Is Terrorism an Act of War?: Different Types of Terrorism

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Thesis
Different types of terrorism
9|11 and Osama Bin Laden. Terrorism as an act of war
Terrorism as not an act of war
Eco-terrorism in relation to terrorist acts
Bibliography

Thesis

The world of constant progress in technical and scientific fields provides more amenities for mankind making life better and more applied to contemporary reality. On the other hand, the urge of modern science provides a danger for mankind. The division of arms and weapons throughout the world is not fully regulated by the world community. Thus, terrorism emerged on grounds of such a situation. Moreover, other ways for the threatening people in various countries are supposed to use contemporary new ways of terrorism. Such suggestion appears to be especially applicable, within the context of defining how concepts of “war” and “terrorism” interrelate with each other. Among the main types of international terrorism, one should designate the cases of airplane hijacking, bombing buildings and places of huge public concentration, acts of destruction of buildings by means of male or female bombers, cyber terrorism, etc. The thing is that due to the policy of globalization and intrusion by major players in the world arena into the internal affairs of the Middle East countries and other ones worldwide the possibility of the negative reflection is rather high. So the international terrorism spreads its activity through many countries of the world. It is seen in the example of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other extremist groupings. Thus, the main topics of the essay fall into the characterization of terrorism and its types in terms of the contemporary stage of development in the world. Second, there is the discussion about 9|11 and Osama Bin Laden. Here the theme of terrorism as an act of war will be detached with concrete features. Third, the criticism of terrorism is detached in the paper asserting that it is not an act of war. Finally, the paper outlines the cases of eco-terrorism and its significance for the safety of natural and municipal material values. All in all the paper encompasses the difficult but rather diverse picture of terrorism for the last ten years. The motives of terrorists still terrify the world community. However, whereas, terrorism is not being considered as an act of war, it nevertheless represents an act of war.

Different types of terrorism

The current paragraph explains the threats of terror along with the types of terrorist acts. In this respect ever since the dawn of civilization, groups of people united by common interest used to wage wars on each other, as the ultimate mean of resolving seemingly irresolvable issues. Therefore, Carl von Clausewitz’s famous definition of war as merely a continuation of politics by military means remains fully valid even today. However, the problem is that in the post-industrial world, the subjects of geopolitics, entitled with a right to wage wars, cannot be easily defined because nowadays, the traditional notion of political sovereignty has been largely deprived of its theoretical validity.

It is important to understand that, up until comparatively recent times, the political developments in the international arena had remained the subject of international law. In its turn, the conceptual premise of such law has been defined by a Peace Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which was signed between European countries that participated in the Thirty Years War. According to this Treaty, every country’s sovereign right to define its form of government and its state religion, without the involvement of a third party, represents the legal foundation of international law.

The characterization of the international terrorism should be provided in terms of current and previously made cases of terror actions which are obvious on the examples throughout the world. The researchers of geopolitical development of the relations between world’s countries state that the roots of the contemporary terrorism lead to the instable situation in the Middle East. It is known that earlier the division of the world main dimensions and military actions was presupposed with the military and ideological opposition of two superpowers, namely: the USA and the USSR. In this respect the contradictions appeared between countries of the Middle East which were supported by one of the opposing countries. The real example is the war between Israel and Egypt (1969-1970). Then were military actions of Iraq against Kuwait etc. In all cases the situation touched upon two sides of confrontation in the world involved in Cold War.

Thus, it appears that; whereas, war continues to remain the ultimate tool of solving geopolitical problems, those who resort to military action as the most effective instrument of achieving their political goals, are being no longer concerned with observing the basics of international law – this is the actual origin of modern terrorism. This also explains the reason why, during the course of recent decade, the problem of international terrorism had acquired fully independent subtleties, while becoming a major headache for the governments of Western countries; whereas, as recent as thirty years ago, the existence of terrorist organizations was thought of as being simply the by-product of geopolitical confrontation between U.S. and Soviet Union.

Thus, the Cold War resulted in the continuation of resistance and opposition of some countries to gain peaceful development of the relations in the Middle East region. Terrorism began dominating as the global network of people all around the world who share the ideological persuasion in the wrong way of Western policy of regulatory measures according to the Islamic countries, in particular. It is so, because for the last 20 years after the Cold War the actions of extremist groupings headed by their ideological or religious leader comprised almost every country in the civilized world. Different means were used, among which the bombing and airplane hijacking still remain the favourite among terrorists.

Bombing is the terrorist act in which bombs or several explosive materials with the particular detonation mechanism are intended to be blown by the terrorists in public places. The thing is that the ideology of terrorist organization, such as Al Qaeda, Taliban, Fatah and others. Thus, the intention of terrorists to implode the bomb or explosive materials causing deaths of people is implemented by virtues of ordinary people which further appear to be male or female bombers. This method is still one of the most usable in the Middle East and throughout the world. Such action is done for the purpose of personal requirements and commands of terrorist organization’s leaders. These enforcement demands by terrorist include release of the members of the organization or stop providing current policy by local or international authorities.

Plane hijacking can be described as the act in which under the guise of ordinary passengers terrorists capture the airplane by means of weaponry menace having a lot of pawns at their disposal. On grounds of such situation terrorists put in definite claims in some aspects similar to the stated above. On the other hand, terrorists may just make demands as for the money reward and the ways for further hide of them in exchange for the lives of passengers.

Contemporary terrorism does not reject the technical and technological achievements of the time. Hence, the cyber war is spread via Internet when on official terrorist sites there are multiple bluffs as of possible terrorist acts in a definite place or country. This information in some respect can be untrue, but still the intelligence services keep a strict eye on such form of terrorism. In cyber space terrorists often publish the acts of their massacre on potential enemies of mostly Caucasian appearance. Also due to mass media and the Qatar international channel Al-Jazeera terrorists inform about their intentions at an early date. In fact, the influence of such terror is felt on ordinary people who are scared about their lives and lives of their relatives

Another type of terror acts is the chemical attack with gas. The implementation of this act can be promoted in the places of dense concentration of people of the indoor character in most cases, such as undergrounds, subways, theatres, cinemas etc. The poisonous gas is ejected in rush hours for the purpose to kill as more people at once as possible. The most viable example concerns sarin gas terrorist act by the sect Aum Sinrikyo headed by Syoka Osahara in Tokyo. Killing and injuring people by GB gas was for the purpose of some religious motives being straightforward fallacies. Though, the effect of chemical terror can be simply achieved owing to the lack of governmental control.

There is a probability of biological attacks by terrorists and other ones which can fall into insurgency, such as: civil disorder, state terrorism, political, non-political, and limited political terrorism (Gupta 67). Though, in most cases the global scope of terrorist organizations is outlined with the ideology in spheres of religion, policy, and social relationships. The assertion that terrorism is the result of political controversies and conflicts can be proved due to the events of last years. It is the whole network of people being sophisticated in means of killing people. Machiavelli’s statement “ the end justifies the means” seems to have place within terrorists.

9|11 and Osama Bin Laden. Terrorism as an act of war

This paragraph gives a particular evaluation of Al-Qaeda’s and particularly Obama’s action on September 11^th, 2001. In the book “Understanding Terrorism and Political Violence: The Life Cycle of Birth, Growth, Transformation, and Demise”, Dipak Gupta reveals purely relativist semiotics of the term “terrorism”: “Terrorism is a political term. All of us use it as a tool to label those with whom we are in conflict. Therefore, it should be no surprise to learn that while Osama bin Laden is despised as a crazed killer and a quintessential terrorist in the West, he is revered as a hero by many in the Islamic world” (Gupta 2008, 8). Apparently, the saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s fighter for freedom” is not altogether deprived of rationale. For example, despite the fact that, throughout his “political” career, Nelson Mandela had participated in 15 terrorist attacks, which resulted in deaths of 23 innocent bystanders, it is not only that he is now being commonly praised as “fighter for freedom”, but also citizens in Western countries are being encouraged to think of him as a role model.

U.S. State Department defines terrorism as “politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets”; yet, this definition does make it easier to understand why it was namely during the course of recent decades, that citizens in Western countries had learnt to think of international terrorism as such that represents clear and present danger to their lives. After all, it should not present much of a challenge for law enforcement agencies to effectively deal with terrorist-minded “fighters for freedom”, simply because these agencies have proven themselves quite capable of doing it in the past. For example, in seventies, it had only taken three years for German police to completely eliminate such a notorious terrorist organization as RAF (Rote Armee Fractionen), the members of which had participated in bombing of supermarkets, hijacking planes and killing politicians they did not like.

In the article “Counterterrorism: A Professional’s Strategy”, Dennis Ross makes perfectly good point while stating: “Osama bin Laden and his deputies have tried to justify their acts of carnage committed against noncombatants in the West not simply by using the terminology of holy warriors and martyrdom, but also by suggesting that there are no innocents in the West. After all, the blood of Muslims must be avenged, and bin Laden takes credit for having been able to create a Muslim “balance of terror” with the West” (Ross 2007, 19). Why it is that, throughout the history, governments have traditionally been having a hard time, while trying to stump out a guerilla-based warfare? This is because guerrillas are being subtly supported by those “oppressed” people, on whose behalf they operate. Why is it that Al Qaeda was able to conduct attacks of 9/11 with such a high degree of precision, in the first place? This is because, thanks to the hawks of “multiculturalism”, America has now its own “fifth column”, consisting of people who hate the country of their citizenship with utter passion. Why is it that terrorists who had flown planes into WTO towers consisted mostly of citizens of Saudi Arabia? This is because, while being officially considered as America’s friend, this country never misses a chance to stub its “ally” in the back, when opportunity presents itself, which serves as an additional proof as to the fact that the process of Globalization continues to deprive traditional political concepts of their practical significance.

Here comes an assumption that actions by Osama bin Laden were the manifestation of the liberation war for freedom of the Islamic people. The events in the Palestine regulatory measures by the US and in other countries of the Middle East served have the objectives for the terror or war of Al-Qaeda. It is fair to admit that every nation has its own conception or system of thought predetermined by the mentality in each nation. Moreover, in the historical cut people struggled for the capability to be free and full of things or values of material and non-material significance which they allegedly deserved. Then Osama bin Laden providing the ruination of WTO achieved the counter-stroke on the American political activity in the Middle East and its policy as for the Islamic extremist religious organizations. Thus, bin Laden is considered a hero in the Middle East due to his actions against one of the superpowers in the world. Each side has its own ideas, and the assertion that some of them provide terror can be evaluated, from the other side, as the answer for previously caused oppression of so-called affected party. In other words, mutual counterblows of opposing parties in the real war can be explained equivocally as defence or terrorirsm.

Nowadays, it is namely Islamic terrorist organizations that are being discussed within a context of how international terrorists undermine world’s security, even though that the ideology of these organizations can be referred to as anything but “international”. In its turn, this creates a certain paradox – despite the fact that Marxist terrorist organizations, such as RAF, did proclaim their goal to be the “liberation of proletariat in the whole world”, these organizations’ activities have traditionally been thought of as such that only represented a threat to the countries of their origin, rather then to international community. On the other hand, such Islamic terrorist organizations as Al-Qaeda, which had repeatedly proclaimed their operating agenda to be strictly concerned with liberation of Palestine from Israeli’s unlawful occupation, are being commonly discussed as the part of “global Jihadist movement”.

In fact, this movement has its goal to completely destruct the influence and power of the USA in its international relations and survey on the Middle East, in particular. Obama is the leader who can make such task possible owing to his well-designed plan for 9/11 terrorist act. By this action he wanted to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation which is supported by the US government. Nevertheless, one should not put blame on him simply because he is Muslim and of Oriental origin. It is just the way of how the Islamic unofficial authorities use to wage a war against sworn enemies.

Terrorism as not an act of war

This paragraph describes the opposing arguments pointing out that terrorism is not the act of war. In fact, terrorist actions cannot be taken for granted as the way for liberation. It is rather the way for deepening the struggle between opposing parties. Nonetheless, the war can be supposed as it is when there is an ultimatum, then the announcement of it. Warfare presupposes the visible actions of countries involved into the conflict. However, terrorist acts are not visible. Surely, it is the war, but it has no attributes of war, because of spontaneous and not perpetual attacks on the peaceful population. The terrorist network is the manifestation of threats that it represents for the world. The scope of the terror can be felt only on multiple cases of peoples’ deaths by virtues of one attack. The ideals and strategies of war are almost trite in terms of terrorism. Thus, it is not an act of war, but a hidden prerequisites for it which should be restricted by the world community.

In the book “Beyond Al-Qaeda: The Global Jihadist Movement”, Angel Rabasa talks about Islamic terrorism as truly global phenomenon: “No informed observers believe that al-Qaeda will be eliminated anytime soon. Indeed, in some respects al-Qaeda has metastasized into an even more formidable adversary—dispersed across the global South, Western Europe, and North America, largely self-sustaining, and despite intense government countermeasures, able to mount devastating operations, such as the railway bombing that killed nearly 200 people in Madrid on March 11, 2004, and the London bombings of July 7, 2005. The United States itself continues to be threatened by large-scale attacks, as suggested by heightened security alerts” (Rabasa 2006, 1). How did it happen that Islamic fundamentalists, which as recent as 20-30 years ago were only in position of abusing camels they rode, have risen to such an international prominence? How was it possible for people, who seriously believe that women should be wearing black cloaks over their faces at all times, to become citizens of the countries that they strive to destroy?

The answer to this question directly relates to a demographical trend that continues to affect world’s geopolitical realities to an ever-increased extent – namely, the “multiculturalisation” of Western acumen. As of today, Muslims constitute the fastest growing racial/ religious minority in Western countries. For example, the number of mosques in London today equals the number of Christian churches in this city. Some “progressive” British politicians and religious leaders go as far as suggesting that Islamic law of Sharia should be incorporated into British common law. In their article “Islam and Europe”, Sheldon Gottlieb, Leslie Dale and Kevin Williams come up with absolutely legitimate suggestion that, slowly but surely, such Western countries as Britain, France and Germany are being turned into “Northern Pakistan”, “Northern Algeria” and “Northern Turkey”, respectively: “Europe must win the demographic and cultural war that its Islamists are waging against it. Unfortunately, many Europeans are blind even to the existence of this war. Settling in their millions in the various countries of Europe, Muslim immigrants have an identity crisis: whether to accept or reject assimilation. Fired by Islamism, plenty of voices among them are calling for outright colonialism in reverse… Europeans have a corresponding identity crisis, as they decide what to make of this large and growing minority in their midst, particularly the Islamists who aspire to colonize them” (Gottlieb, et. al. 2005, 8-10). For example, Canada takes in about “300,000 newcomers per year, which per capita is twice the rate at which immigrants are admitted to the United States. And there virtually are no restrictions on the countries from which they come” (Berlau 2002).

Upon their arrival to Western countries, Muslim immigrants instantly realise themselves being put in advantageous position, as compared to native Westerners, because:

They are not burdened by the notions of Judeo-Christian morality
Unlike Whites, they possess an acute sense of racial and religious solidarity, which allows them to proceed with creation of “societies within society” in the newly acquired “homeland” for the purpose of exploiting it.

Those who believe that terrorism cannot be considered an act of war, point out at terrorist activities as such that lack legitimacy. When caught, terrorists are being treated as spies – Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 does not apply to them. This is the reason why prisoners of Guantanamo have not even been given any legal reason for their imprisonment. Since they are not being considered “non-combatants”, they can never expect attaining the status of “prisoners of war”.

Eco-terrorism in relation to terrorist acts

In this paragraph the discussion touches upon the ecological terrorism in its versatile character. The thing is that the mankind on the contemporary stage of its development ignores the wealth and niches of the natural resources, and uses every possible opportunity to destruct the flora and fauna. Thus the cases of deforestation, for example are apparent in the equatorial latitudes and in other regions of earth. This in turn inflicts the melioration of grounds and floods, as the result. On the other hand, poachers fish by means of dynamite and provide the misbalance of the ecosystems in the bodies of water. This causes great harms toward the world of wild nature and leads to the extinction of some species.

All in all, the issue of eco-terrorism is not necessarily an act of war, but it creates terror due to the destruction of what was done and given to the mankind. In other words, the Living Edens suffers from the actions of a man due to the cruelty in using natural resources and killing animals. It is also as spontaneous for helpless nature as for people waiting for no presumable terrorist act. This is why the violation of ecology can be called terrorism as well due to huge losses of living kinds at once.

Nevertheless, the terrorism is an act of war which should be restricted and destructed by means of general efforts of people throughout the world being not indifferent toward this global problem. In fact, the process of globalization caused the outrageous attitude of many Muslim peoples. This objective contemplates that in poor countries there is a lack of internal security, and people are not saved well from possible terrorist acts. Moreover, religious approach emphasizes the problem, and Al-Qaeda still represents the real danger for the US and the whole Western world. It seems that this hidden but constant war will never end. It can be crushed for some time, but not destructed owing to the strength of religious and ideological convictions and beliefs in Islamic people.. In the book, “The Next Global Stage”, one of Globalization’s most famous ideologists Kenichi Ohmae makes no secret of what represents Globalists’ ultimate agenda: “The global economy ignores barriers, but if they are not removed, they cause distortion. The traditional centralized nation-state is another cause of friction. It is ill equipped to play a meaningful role on the global stage” (Ohmae 2005, 15).

Bibliography

Berlau, John “Canada Turns into Terrorist Haven”. BNET U.S. 2002. Web.

Gottlieb, Sheldon, et. al., “Islam and Europe”. Commentary. 119.3 (2005): 8, 10, 12.

Gupta, Dipak. Understanding Terrorism and Political Violence: The Life Cycle of Birth, Growth, Transformation, and Demise. New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge, 2008.

Ohmae, Kenichi. Next Global Stage: Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing, 2005.

Peraino, Kevin. “Extreme Victory”. Newsweek. 147.6 (2006): 26-30.

Philpott, Daniel. “Sovereignty: an Introduction and Brief History”. Journal of International Affairs. 48.5 (1995): 353-68.

Rabasa, Angel. Beyond Al-Qaeda: The Global Jihadist Movement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2006.

Ross, Dennis. “Counterterrorism: A Professional’s Strategy”. World Policy Journal. 24.1 (2007):19-31.

Click Here To Order Now!