Problem Of Terrorism Research Articles

Analogies to Terror: The Construction of Social Problems in Israel During the Intifada Al Aqsa

Studies of the construction of social problems suggest that claims makers only relate to the issue that they are trying to place on the national agenda. However, an analysis of the Israeli public discourse about a number of social problems during the Intifada Al Aqsa indicates that this is not the case. The external threat served as an inferential structure for understanding and explaining the country's internal ones. Because of the centrality of the Intifada in the public imagination, claimants made a wide variety of analogies to the problem of Palestinian terror. All four areas of the discourse—about the severity of the problems, their causes, the rationales given for taking preventive and/or ameliorative action, and the solutions offered—were replete with references and analogies to the uprising. Clearly, the claimants believed that this was a particularly effective way of competing in the social problems marketplace, but the analogies may, in fact, have reinforced the existing hierarchy of priorities rather than lead to a significant shift in the public agenda.

Communicating the terrorist risk: Harnessing a culture of fear?

Following the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, Madrid and London, state agencies have been bound up with the problem of how to effectively communicate the risk of terrorism to the general public. This article charts the UK government's attempts to engage in this process and illustrates how the communication of the terrorist risk meshes into broader cultural formations of crime and (in)security. Our analytical framework utilizes the risk society as the scene in which governmental strategies are parcelled up and unpacked. It is posited that the framing of the terrorist problem through the political discourse of ‘new terrorism’ has built upon and escalated a cultural climate of fear and uncertainty. At the level of political communication, it will be elucidated that media representations of the terrorist threat have served to further embed discourses of responsibilization. In our view such processes not only articulate a reduced notion of safety, they also pave the way for the simplistic construction of a non-white ‘terroristic other’ that has negative consequences for ethnic minority groups in the UK.

Extremism, suicide terror, and authoritarianism

This paper studies extremist behaviour, and its connection to authoritarianism. I divide extremists into two groups, leaders, who demand extremist acts such as assassinations, suicide terror or other forms of political violence from followers, who supply them. I assume that both the leaders of extremist groups and their followers are rational. The paper looks at three examples: Communism, Nationalism and Islamic Fundamentalism. I show that leaders with extreme ideologies also tend to adopt violent methods when there is an indivisibility between the intermediate goal of the group and its ultimate goal. Turning to followers, the most important innovation of the paper is a simple model which explains how it is possible for a person to rationally commit suicide to further the goals of a group. The most important policy implications of the paper are, firstly, that one should look at the goals of extremist group in order to understand their actions. If one can un-bundle the goal or make the indivisible divisible, then there may be ways to provide these goals in a way which satisfies some of the potential supporters of the group and thus dries up support for the grander ambitions of the leaders of extremist groups. Secondly, the provision of programs which foster social cohesion tends to dry up an important motive for extremist activity: the desire for solidarity. Thirdly, policy towards terrorists should combine the use of "carrot" and "stick". Finally, I argue that authoritarian regimes rather than democracies or totalitarian regimes are the most likely sources of suicide terror. So democracy is indeed part of the solution to the problem of suicide terrorism.

Terrorism, Geopolitics, and Multinational Security Cooperation in Central Asia

On 22-24 February 2006, the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies(APCSS) held this conference on the complex security environment ofCentral Asia as the region continues to struggle with the phenomena of terrorismand religious extremism, poverty and corruption, political instabilityand authoritarian governance, as well as great power (China, Russia, and theUnited States) suspicion and rivalry. These challenges are not uniquelyCentral Asian, but the region seems to be particularly vulnerable to them asits young nations are undergoing a significant political, social, and economictransformation. How the region copes with these issues will extend importantlessons to the world as a whole.This forum examined the trilemma posed for Central Asia and thebroader Asia-Pacific region. First, for the war on terror in the region to besuccessful, it must evolve into well-implemented stabilization and reconstructionefforts as well as dramatic improvements in governance andhuman rights. Second, no country on its own can alter the situation inCentral Asia, for such an effort requires cooperation between all of the majorpowers and stakeholders in the region (India, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey).The magnitude of the problem of terrorism, which affects most if not allcountries in the region, should preclude another variation of the Great Game.Finally, while the number of regional organizations and security forums inCentral Asia has been growing, the low degree of coordination among themtriggers counterproductive rivalries and plays into the hands of extremistelements. Since terror knows no borders, what happens in Central Asia significantlyimpacts developments elsewhere.Although the counterterrorist effort in Central Asia has successfullymarginalized the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the localization of the terrorist threatmeans that new autonomous extremist cells continue to emerge in CentralAsia. The sources of proliferation of radical Islam can be found in socioeconomicdeprivation, widespread corruption, and political ...

Technology and the Hydra of terrorism?

In the application of new technologies that address the terrorism problem, an objective is to ensure that the technology does not cause more problems than it solves. Potential new technologies, including convergences of genomics, robotics, information technology, and nanotechnology, might rapidly develop. As with any technological advance, each of these offers a mixture of benefits and risks. At first, a direct approach is reviewed by looking at how these technologies might deter the motive, means, and opportunity for terrorist activities. While there are many potential deterrence applications, other issues are identified that might cause unintended problems in the system. Some of these problems include the possible contribution to terrorist motives by increasing stresses toward divisiveness in society, terrorist means through the development of dual-use technologies, or terrorist opportunities by further developing technological vulnerabilities. Next, a more systemic approach is taken by reviewing a wider range of issues, such as resource availability, management of science and technology, and general societal trends. The balance between technological change and social response is important in realizing benefits while mitigating unintended consequences such as harmful uses through terrorist actions. To explore issues concerning this balance, possible technological development scenarios are reviewed, including the possibility of accelerating or slowing technological development. Some recent recommendations are considered within this context. The need for a balance between technological and social response in this asymmetric situation suggests that the benefits of a rapid technological response against terrorism might not be as large as those observed during World War II.

Intercultural pragmatics and the clash of civilizations: Western and Muslim interactions before and since 9/11

This paper is concerned with what is too often seen as the inevitable clash of civilizations between Western and Muslim peoples and nations. I argue against Quine's pessimistic conclusions regarding radical translation and in favor of Davidson's principle of charity, according to which communication can only be possible when each communicator takes the other party to be rational. I argue against the view that Muslims, including Muslim terrorists, are of necessity irrational, plead for a more charitable approach to their views of the relations between the West and Islam, criticize Huntington's view on the so-called clash of civilizations, and reject the notion of it as an unavoidable event. I then point out that other ways of dealing with the problem of Muslim terrorism are possible, ways that take into account the public opinion in the Muslim countries rather than relying on sheer force. From that point of view, I advocate a policy based on the Prisoner's Dilemma solution to the promotion of cooperation.

Reaching Out to Muslim Clerics: Can We Build Bridges and Strengthen Moderate Voices in Islam?

On 11 September 2001, four planes were hijacked in the United States. Two would destroy buildings at the financial hub of the country in New York City, another would attack and damage the military heart in Washington, and the fourth would be brought down heroically by its passengers. The sheer scope of the destruction, and the huge numbers of victims who were killed when these attacks took place, created stupefaction and anger throughout the civilized world. This essay shall focus on a survey of the problems affecting Muslim communities around the globe, and will examine some moderate solutions that can respond to Islamic needs and concerns. This topic is closely linked to the problems of radical Islamism and international terrorism, which were so graphically displayed on September 11. When it became apparent that Islamist networks had carried out the attacks of 9/11, new light was shed on Professor Samuel Huntington’s theory, first enunciated in 1993, of the “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the Western world. Huntington believed that the world’s geopolitical phenotype had radically changed. The long-standing antagonism between Eastern and Western political blocs, and between the Northern and Southern economic blocs—in other words, the confrontations between capitalism and communism and between the rich and the poor—no longer exists. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the following reunification of Germany clearly demonstrated communism’s failure. Frances Fukuyama talked about these events as indicating the end of a major chapter of mankind’s history. According to Huntington, the “new world order” would now face a crisis: unconventional conflicts in which political Islam would play a major role, hurling violence and aggression against both the West and the so-called moderate Muslim states. Indeed, on this one day, 11 September 2001, we can say that the face of the world changed. We must now vigorously question the political and individual strategies of both Muslims and non-Muslims, who have to ask themselves if they are capable of changing their perspectives and learning from the lessons that terrorism teaches us. One could argue that Huntington’s basic ideas are not accurate. The civilizations that he mentions have not remained static, and it is not reasonable to say that they retain the powers they once held. Mohammad Abdu and the Iranian Al-Afghani, two of the best known Muslim thinkers during the period known as An-Nahda, which represented a renaissance in Islam in the early twentieth century, believed that several Western intellectual developments have decisively affected other cultures. Among these de-

Before and After 9/11

AbstractMy topic concerns the interrelation between religion, politics and ethics in a time of terror, or at least a historical moment when the general problem of terrorism has come to occupy center stage. The frequent view that 9/11 represents a wholly new situation, a break with the past makes it difficult, perhaps impossible to understand it. I believe that it is because 9/11 does not break with but continues tendencies already underway that it occurred and we can understand it. My paper, which insists on continuity as opposed to rupture, consists of six parts. The first part evokes two well known approaches to 9/11: the clash of cultures, or civilizations, due to Samuel Huntington, and religious incompatibility defended, i.A. by Bernard Lewis. In the second and third parts argue that both approaches incorrectly presuppose the autonomy of culture and religion. In the fourth part I contend that in the modern world religion and politics are subordinated to economic factors. In the fifth and last part I s...

Religious fundamentalism and terrorism: why do they do it and what do they want?

PurposeThis article aims to develop and explore diagnostic frameworks to enhance one's understanding of the religiously‐inspired terrorist. It seeks to examine the relationship between the culture and conditions from which terrorists are recruited, as well as the psychological impact of fundamentalist religious teachings upon the minds of susceptible people.Design/methodology/approachThis paper synthesises the theories of memetics with structuration to create a diagnostic framework facilitating greater understanding of terrorism and its appeal to those being recruited to its cause. This diagnostic framework assesses the influence and power of selective religious teachings when combined with a culture and history of violence, and their impact on susceptible minds in a fractured society.FindingsBy combining the theory of memetics with structuration theory it is possible to develop a diagnostic framework that examines psychological, cultural, and religiously‐inspired factors driving the phenomenon that has been labelled as terrorism. Memetic theory assesses culture and communication of beliefs, ideas, and thoughts. Structuration theory identifies motives and drives.Originality/valueThe authors conclude that the current terrorism problem bears little relationship to US foreign policy. The concept of a free society will never be fully enacted until the religious and cultural scaffoldings that support terrorism have been dismantled.

Democracy and America's war on terror

Robert Ivie, who has written extensively over the last thirty years on America's rhetorical appetite for war, discusses democracy's centrality to the national identity and how prevalling constructions of democracy constitute a republic of fear in which the threat of foreign and domestic others is chronically exaggerated through rituals of villification and victimization. In reassessing the nation's traditional distrust of democracy (the lively and healthy exchange of differing ideas and ideals) and critiquing the rhetoric of evil, Ivie argues that the problem of international terrorism is best addressed by strengthening, rather than weakening, America's democratic practices - that is, by enriching a democratic culture of robust debate. Divisive Issues, for Ivie, should be engaged overtly and constructively, contested through a rhetoric of identification that bridges the differences between adversaries without effacing their identities. This would be, he believes, a strategy more responsive to, and realistic for, the prevailing condition of racial diversity in the global information age. Democracy and America's War on Terrorism will be of interest to public policymakers and informed general readers as well as students and scholars in the fields of rhetoric, political theory/philosophy, democratic theory, U.S. foreign relations/policy, war and peace studies, terrorism, and cultural studies.

Significance of Russia-China-India Cooperation in the Backdrop of Present Global and Regional Changes

The world is experiencing an intricate period of changes and new dimensions in international relations. Other issues prevalent in international life are the problems of international terrorism together with other modem challenges and threats including weapons of mass destruction. There have been official visits at state levels between Russia and India, between China and India and between Russia and China. Intensive political contacts and trade collaboration between our countries on a bilateral level have been significant developments in the present. An important event has been the trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of India, China and Russia in Vladivostok. In a Joint Communiqué, it was highlighted that strategic cooperation between the three countries is not directed against any other country. Russia, India and China continue to look for effective ways of developing a constructive partnership with the United States. The vital issue today remains the problem of strengthening the leading role of the United Nations (UN), justified reformation of this organisation by considering the interests of majority of members of the world community. Russia, as well as its Indian and Chinese friends, continues to proceed from the fact that the central role of uniting the efforts of the world community in deciding the key issues must belong to the UN.

The Conjunction of Terrorist Opportunity: A Framework for Diagnosing and Preventing Acts of Terrorism

This paper outlines a framework which draws together the currently fragmented understandings of, and actions against, terrorism. The ‘conjunction of terrorist opportunity’ (CTO) stems from a widely known equivalent in crime prevention. Detailed distinctions emerge which clarify the relationship between crime and terrorism. There is special emphasis on historical and higher-level emergent causes, including terrorists' pursuit of strategic objectives and the career of the terrorist organisation itself, as it co-evolves with the society trying to frustrate and destroy it. But the framework seeks to anchor these understandings by reference to terrorist events and their immediate causes. On the basis of this analysis a suite of interventions can then be chosen to match terrorist problem and context and to reflect tactical and strategic priorities. Although the framework is only sketched here, it appears sufficiently promising to test out on a range of case studies by diagnosing causes and describing or suggesting interventions.

Williams, Ed., The Terrorist Attack On America

The destruction of the World Trade Towers by terrorists on September 1 1, 2001, elevated the problem of Islamic terrorism to a central place in United States foreign affairs. It is therefore essential that any course in recent American history or current events cover this topic and the major issues that have grown out of it. This anthology of magazine articles and editorials written in the months immediately following 9/11 is an early effort at doing this in a classroom book. Part of Greenhaven's "Current Controversies" series, it is organized around four questions that in early 2002 seemed to be the leading issues of this subject.

The Politics of Negotiating the Terrorist Problem in Indonesia

Although Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) is a pan-Southeast Asia jihadi network, it has been able to headquarter itself in Indonesia, where it has also been able to find the lion's share of its recruits. This article finds that there is little support for hardline Islamic political movements, or even violent jihadi groups, from the wider population. Yet at the same time the public is skeptical about the existence of an international terrorist problem. Not only is there general denial amongst the Indonesian population but Indonesia's political leaders have had to tread carefully on the issue. Indonesia has had a degree of success in denting the JI network but confronting terrorism on the whole is fraught with political difficultiesnotably the impression that the war on terrorism might be a plot to weaken the Islamic world.

Between the Geneva Conventions: Where Does the Unlawful Combatant Belong?

The growing impact of terrorist acts in the past few years has lead to dramatic changes in the internal laws of the growing number of States that suffer from terrorism, but has also lead to various attempts to adapt international law - more specifically, the International Laws of War - to the new situation or threat, as many perceive it. The Laws of War, like most areas of Public International Law, deal with the relations between nations, while hardly dealing with non-governmental entities like terrorist organisations or the individual terrorist, thereby creating an apparent legal “loophole”. One of the solutions found by States in order to deal, legally, with terrorists, was by defining them “unlawful combatants”.This essay tries to examine the development of the term “unlawful combatant”, by examining some complications that might occur from the use of the term “unlawful combatant” as an intermediate, new status in international law. By using it as a new status. States try to exclude terrorists from finding protection under the Geneva Conventions, which are intended to safeguard various individuals during armed conflicts. After examining the term “unlawful combatant”, both from an historical and legal aspect, this essay will attempt to show that the existing Laws of War, which acknowledge only two statuses – the ‘civilian’ and the ‘combatant’ – provide a satisfactory solution to the problem of terrorism in its non-governmental sense. After exploring recent policies and legal developments in Israel and the Unites States, countries that use the term “unlawful combatant”, this essay will criticise the ambiguity of these definitions, and point out future problems that might arise from this ambiguity during armed conflicts.

Civilisation as Paradigm: An Inquiry into the Hermeneutics of Conflict

This article examines Samuel Huntington's claims that his civilisational theory rises to the level of paradigm and is not merely social science theory. This claim is examined in light of Huntington's focus on Islamic civilisation and its relationship to the ongoing war on terror. The specific manifestations of Islam that have been relevant to this war are placed within the context of what Jeffrey Herf refers to as reactionary modernism, which views violent reactions to modernity as alternative expressions of modernity. While Islam has civilisational characteristics, as Huntington suggests, the violence that gives rise to terror is a result of time- and region-specific reactionary modern variables, and is not inherent in Islam itself. Second, though civilisation-as-social science might shed light on policy options to deal with the problem of terror, civilisational theory is not equipped to supersede the interest-orientation of realism.

Thailand: Politicized Thaksinization

The main political strategies of the coalition government led by the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) during the first two years of the Thaksin administration (2001 2002) have evidently included both the neutralization of domestic political challenges and the consolidation of Thaksin's political power base within the Thai polity. Relying on his party's multi-pronged populist policies and initia tives, Thaksin's determination to dominate Thai politics has remained una bated, and unchallenged by the opposition. He openly declared that his TRT ruling party will remain in power for the next twenty years.1 The year 2003 provided him with golden opportunities to flex his political muscle through grandiose political initiatives both at home and abroad. He launched wars on the chronic problems of drugs, terrorism, and poverty. The implementation of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) concept at both the provincial governor ship and ambassadorship levels, and the initiative for the Asian Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) served his political objectives. Thaksin was praised by some circles as the most visionary leader in Southeast Asia, even though it was too early to come to such a conclusion.2 Others have contended, however, that only fortuitous circumstances have made Thaksin a regional leader.3

The Problem of Terrorism in Strasbourg Case Law

Članek analizira nekatere sodbe Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice iz Strasbourga in iz sodne prakse poskuša razbrati, kako se je Sodišče do sedaj spoprijemalo z varstvom človekovih pravic in svoboščin, ko je žrtev kršitve pravic iz Konvencije posameznik, povezan s terorističnim dejanjem. Zaključki kažejo, da je ustaljeno mnenje Sodišča, da je potrebno človekove pravice in svoboščine, vključno s temeljnimi procesnimi pravicami, priznati slehernemu posamezniku ne glede na osebne okoliščine in na ravnanja, zaradi katerih je izpostavljen kazenskemu pregonu oz. kaznovalni politiki države ali naddržavne organizacije. Država se je dolžna vzdržati posegov v pravice in svoboščine, zagotovljene s Konvencijo. Vendar to ni dovolj, država mora delovati aktivno, da bi uresničila pravice in svoboščine (t. i. pozitivna obveznost). Obstoj pozitivnih obveznosti je podlaga za vzpostavitev odgovornosti države, če aktivno ne preprečuje posledic in dejanj terorizma, zato pa ima država pravico uporabiti fizično silo in druge posebne ukrepe v boju proti terorizmu. Sodišče torej tolerira manjše omejevanje pravic iz Konvencije (npr. daljši priporni čas, socialno izolacijo zapornikov, nadzorovanje korespondence, uporabo tajnih informacij …). Vzporedno pa razvija prakso, ki dovolj jasno pove, kdaj se varstvo pravic ne sme in ne more umakniti učinkovitosti boja proti terorizmu in potrebi družbe po varnosti družbe pred posledicami terorizma. Oblasti morajo spoštovati načelo zakonitosti in prepoved povratne veljave predpisov. Na več mestih se poudarja, da celo v situacijah, kot je boj proti terorizmu in organiziranem kriminalu, Konvencija prepoveduje mučenje in nečloveško ali ponižujoče ravnanje ali kaznovanje. Poleg tega pa mora država poskrbeti za naknadno sodno kontrol same uporabe izvajanja ukrepov in zagotoviti uradno preiskavo okoliščin, v katerih je prišlo do kršitve konvencijskih pravic. Taka preiskava mora voditi do identifikacije in kaznovanja odgovornih oseb.

A Glass Half Full: Indonesia‑U.S. Relations in the Age of Terror

Introduction In July 2003 five U.S. F-18 Hornets ventured too far into Indonesian airspace over Bawean Island in the Java sea and locked onto the Indonesian F-16s sent to intercept them. That the U.S. Ambassador, Ralph Skip Boyce, was summoned by Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, to explain the incident is not surprising. Ambassador Boyce promised that the U.S. Air Force would not fly over Indonesian land in the future without permission. However, below the level of cabinet, the incident ignited a heated debate. Some Indonesian members of parliament used the opportunity to deliver anti-U.S, speeches, with some even calling for sanctions against the United States. A number of members also posited the theory that the United States was flexing its muscle out of displeasure over Indonesia's recent decision to purchase some Russian aircraft for the Indonesian Air Force. These politicians used the incident, it appears, to capitalize on anti-U.S, sentiment in the country to improve their political fortunes. The incident demonstrates the careful manner in which Indonesia-U.S. relations must be managed, particularly in light of an emerging distrust of American intentions amongst the Indonesian population. This article touches on some of the key themes and incidents that have emerged in the Indonesia-U.S. relationship in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. (1) The impact of public opinion in Indonesia, keenly felt on the foreign policy process after the fall of Suharto, has been to constrain the actions of the Indonesian government in the types of support it can offer the United States. The Indonesia U.S. relationship is complicated by distrust from the past (nationalist concerns) and suspicion that the U.S.-led war against terrorism is an attempt to advance American power and undermine the Islamic world (anti-colonial concerns). Some media commentators have spoken of a pendulum in Indonesia-U.S. relations, whereby there is both cooperation and discord in the relationship. U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have heightened sensitivities, as have pressures for accountability and human rights improvement. At the same time the Megawati government has cooperated with the United States in tackling the terrorist problem within Indonesia, especially after the terrorist attack in Bali in 2002. Although the United States already regards Indonesia as strategically important in the war against terrorism, Indonesia is assuming a new relevance. The United States may now be paying more attention to Southeast Asia--with Indonesia featuring prominently--than at any time since the end of the Vietnam War. However, the U.S. government is hamstrung in the type of support that it can offer Indonesia, given constraints from the U.S. Congress on military-to-military relations, and rising anti-U.S, sentiments within Indonesia. Nevertheless, Indonesia is cited by U.S. officials as being crucial in the war on terrorism in two ways. First, Indonesia is viewed as a moderate Muslim majority country, whose toleration and democratization are hailed by Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense (and often the Bush administration's leading voice on Southeast Asia), as a model of moderation. (2) In the aftermath of September 11, the U.S. obtained an important official condemnation from the largest Muslim country. Second, Indonesia has had its own problems with a homegrown, but externally linked, terrorist group known as Jemaah Islamiyah. Washington worries that lack of state capacity will mean that Indonesia will be seen by terrorist groups as a haven. In seeking to deny haven and sanctuary to terrorist groups, Indonesia is one of the countries mentioned by U.S. officials as a prime area of concern. Indonesia-U.S. cooperation in the war against terrorism has been difficult since it first emerged as an issue in the relationship. The Indonesian authorities have made significant progress in addressing the terrorist problem, but until the Bali blast in October 2002, key members of the Megawati administration and the Indonesian military were arguing that there was no international terrorist problem in Indonesia. …

A Duplex Theory of Hate: Development and Application to Terrorism, Massacres, and Genocide

This article presents a triangular theory of the structure of hate and a story-based theory of the development of triangles of hate. Hate is proposed to be 1 contributing cause of many, although certainly not all, massacres and genocides. The article describes why the problem of terrorism, massacres, and genocide is of critical importance to psychology; reviews theories of the instigation of massacres and genocides; and then presents the duplex theory. The role of propaganda and other instigating factors is discussed. The benefits and limitations of the proposed duplex theory of hate are reviewed. Possible remedies for hate also are delineated.