Controversial Word: Terrorism - Essay Example

Argument of Definition Controversial word- Terrorism Terrorism encompasses attempts to further the views of an individual or group of people by a system of coercive intimidation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Terrorism is an unauthorized and unofficial intimidation of others and use of violence to pursue political aims (Waite 950). The Urban Dictionary gives a more populist meaning of the word by stating that it is when a person’s or a group of people’s fear is manipulated for gaining forceful agreements to certain objectives. Terrorism is not war whereby either a state or non-state actors carry out an organized and prolonged conflict characterized by extreme violence and economic destructions. Reign of terror, agitation, scare tactics, chaos, unrest, civil war and uproar are some of the words people use to refer to terrorism. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the French first used the word terrorism in 1795 to refer to the regime’s intimidation witnessed in France from March 1793 to July 1794 during the reign of terror. The word terrorism in French is terrorisme. The events that occurred in the US on September 11 2001 are not the only form of terrorism even though they are one of the most publicized attacks. The terrorists’ main mode of operations in executing these activities includes exterminating masses, causing maximum economic damage and disrupting society as well as creating a climate of fear. These attacks are usually coordinated and undertaken without any previous warning. Terrorism involves instilling fear in people who do not agree with the group or non-state’s agenda. The modern media, whose efforts are to communicate a complex and convoluted message in the shortest amount of print or airtime available, has labelled a range of violent acts as terrorism. For a long time, people have been associating terrorism with Muslims and describing it as bombing of people due to the 9/11 attacks, a massacre of civilians or assassinations of heads of state. However, these descriptions of terrorism are not correct since non-Muslims who are common criminals, rioters, antigovernment dissidents or the governments themselves may perform these acts. It has been more than a decade since 9/ 11 event. There have been other equally hideous bombings in Madrid and London. The sophistication of terror attacks has increased rapidly over the years (Campos & Martin 27). These atrocities have not only caused loss of human life but they have also led to adverse economic consequences. Terrorism causes a reduction in productive investment, increase in uncertainty and a larger share of a state’s output going to the process involved in combating terrorism activities (Campos & Martin 27). Motivations and goals of terrorists vary widely. They vary from grand schemes to aims that are more distinct. The grand schemes include activities like the total remaking of a society along fundamental religious or doctrinaire ideological lines and the fulfilment of divinely inspired millenarian imperatives. The more distinct aims include unification of undivided states to the reestablishment of national homelands. Nevertheless, issue-specific causes such as animal rights, banning of abortion or other environmental concerns still motivates some terrorists. These individuals seek to apply direct pressure on the public and the government. The pressure is meant to make the legislators enact or repeal legislations that directly affect the terrorists’ particular interest. Despite the differences that exist between the different terrorist groups, the one thing that they have in common is that the actions they commit are not senseless or random. All the terrorists’ desire is for their actions to receive as much publicity as possible and aims at subjection and intimidation to attain their objectives. Hoffman argues that, “Terrorists seek to impress. All the actions they perform are a play to and for a specific audience for the solicitation of the audience’s participation (Hoffman 173).’ Some like-minded individuals carry out their initiatives knowing that people will assume that they are Muslims. These individuals take advantage of the simplicity of undertaking terror attacks in order to achieve maximum damage and publicity. They often do not possess strong ideological or religious motivation. Instead, they are driven by their own socioeconomic situation and their personal frustrations against their countries (Gunaratna & Oreg, 1043). Their main goal is to cause unrest in their countries due to their own personal frustrations. Those individuals who are unable to adjust to the new environment in Western societies often convert their hatred into terrorist activities (Gunaratna & Oreg, 1043). The escalation effect is a novel explanation for terrorism. It focuses on unstable domestic politics that normally provides required learning environment for carrying out terror attacks, hence rendering it increasingly sophisticated. Guerrilla Warfare, civil wars and riots predict where international terrorism originates. Its effects are stronger in poorer states and wicker in richer countries. The first deep cause for terrorism is democracy. This is because societies lack democratic liberties and end up constraining political protests into violent and clandestine forms including terrorism. Consequently, this is evident in Campos & Martin argument citing, “There are non-linear relationships between terror and political rights since terrorism is closely associated with political rights more than how political rights are associated with civil liberties (Campos & Martin 29).” Another cause of terrorism brought out by empirical studies is poverty. Studies show that when a government spends on health and education, incidences of terror attacks tend to decrease. Many people argue that there are links between failed states and terrorist networks operating within these states. A report produced by the Commission on Weak States in conjunction with the UN National Security propagated the awareness that, illegal transnational networks, in particular the criminal groups and terrorists, target the weak and the failed states to carry out their activities. Another cause may be the size of a state. When more people reside in urban areas, the terror attacks become more deadly. The population size is an important determinant of terror attacks. Conflict is another reason behind terrorism. Various studies have examined the role played by wars, interstate conflicts and the durability of a regime on occurrence of terrorism. This is according to Campos and Martin (30) contending, “Domestic terrorism events are responsible for causing subsequent transnational events with a unidirectional relationship” (Campos & Martin 30).” Countries responsible for helping terrorists indirectly they comprise enablers and motivators category in the war anti this misdeed. In some instances, the greatest contribution that a state can make to terrorism is simply not doing anything to stop the terrorists. Ignoring the fact that terrorists are holding fund raisings inside a particular country, not policing borders prone to be used by terrorists or even looking the other way when terrorist are busy recruiting citizens of a country are examples of how regimes normally enable terrorist activities. They go a long way in helping terrorists to build their organizations, conduct operations inside the borders of that state and survive. As a result, terrorists will not have any fear while planning attacks in a state knows not to act. This can be very dangerous in the face of terrorism. Several countries tolerate some kind of terrorist activity. These countries are not limited to the Middle East countries or states known for their rulers who are aggressive dictators. It is a sad fact to note that when terrorists were planning the September 11 attack, they recruited civilians to be soldiers and raised the money required to carry out their plans in Germany. They carried out all these activities without much interference. They further received finances from several Saudis without Riyadh government doing anything to stop it. The terrorists also planned and conducted some operations in Malaysia before sending their “soldiers” to the US. These governments do not sponsor terrorism in any way but their inaction proved an important, if not more important, as the Afghanistan government enabling a group of terrorists to plan and conduct the attacks. The training that took place in the US and the planning that took place in Germany was worse than the training camps in Afghanistan (Hoffman 64). The chain that leads to joining terrorist groups with like-minded individuals is very complex. There is no general theory based on conditions that lead to committing acts of terrorism. Since, the final decision depends on the judgments made by individuals regarding the available motivations. The choice of terrorism is not automatic. Internal bargaining and psychological considerations are responsible for influencing the decision to participate in terrorism. Scholars argue that before an individual decides to join a terrorist group, he or she has thought long and hard about it (Hoffman 257). Works Cited Top of Form “Online Etymology Dictionary.” Online Etymology Dictionary. 2013. Web. 2nd October 2014. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=terrorism&searchm ode=none Bottom of Form “Terrorism.” Urban Dictionary. 2014. Web. 3nd October 2014. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=terrorism Campos, Nauro F., and Martin Gassebner. "International Terrorism, Domestic Political Instability, And The Escalation Effect." Economics & Politics 25.1 (2013): 27-47. Business Source Complete. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. Gunaratna, R., & Oreg, A. Al Qaedas Organizational Structure and its Evolution. Studies In Conflict & Terrorism, 33.12 (2010): 1043-1078. Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. Print. Waite, Maurice. Pocket Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. Read More