In other words, terrorism is illegitimate and if humanity wants to identify states as being legitimate, it cannot state that their actions are terrorism in fear of contradicting this reality.

This is why it is okay to label a group such as Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization. In essence, terrorism specifically defines the actions of non-state actors. Although the group claims to be leading a war on the metaphysical plane between Muslims and a Judeo-Christian alliance, this war is not identified as legitimate on the wider international stage. Al Qaeda as a group is not a sovereign power and do not have international recognition as such.  As a result, they are relegated to the status of non-state actor and thus the violent actions they commit against others are deemed terrorism.

Many critics may take this interpretation of the word terrorism and apply it to a case such as the Holocaust, arguing that this is a perfect example of a state committing terrorism. More specifically they would note that the systematic killing of six million Jews instilled fear and terror among not only the Jewish community but also the world. Lastly, they would see that denying this event as being terrorism is ultimately downplaying the horrific nature of this atrocity. However, my argument from the beginning has not to downplay the horrific nature of suspected acts of terrorism but rather a redefinition of term so that a more accurate understanding of it can be applied to world events. If anything, labeling the Holocaust terrorism only plays into the argument made by Lisa Stampnitzky that it is a term used by political experts and leaders to distinguish who the enemy is in the public eye. This abuse of the term has created a cloud of ambiguity that surrounds it misleading people’s understanding of it. As a consequence, it has made people believe that anything that instills terror must be terrorism.

Revised Terror Essay: Strategic Violence

Hattie Pipes

Professor Shirk

Global Politics of Terror

May 5, 2017

Strategic Terror

In, Terror as a Tactic, I argued that terrorism is complex but that terrorists employ strategic violence. The essay discussed modern terror (1980s forward), and noted that most terrorist organizations employ strategic violence to further a political ideology. Taking this course challenged my belief that terrorists are inherently evil and forced me to realize that terror is a tool. Al Qaeda and HAMAS are terrorist groups because they employ strategic violence to promote fear and instability. The tactics employed by terrorist groups vary but often include establishing a target, employing violence against that target, and then recruiting others by instigating discontent and advertising violence. This essay will focus on Osama Bin Laden’s, Messages to the World, and HAMAS Charter to illustrate the strategic violence both groups employ to promote instability and fear.

Primary Case Study: Messages to the World

Terrorists can use IEDs, arsonage, and steal supplies and weapons, but unless they target a specific nation, race, or industry their efforts will not be concentrated and their chance of defeating the enemy is negligible. When comparing al Qaeda and ISIS strategies al Qaeda’s goal to establish a global caliphate is less concrete and more difficult to achieve. ISIS is easier to target and defeat militarily as they claim and conquer territory. Ideologically it is more challenging to refute al Qaeda’s tactics, however, their strategy for action is weaker than ISIS’.

In, Messages to the World, Bin Laden praises Sheikh Hamud bin Abdallah bin Uqla al-Shu’aybi for emphasizing “the duty of fighting the Americans and fighting the Israelis in Palestine, making [attacks] on their blood and wealth permissible.” (Messages to the World, 13). Al Qaeda often justifies action by pointing to the wrongs committed by the New World Order, supposedly led by America. Bin Laden calls upon the umma in Palestine to combat the Crusaders. “It is no secret to you, my brothers, that the people of Islam have been afflicted with oppression, hostility, and injustice by the Judeo-Christian alliance and its supporters” (4). Bin Laden calls for Muslims to act and condemns those who do not adhere to Islamic precepts. It is not a suggestion but a duty of the umma to confront the New World Order and anyone who supports that order. Disagreeing with Bin Laden meant being ostracized at best and dead at worst. By identifying the enemy Bin Laden forces Muslims to choose: they are either for al Qaeda or for the Judeo-Christian alliance.

In the past al Qaeda has spurred on discontent by videotaping executions of Westerners. By advertising violence and promoting terror in the region the group asserts its ability and willingness to fight Western ideals. Al Qaeda has carried out six major attacks, including two in America. Four of the six attacks were aimed at refuting American authority. On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda attacked two United States Embassies in Africa, one in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania and the other in Nairobi, Kenya. The bombings killed over 200 people and injured more than 4,000 ("Al-Qaida timeline”). On October 12, 2000 al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, killing seventeen American soldiers and injuring 39 (“Casualties”). September 11th, 2001 is an infamous day in American history when al Qaeda attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. These attacks electrified radicals within the Muslim community and challenged the United States authority. Al Qaeda also supports insurgents who fight U.S.-backed regimes. Ultimately, terror spurs on instability and fear through violence; al Qaeda employs brutal tactics like executions and bombings to instigate confusion.

In order to rally support, Bin Laden ideologically isolates Islam as the one true religion. This also promotes fear among non-Muslims in the Middle East. Establishing a target justifies action. This stark differentiation between the enemy and the hero is evident when examining the Holocaust as Christopher Browning notes in his book, Ordinary Men, “The Jews stood outside [the] circle of human obligation and responsibility. Such a polarization between ‘us’ and ‘them’ between one’s comrades and the enemy, is of course standard in war” (Browning, 73). Browning’s quote alludes that it is not just terrorist groups who harbor animosity towards the perceived enemy, after all, the United States declared the “War on Terror”.

It is doubtful that Bin Laden is overly concerned with the Palestinian people or establishing a Palestinian state, yet he recognizes in Messages to the World that including their grievances can instigate violence. Bin Laden claims their struggle is related to al Qaeda’s goal of establishing Shar’ia law. “Bin Laden’s vision was to create a vanguard of elite fighters who could lead the global jihad project and bring together the hundreds of small jihadist groups struggling, often feebly, against their own regimes under a single umbrella” (Byman). Bin Laden aimed to unite and empower radical groups in the Middle East and silence anyone who opposed them. He justified this by labeling the Western Crusaders as evil. Just as Bin Laden views Islam as the true religion so too does the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Secondary Case Study: HAMAS Charter

HAMAS or the Islamic Resistance Movement was founded in 1987. The group claims that, “In the absence of Islam, conflict arises, oppression reigns, corruption is rampant and struggles and wars prevail” (Hamas Charter, Article 6). Similar to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, they aim to establish a Palestinian state and are adamantly opposed to Zionism. Just like al Qaeda and the PLO, HAMAS sees violence as a tool to achieve their ends. The group believes armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. The PLO and HAMAS charters emphasize a willingness to do whatever it takes to reclaim the arab homeland-even resort to violent tactics. By incorporating the acceptance of violence in their charter they suggest violence is a legitimate tool.

While the Palestinian Liberation Organization may be likened to a Congress of Palestinian organizations HAMAS is less open to cooperating with international organizations like the United Nations. They are radicalized and emphasize that those opposed to Islam are the enemy of the movement. HAMAS is “hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts” (HAMAS Charter, Article 31). Strategically and psychologically it is reasonable to create cognitive distance between oneself and the enemy. The standard of war is pitting people against one another to defend an ideology, religion, governmental system or other interest. Dehumanization is a powerful tactic which is common in war. Al Qaeda aims to openly confront the West and instigate violence. Strategically the first step in instigating violence is to convince people to fight the enemy by portraying them as inherently wrong and evil.

Terrorist groups like HAMAS and al Qaeda target nations and people groups due to religious or political differences. “When the Faith wanes, there is no security/ There is no this-worldliness for those who have no faith/ Those who wish to live their life without religion/ Have made annihilation the equivalent of life” (HAMAS Charter, Article 6). After establishing their enemy should be annihilated or attacked they persuade or force others to commit to violence against that group. HAMAS views political action as a game and a gamble. This is a common theme among terror organizations and rebel groups. Peter Young, an advisor to the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) believes that all too often, “laws are not in line with morals” (“Direct Action”). Terrorist groups often take matters into their own hands to ensure that their interests will be protected. This attitude is reminiscent of a toddler yelling “gimme” when they see an adult with something they want. Their desire for decisive and quick action destabilizes the region.

There’s a reason why the Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution made it difficult to amend. They recognized that rapid change can be detrimental to long term stability within a country. A strong military can only maintain peace temporarily. Once the dictator or leader falls out of power the need for a stable governmental system is evident. Hatred and violence may unite people temporarily but long-term stability requires politics.

Terror challenges the governmental system by disrupting traditional practices of dealing with disagreement. Charles Tilly of Columbia University notes in his article, Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists, that terror deploys threats “outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime” (Tilly, 1). Yet, this does not harm their concentrated efforts but actually strengthens them if they are able to gain the attention of the ruling party or regime. Violent action may also draw more recruits to their cause.  The primary goal of al Qaeda and HAMAS is not promoting peace in the region but: demonizing the enemy and challenging their legitimacy.

Concluding Thoughts:

There are a plethora of terrorist organizations with different goals. A terrorist group can advocate for animal rights, the establishment of a global caliphate, or freedom from colonial oppression. Even groups in similar geopolitical areas with similar goals vary, as evidenced by the PLO and HAMAS and al Qaeda and ISIS. Although, each terrorist organization possesses a unique goal they often employ similar strategies.

Terrorism is a dynamic term; however, it exhibits some constant traits. Terrorists employ violence to refute an established authority. Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and former Pentagon official notes that, “In every era…weak forces utilize surprise, technology, innovative tactics, or what some might consider violations of military etiquette to challenge the strong.” Terrorist groups in the Middle East instil fear by attacking those who are not associated with Islam. They force others to adhere to their strict religious beliefs and promote instability to further their political aims. Terrorists often employ the strategic use of violence to voice their grievances and their desire for a new world order. Terrorists do not adhere to conventional warfare and are often weak actors who resort to violent tactics. Religiously motivated terrorism is commonly used by rebel groups in the Middle East to refute Western Authority. Ultimately, terror is a tool which strategically promotes fear and instability.

Bibliography

"Al-Qaida timeline: Plots and attacks – World news – Hunt for Al-Qaeda | NBC News". MSNBC. Retrieved 1 May 2017.

"Casualties: U. S. Navy and Marine Corps Personnel Killed and Wounded in Wars, Conflicts, Terrorist Acts, and Other Hostile Incidents". Naval History & Heritage Command. Retrieved 15 July 2012.

Byman, Daniel. “Comparing al Qaeda and ISIS: Different goals, different targets.” Brookings. 29 April 2015. Retrieved 1 May, 2017.

"Direct Action, Prison, and Sabotage: An Interview with the Animal Liberation Front's Peter Young", Animal Voices: on Vancouver Co-op Radio, CFRO, 100.5FM. Accessed 28 April, 2017. http://animalvoices.org/2012/09/direct-action-prison-and-sabotage-an-interview-with-the-animal-liberation-fronts-peter-young/

Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists.” Sociological Theory 22.1 (March, 2004): p 1.

Rubin, Michael. “Asymmetrical Threat Concept and its Reflections on International Security” Presentation to the Strategic Research and Study Center (SAREM) under the Turkish General Staff Istanbul, (May 2007), p 1. Accessed 4 Feb. 2017.

Terrorism Revisited

Jon Rockwood

Terrorism Revisited

            In the beginning of our class on global terrorism, I defined terrorism as: the use of unconventional violence and terror, deployed by non-state actors against an enemy government or civilian non-combatants, in pursuit of a political goal or agenda. Now, after a semesters worth of analyzing different groups and actions that have categorized as terrorism, I still believe those are core pillars to defining terrorism. To make my definition more condensed, I believe terrorism is the use of unconventional violence, used by non-state actors against non-combatant targets, to achieve a political goal or an ideological agenda. After analyzing multiple accounts of possible acts of terrorism throughout the course has facilitated my ability to support my definition. John Brown and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) are two examples of non-state actors who used unconventional violence towards non-combatants in an attempt to accomplish their goals.

            John Brown, the pre-Civil War abolitionist, is widely taught in American textbooks as freedom fighter, battling slavery. Though that is a moral cause, the actions and tactics he used against slave owners should categorize him as a terrorist. John Brown used guerilla type tactics when he attacked and murdered pro-slavery men at Pottawamie. Brown also committed arson on many properties of those who supporters of slavery, regardless of if they owned slaves or not. These unconventional tactics of violence at the time were messages to anyone in Kansas that supported slavery was a possible target to be attacked and killed. Ironically, some of the violent tactics that Brown used to keep Kansas a free territory were the same tactics later used by the KKK to show support for slavery, a very immoral cause. John Brown’s strategies used to promote his anti-slavery agenda are terroristic in nature, and therefore he should be considered a terrorist based on his actions.

            The ELF is a domestic environmentalist group that has committed atrocities against companies that, in the ELF’s eyes, are killing the environment. The primary targets of the terroristic attacks are logging companies that operate in the American-Northwest. The group will burn down the logging companies to advocate their goal of saving the environment. Although the group doesn’t kill civilians during their arsons, they decimate lifestyles. By destroying the logging company, not only do they destroy a source of income for thousands of people, they also instill paranoia in the company, fearing if they build another facility it will also be destroyed. This is another example of a group backing a moral cause but uses extreme, unlawful measures to accomplish their goal. The ELF is a good example that terrorists need not kill people but using extreme violence outside of a social norm, against an enemy that is not engaging back at them, and is motivated by an ideological agenda is what categorizes them as terrorists.

                        Terrorism and the ways to combat it will always continue to change for the rest of history. With the changing of terror tactics deployed by those seeking to intimidate others, the definition of what terrorism is will also continue to change. In my opinion, I believe terrorism is the use of unconventional violence, used by non-state actors against non-combatant targets, to achieve a political goal or an ideological agenda. Furthermore, I do not believe that states can commit terrorism nor can terrorism be committed between combatants in an active conflict. Additionally, what separates a criminal from a terrorist is the presence of a political or ideological goal. John Brown and the Earth Liberation Front are both groups that some would not consider terrorists because of the moral causes they fought for. But based on the type of violence they used, against non-combatants in pursuit of ideological goals, they should be categorized as terrorists. By outlining concrete characteristics of what terrorism is, I believe those who commit it will be held responsible for their actions, and the global war on terror will continue to succeed.

Revised Terrorism

In my first definition of terrorism I was very broad with my definition. I said that terror was a tactic that can be used by any actor, both state and non-state. Throughout the class and the case studies, my definition has been narrowed and become more specific. Now I believe a terrorist is a non-state actor that uses violence, against people as well as property, as a tactic for religious or political reasons. I believe there should be different classification of terrorism, one being violence against people and the lesser one being violence against property. There are many different types of groups that may use terror as a tactic, such as countries and drug cartels, but they are doing so for financial gain or to try and control their people. Two groups that represent this definition well are the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Al Qaeda.

The ELF are a domestic terrorist group that attacked industrial and residential properties that they believed were destroying the Earth. This action is called “monkeywrenching” and it is against establishments that are harming the environment, people, and animals. They tend to burn logging mills, destroy vehicles, and attack larger homes. This is economic sabotage because they are attacking the industries that they believe are destroying the Earth. They are limiting the effectiveness of the companies and intimidating others from joining the industry. These are civilians whose properties are being attacked and the lifestyles of many people are being damaged. They believe that their actions are nonviolent because they are not hurting any living creatures, however, they are still terrorizing them by negatively effecting their income.

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that are fighting for the Islamic god Allah. They are on a global crusade against western ideals, especially United States’ intervention in the Middle East. They believe they are fighting back against the ideals and oppression that the West has imposed on them. One of their main leaders, Osama bin Laden, once said, “I say that jihad is without doubt mandatory for all Muslims, to free al- Aqsa, or to save the weak in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and all Islamic lands; there is no doubt that freeing the Arabian Peninsula from the polytheists is also compulsory.”

Al Qaeda has had numerous attacks around the world, but their main attack was on 9/11. They flew planes into the World Trade Center, the pentagon, and attempted to fly into the White House. This attack was primarily against civilians in the World Trade Center, but Al Qaeda believes that you are with them or against them. If a person is working in the West and is contributing, they are still a target. Al Qaeda uses violence as their technique to portray their views of the West. This creates fear across a broad amount of people because they attack on a global scale and attack anyone who is not affiliated with them. This is the worst form of terrorism due to the number of deaths and the larger spread of terror.

Both of these organizations are drastically different. One attacks property and are trying to make a political difference, while the other uses violence against people and are doing so for religious beliefs. However, both of these groups are labeled terrorist. They are committing these actions for political or religious reasons and are using violent tactics against people or property. I think it is important that both groups are labeled terrorists because of their tactics and ideologies. However, it is difficult to compare groups when one has killed thousands of people while the other has destroyed millions of dollars in property.

Revised Terrorism Essay

Grace Picariello
April 26, 2017

Revised Terrorism Essay

Back in January when the terrorism class began, I thought that terrorism had to mean the use of violence against non-combatant targets, by non-state actors, in order to achieve a political goal of some sort. Today, I believe that same exact thing. The case studies that we talked about this semester have reinforced my belief that the United States State Department has created the definition of terrorism that ought to be universally accepted. In order to prove this I will cite two different case studies that we have looked at over the course of the semester. The first is the Earth Liberation Front, and the second is Al Qaeda. By looking at the actions of these groups separately, and eventually drawing connections between the two, it will be determined that both of these groups were subnational, both groups targeted civilians, and both groups were politically motivated. 

The Earth Liberation Front, or the ELF, is a domestic environmental terrorist group that has committed violent acts against logging businesses. The group of fourteen members banned together, passionate about saving the environment, to burn down several logging buildings and headquarters. Although they did not kill any civilians in the crusades, they did destroy the livelihoods of several people by destroying their source of income both temporarily and, in some cases, permanently. Furthermore, the ELF was motivated by politics completely. The environment is at the forefront of political debate and they took a strong stance in favor of protecting the climate. No matter how noble of a cause this might be, the way that the ELF went about making change or asserting their opinions was illegal and qualifies as terrorism. 

Al Qaeda is one of the most known terrorist groups in the world, especially to the United States. They are based in Afghanistan and other countries in the Middle East. Al Qaeda is a confirmed subnational group. They are completely separate from the state's official government. Al Qaeda primarily targets civilians by using violence and instilling fear and terror in them. Al Qaeda's political goal is to create a global jihad. They do not have an interest in gaining and ruling over land as a government, such as ISIS does. However, they do want their ideas to spread across the world, thus destroying Western ideologies that the United States and much of Europe values so much. All of these factors together qualify them as a terrorist group in the eyes of the United States and much of the world.

Researching different terrorist groups throughout the course of the semester has reinforced my belief in what the definition of terrorism is. I still do not believe that state actors can be classified as terrorists. I also do not think that combatants targeting combatants counts as a terrorist act. Lastly, if someone is not politically or ideologically motivated, they cannot be labeled a terrorist. The Earth Liberation Front, Al Qaeda, and several other groups understood to be terrorist organizations fit all of these characteristics laid out by the U.S. State Department. With this definition in place, the amount of things able to be tried as terrorism decreases which is helpful when it comes to counter-terror policies. Although the word "terror" has many different proposed definitions, the most useful and widely accepted is the one described here.

Abu Sayyaf and al Qaeda

            Terrorism, as we know, is a term that incredibly difficult to find a one definition that is widely accepted. An even more difficult task is accurately labeling a group or specific people as terrorist organizations or individual terrorists. This quagmire is demonstrated in categorizing some groups, whereas it extremely easier to determine the category of other groups. The two groups, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and al Qaeda fit the scenario just mentioned perfectly. Where it is difficult to concretely declare the ASG a terrorist group, it couldn’t be clearer that al Qaeda is a terrorist group. I believe that due to the more criminal nature of the acts committed by Abu Sayyaf, as compared to the large-scale acts of terror committed by al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf should not be categorized as a terrorist group.

            Motive behind any action is usually the determining factor on how that act is labeled. Under the leadership of Ghalib Andang, also known as Commander Robot, the ASG was a bandit group than anything else during his time in command. The “‘entrepreneurs of violence,’” as they have been called, use kidnappings of foreigners on vacation or foreign journalists as some of their most profitable operations (Santos and Dinampo, 126). In the cases of the Sipdan and Dos Palmas kidnappings, “it soon became clear that money was the object,” and the kidnappings were purely criminal (Santos and Dinampo, 126). Islamic beliefs and political motives were never a real factor for kidnappings, as one person who was kidnapped learned, “they were only out to make money,” and that “they only used Islam as a front,” because “it was easy for them to recruit followers because they offered huge sums to entice people to join them” (Santos and Dinampo, 126). Kidnapping people for monetary gains should not be a deciding factor in why a group is labeled as terrorists – it does not separate them from any other criminal on the street looking to make a quick buck.

            This is unlike al Qaeda’s motives for their attacks. Clearly slated in fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, Osama bin Laden proclaimed to all of his jihadist followers, “Cavalry of Islam, be mounted...You should know that your coming-together and cooperation in order to liberate the holy places of Islam is the right step towards unification of the word of our umma under the banner of God’s unity” (Lawrence, 30). Al Qaeda should be categorized as a terrorist organization because they commit attacks of terror in the name of Islam. Most definitions of terrorism note the importance of a religious or political motive, as clearly seen in al Qaeda and noticeably absent from the ASG.

            However, with a shift in leadership, it looks as though the ASG is becoming more terroristic in nature. With more attacks towards “civilians or non-combatants, and spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population related to some political objective,” the ASG seems to be shifting towards a more radicalized group (Santos and Dinampo, 130). Though those characteristics of their attacks fit within most definitions of terrorism, I still believe that because the ASG should not be deemed a terrorist group. First, the ASG acted much more like criminals than terrorists in the early 2000’s, which saw a rise of international terrorism, therefore it is too early to categorize them other than radical criminals with substantial funds to fund their semi-rogue attacks. Second, there is no firm stance for political reform or the spread of religion with the ASG, a key factor separating terrorist attacks from isolated attacks of violence.

Bibliography

Lawrence, Bruce. Messages to the World – The Statements of Osama bin Laden. New York:         Verso, 2005. 30.

Santos, Soliman M., Paz Verdades M. Santos, Octavio A. Dinampo, and Diana Rodriguez. "Abu   Sayyaf Reloaded: Rebels, Agents, Bandits, Terrorists (Case Study)." Primed and             Purposeful: Armed Groups and Human Security Efforts in the Philippines. Geneva:            Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2010. 126-30.