The Role of the Internet in Homegrown Islamist Terrorism in the West - Assignment Example

International Terrorism 1. Describe the role of the Internet in Homegrown Islamist terrorism in the West. The internet is enabling radicalization among terrorists to occur quicker, wider and more anonymous (Christophor & Alexander, 2009, pp. 67). Christophor & Alexander (2009) further says the internet raises the possibility of the unknown self-starter terrorist groups to launch attacks. The situation is complicated by the fact that those involved in radicalization process often behave normally and are usually unremarkable. The internet enables an individual to undergo radicalization process unnoticed. For example, homegrown terrorists share a deep-seated religious faith, hatred for the Western culture and sense of discrimination from their societies. These homegrown terrorist networks are loosely knit and are usually fluid in nature. The networks may or may not have international links but are associated with violent ideologies and the internet is the common media, which influences these groups through the sharing of radical propaganda. Websites on the internet are used to radicalize or indoctrinate the people’s mind hence transforming them from sympathizers into active terrorists. The internet websites offer organized trainings. By watching extremists content over the internet, individuals acquire final moral support to carry out terror attacks (Magnus, 2007, pp. 18). Radical imams and preachers actively spread their messages via the internet and since they speak from authoritative position in the religious issues they are likely to influence the believe system of young people. The internet has been a key facilitator of radicalization process. For instance, the Madrid train bombers who were indicted had 50 electronic books on their computers, which they had downloaded from the internet (Girma, 2010, pp. 88). In addition, the Hofsad group had military manuals, which they had downloaded from the internet. Furthermore, those who had planned to blow German train became radicalized as a result of internet propaganda. Their bombs were assembled using instructions obtained via the internet (Girma, 2010, pp. 134). The internet is used to spread messages among terror group members who can access messages, which are often saved as draft to avoid interception by intelligence authorities, to hide training manuals in legitimate directories, to research potential targets using text and imagery technologies and for fund raising that is usually anonymous. 2. What is the most popular terrorist tactic today and why? Violence is the most popular terrorist tactic today in that terror groups believe that it is only through violence that their cause of victory and their political objectives be achieved (Girma, 2010, pp. 16). Violence may be used by a terror group to attract attention, sympathy, acknowledgement and support of the cause of the terrorists. Terrorists also use violence because they want their rights and their group to be recognized. Violence may also be deployed by a terror gang to take absolute control of the national government, their people or their separate homeland by force. Living in the future is the common trait shared by all terrorist because they belief that if they die in the process, they will have eternal lives. This trait makes them have a burning impatience and unswerving belief in violence potency (Pamala & Sue, 2003, pp. 107). Terror groups carry out violence acts in various ways. These include assassination of public figures, genocide and murder of civilians; kidnapping, barricade incidents and hostage taking; hijackings; and armed assaults and bombings (Girma, 2010, pp. 99). For instance, Yigal Amir who belonged to organized group of dissidents achieved the political aim of his group which was opposed to concession to Palestine by assassinating Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 (Andrew, 2006, pp. 67). An example of hostage is the well published barricading and hostage that occurred between 1996 and 1997 where about 400 people were held hostage by the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement in Peru. The group held these hostages to demand the release of their group leader and other 300 group members (Andrew, 2006, pp. 47). Terrorist bombings are the most wide spread form of violence that is used by terror groups. It has been documented that between 1998 and 2006 over 74 separate terrorist attacks on railways worldwide (Magnus, 2007, pp. 12). Car bombings have also been witnessed in several cases worldwide. Bombing is preferred by terrorists because it results in numerous deaths and destruction of property. Examples of suicide bombing include the bombings of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya (Andrew, 2006, pp. 37). 3. What are the ‘root causes’ of terrorism? The root causes of terrorism are factors, which set the stage for long run terrorism. Many domestic terrorisms results from lack of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties (Magnus, 2007, pp. 99). Failed or weak states have no territorial control and the power vacuum that is created is exploited by terrorist organizations for training and launching terrorists’ campaign as witnessed in Afghanistan where the Taliban terror group and others occupy vast regions of the country. Another root cause of terrorism is rapid modernization and urbanization. The high economic growth has been strongly correlated to ideological terrorism emergence (Magnus, 2007, pp. 88-89). Another root cause of terrorism is the secular or religious nature of extremist ideologies. The adoption and application of these ideologies in the interpretation of situation and guidance of action often results in the dehumanization of the enemy and justification of atrocities (Andrew, 2006, pp. 38). According to Pamala and Sue (2003, pp. 66-68), the threshold for political violence and terrorism may be lowered by historical antecedents of revolutions, political violence, occupation or dictatorships. The historical grievances and injustices can thus be constructed to justify acts of terrorism. To this end when kids are socialized to celebrate revenge, martyrdom and hatred of other national or ethnic groups, their readiness to commit or support violent acts increases (Magnus, 2007, pp. 44). Another root cause of terrorism is hegemony and inequality of power. A group or a state that has limited power to forward its cause through either military or political means may opt to employ terrorism to achieve enormous political impact via limited means. Opposition to illegitimate governments may lead to terrorism if no realistic option for replacing such regimes is unavailable; for example, many terrorist groups belief that participation of USA in Iraq is illegal and hence may increase terrorism acts (Magnus, 2007, pp. 38). Upholding of illegitimate regimes by powerful foreign actors can also initiate acts of terrorism. The chief root cause of terrorism is discrimination on the basis of ethnic or religion (Andrew, 2006, pp. 67). Alienation of dissident groups by the state may opt to terrorism to express and promote their political change and influence. Moreover, Andrew (2006, pp. 37-40) says that social revolutionary terrorism results from social injustice experiences. Finally, charismatic ideological leaders can influence individuals to become violent. 4. What is CBRN terrorism and how likely is it? CBRN terrorism involves the use of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons to carry out their acts of violence (Andrew, 2006, pp. 67). Terrorists are likely to employ these weapons but currently this is limited by several factors (Girma, 2010, pp. 99-100). First, they lack technical ability to develop these weapons but in case they get access to such knowledge then they can utilize them in committing their violent acts. Second, terrorists lack the required resources, that is, materials and funds to develop the weapons. The third factor is that the terrorists lack motivation to pursue the use of these weapons since they feel that what they are currently using is good enough to drive their point (Andrew, 2006, pp. 83). Finally, terrorism fears the repercussion from the public or target outcry (Girma, 2010, pp. 66). In spite these challenges, some terror groups have attempted to acquire and employ CBRN weapons in their heinous acts of terrorism. For example, (Girma, 2010, pp. 16) says a biological attack of circa in 1984, which had salmonella bacteria, affected 751 persons. The encyclopaedia of Jihad has procedures for developing CBW and al Qaeda attempted to construct a Bacillus anthraces biological weapon, chemical weapon using cyanide and they have expressed interest in developing nuclear and radiological weapons (Girma, 2010, pp. 213-216). Therefore, most terrorist groups are unlikely to use CBRN weapons (Magnus, 2007, pp. 20). However, practical terrorists groups are likely to use CBRN weapons on some occasions to enhance conventional arsenals or to achieve certain objective. In spite this, practical terrorists unlikely to seek massive casualties. On the other hand, apocalyptic terror groups are likely to seek CBRN weapons to use them for massive casualties. 5. Is it possible to negotiate with terrorists? Dependent on the type of terrorism, negotiation can be possible sometimes and impossible sometimes (Magnus, 2007, pp. 18-23). For instance, terrorists involved in hijacking and kidnapping usually want negotiations to get a ransom for releasing the hijacked or kidnapped individuals. However, in some cases negotiation is impossible for example some terrorists believe that involving themselves in negotiations goes against their very raison d’être. Such terrorists derive their fulfilment from death and hence do not value the death of others. In addition, most negotiations are likely to be symbolic such as announcement over the media which terror gangs unworthy the efforts of negotiating (Magnus, 2007, pp. 18). Furthermore, many terrorist groups hold a belief that the use of violence means are likely to have greater influence in the society than democratic means. Such belief is likely to encourage violence in the society. Thus, terror groups are unlikely to be involved in negotiation. The opposition to negotiation is not one sided. Some governments have been vocal that negotiating with terrorists encourages terrorism (Pamala & Sue, 2003, pp. 29-31). However, some authors argue that negotiation per se does not lead to more terrorism but the result of negotiation such as acceptance to offer a ransom may encourage increased terrorism (Pamala & Sue, 2003, pp. 29-31). The main responsibility of the government is to protect life. In addition, most terrorists fight for particular political position. Thus, governments should be involved in negotiation or encourage negotiations between them and the terror groups for mutual benefits of saving lives but this should not be visualized to imply that they have accepted the heinous behaviour of the terror groups. Bibliography Andrew, D. (2006), Science and Technology Policies for the Anti Terrorism Era, London, Oxford University Press. Christophor D. & Alexander P. (2009), Counteraction to Chemical and Biological Terrorism in East. London, Sage. Girma, Y. (2010), Europe: The Future Battleground of Islamic Terrorism, Michigan, Wesley & Sons. Magnus, R. (2007), Mapping Terrorism Research: State Of The Art, Gaps and the Future Direction, London, Routedge. Pamala L. & Sue M. (2003), Terrorism in perspective, New York, Sage. Read More