Terrorism Essay Example

Terrorism Essay Example Terrorism Essay Terrorism Essay Terrorism Name: Course: Institution: The contention encompassing terrorism has been prevalent over the past few years, especially within the international community. Much of the controversy involved in this topic arises from the legal definition of terrorism and the prejudices behind it. In the legal sense, terrorism does not possess any legal requisite. With that said, it is apparent that terrorism is undefined under criminal legislations. Regardless, terrorism has garnered various definitions based on its effects on society as well as social or political motivations. For instance, terrorism refers to violent activities devised to exude fear from people, carried out for ideological, religious or nationalist reasons, and intentionally ignore the safety of civilians. Nonetheless, such definitions are partial since other organizations engage in the same tactics but do not fall under terrorist groups. Regardless of these contentions, terrorism is indeed a recurrent factor in the contemporary age. Researchers have developed various assumptions or hypotheses that establish the motives behind various acts of terror in different parts of the world. Motives for Terrorism Ideological Terrorism: Baader-Meinhof in Germany Ideological terrorism focuses on promoting or furthering a specific belief system by committing acts of violence and terror against governments and civilians. Specifically, it involves certain factions that engage in acts of terror in order to impose their political principles on other system. This form of terrorism arose from revolutionary terrorism, which was mostly in the form of guerrilla warfare. Nonetheless, ideological terrorism originated from anti-colonialism. This type of terrorism arose from the ideology within urban terrorism and urban guerrilla. According to White (2012), such ideas derived from Frantz Fanon. Fanon alleged that the Western influences dehumanized non-Western people leading to the destruction of their cultures and substituting them with Western standards. As a result, the people began experiencing exasperations from their perpetual identity predicament. This predicament asserted that for them to succeed, it was vital to reject their heritage. One of the modern terrorist groups practicing ideological terrorism is the left-wing terrorist group, the Baader-Meinhof. The Baader-Meinhof faction was one of the significant European leftists during the 1970s. At this time, most European leftwing groups as well as the nationalist factions adopted the Marighella Model based on the South American revolutionary leader, Carlos Marighella. The Marighella Model provided specific tactics for engaging in acts of terror based on the practical proposals of Marighella himself. Based on the model, Marighella sought to relocate violence to the urban centre from the rural areas. This strategy focused on initiating a terror campaign via small factions comprising urban guerillas. As such, violence was urban-based. Marighella focused on this strategy in order to reveal the oppressive and exploitive nature of the government to the unaware public. The Baader-Meinhof received inauguration in 1970. The perpetrators of this group were its founders, and they comprised Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin, Horst Mahler and Ulrike Meinhof. Also known as the Red Army Faction (RAF), the group portrayed itself as a communist urban guerrilla faction fighting against fascism in Germany. The main objective of the Baader-Meinhof gang involved eradicating the anti-imperialistic and conservative role that the German government played at that time. Furthermore, most German citizens expressed dissatisfaction with the government based on problems such as racism, sexism as well as anti-imperialism, which the government failed to address during the 1970s. Such reasons led to the terrorist attacks against government officials and conservative big heads from 1970 to 1998 leading to 34 deaths including secondary personnel. However, in 1998, the leftist group ceased its operations after delivering a communique to the press announcing its disbandment. Religious Terrorism: Iran’s State-Sponsored Religious Terrorism Religious terrorism embraces most aspects of ideological terrorism. This is because religious terror groups use religion as an ideology to perpetrate such acts. Nonetheless, there is still significant disparity between both classes of terrorism. Religious terrorism is the performance of acts of terror or violent acts against civilians and governments because of motives and objectives that possess a domineering religious temperament or influence. Specifically, religious terrorism is a category of political aggression influenced by an unconditional belief based on the assumption that a greater power has commanded such acts for the magnificence of the faith. Usually, violent behaviors based on faith will receive forgiveness from the greater power and may even incur gratification in another life. In the real meaning, a person’s religious faith justifies violence as long as the act expresses the will of the person’s deity. One of the main examples of religious terrorism involves state-sponsored religious terrorism. The sponsorship of terrorism is unlimited to facilitating ethnic or ideological movements. It also inculcates the funding of religious radical movements. An example of this is the case of Iran. In 1979, the republic of Iran assumed the role of a religious terror sponsor after overthrowing Shah Muhammed Reza Pahlavi’s monarchy and creating the Islamic Republic of Iran afterwards. The country has sponsored several factions famous for engaging in terror attacks. For instance, the Revolutionary Guards Corps’ member, Qods Force, endorses Islamic revolution globally and the emancipation of Jerusalem from Islam non-believers (O’Hern, 2012). Additionally, the officials of Iran have insinuated the creation of martyrdoms specifically designated for suicide terror acts against Israelis and Americans. A significant illustration of the nation’s support for politically sensitive factions comprises the benefaction and aid Iran provides for the Hezbollah Movement. The relationship between Hezbollah and Iran is vital since the faction played a crucial role in the political surroundings within the region. As a Shia movement, Hezbollah (Party of God) arose in order to support the Shia populace in Lebanon. The organization originated at the time of the Lebanon Civil War and the 1982 incursion of Israel as a sturdy symbol for Lebanon’s independence and a justice platform for the Lebanese Shia (Fattah Fierke, 2009). The group is accountable for numerous political terror acts in the 1980s and 1990s comprising kidnappings, suicide attacks and terror acts against Israelis. Iran also sponsors other terror groups in other regions such as Palestine in order to attack the Israelis dwelling in the West Bank and Gaza. Such groups comprise religious movements such as Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement). Nationalist Terrorism: The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Nationalist terrorism is the use of violent acts because of motives based on nationalism. Usually, nationalist terrorists attempt to search for self-determination, which ranges from attaining significant autonomy to the creation of a fully independent and sovereign state. Based on this reason, nationalist terrorists also gain definition as ethnic separatists. Furthermore, nationalist terrorists frequently resist the notion of imperialism and other unlawful powers embraced by the government. Nationalist terrorism originates in the form of national, racial, devout or other classifying groups that feel that the government is oppressing them or denying their privileges, especially the privileges usually awarded to other people within the same state or nation. Based on such reasons, nationalist terrorists usually deem themselves as freedom fighters. They justify their acts of violence against the immediate government as acts of liberation especially for the minority or the larger populati on that possesses limited recognized national rights. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is an illustration of nationalist terrorism. Materializing from a history of violence sponsored by the state and ethnic discrimination, the LTTE are at the front of the modern Tamil nationalist movement. Their objective for this focuses mainly on the development of a segregated state within the eastern and northern regions of Sri Lanka. Based on their commitment towards armed struggle, the Tamils taking part in the faction receive a description by the state of Sri Lanka as terrorists. Regardless, the LTTE is indeed one of the most violent nationalist factions in South Asia. This is according to the considerable attacks it has committed against the Sri-Lankan government. In 1991, the LTTE assassinated the Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, in 1993 and 1994; the group also assassinated the state’s President, Ranasinghe Premadasa and the former Prime Minister, Dissanayake respectively (Hussain, 2010). The group is also responsible for the deaths of other prominent military and political persons. The LTTE is also a result of the ethnic dispute between the minority ethnic tribe, Tamils and the majority populace, the Sinhalese. Because of the government actions that encouraged violations of the privileges of Tamils from 1948 and 1977, a significant pool of unemployed and educated youth retaliated in 1972 under the leadership of Velupillai Prabhakaran (Hussain, 2010). The Tamil militant factions and the Tigers recognized the significance of developing a unique and separate Tamil northern province. This region would be significant based on security provisions and an unchallenged platform for supporting and directing LTTE attacks in the island. Additionally, the 1983 Sinhalese-Tamil riots polarized both tribes forcing half a million Tamils to seek refuge in Western nations and India. Because of this, the LTTE became able to support one of the most successful international terrorist networks. The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis Usually, the main assumption for terrorism involves whether terrorists are born or created during their lifetime. This assumption simply outlines terrorists are born and not configured by society. As such, the motives for their acts arise from the influence of natural endowments such as wealth. Nonetheless, the general hypotheses originating from terrorism allege that the society creates terrorists. Based on this, there are various hypotheses that seek to answer the reason behind the actions portrayed by different terrorists. One of the main hypotheses applicable to these cases is the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis is one of the most extensive approaches towards understanding terrorist acts. Ted Robert Gurr reformulated the proposition in 1970 based on the Relative-Deprivation hypothesis. Additionally, the assumption underwent reformulation in 1973 by J. C. Davies based on the effect of the gap between increasing expectations and satisfaction of needs (Hudson, 2010). The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis asserts that most incidences of frustration originate from a certain type of aggression. Based on this assumption, the theory assumes that the aggressive acts are a way of relieving the exasperated individuals from their frustrations to a certain extent. The primary concept of the hypothesis is that aggravations and tensions upsurge to a point that the individual cannot contain them. Therefore, in order to release such tensions, the individual channels them in a satisfactory way that relieves them of their vexations (Whitley Kite, 2010). As mentioned, the hypothesis originates from the Relative-Deprivation hypothesis. This theory surmises that individuals consistently compare what they possess and what they do not possess as they select their interests and standards. Additionally, they also compare their needs and wants with the actual or the imaginary (Connor, 2009). As such, they note the disparity between their inequalities, which leads them to express frustration based on this sense of injustice according to them. The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis argues that violent acts of terror arise from the exasperation arising from insufficient gratification of needs by political or economic systems. Simply, the theory asserts that terrorist or terrorist-related behavior arises from a range of economic, political or individual requirements or objectives. Furthermore, the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis alleges that terrorist behavior occurs because of the frustration that relates specifically to economic and political situations. These economic and political situations nurture considerable frustration, based on incessant marginalization and alienation, as such develop a desire to endorse change in a drastic way. For instance, the French Revolution of 1789 is an example of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. This is because the French Revolution arose out of the people’s frustrations with the ineptitude of King Louis XVI and the deterioration of the country’s aristocracy (Gough, 20 10). As a result, there was intense social and political upheaval against the monarch. In the case of the Baader-Meinhof gang, the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis applies significantly. As a leftist group, the Baader-Meinhof gang embraced the ideologies of the Marighella Urban Model. This is similar to other leftist groups in Europe that adopted the same representation in order to commit their acts of terror. The main ideology expressed by the Marighella Urban Model was repression by the government. Marighella surmised that violence via urban guerillas was the only way to make the public understand the authoritative and exploitive nature of the government. This was similar to the ideology articulated by the Red Army Faction in the 1970s. The members of the factions and the young public collectively disagreed with the authoritarian and oppressive structures in Germany that arose from Nazism. This is because the Nazi historical legacy separated the generations leading to amplified suspicion concerning dictatorial structures within the society. The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis also applies to some extent in the case of Iran. Most of the reasons for the support of terrorism by Iran involve political autonomy. Nonetheless, even though the country uses such reasons to perpetrate violence, the members of these terrorist groups focus on relieving their frustrations especially with the Israeli government. Accordingly, members of terror groups such as the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Hamas focus on ridding Israeli civilians within Israeli-occupied areas such as Gaza and the West Bank. This is because of numerous years of intense alienation and marginalization. Such frustrations make members of the Islamic community a significant target especially for Iran’s political motivations based on the notion of religion. In the case of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Frustration Aggression Hypothesis correlates with the motivations behind terror attacks committed against the Sri-Lankan and Indian government. The members of the terror group comprise the minority ethnic group, the Tamils. Because of years of breach of their rights by the government, most of them relieved their exasperations by joining the Tamil Tigers. Additionally, the Tamils felt that they received unequal treatment and benefit unlike their counterparts, the Sinhalese, who gained privileges from the government. This is an instance of the Relative-Deprivation hypothesis. By comparing their pathetic situation with the Sinhalese, the Tamils sought to expel their frustrations with the government based on the way it unfairly treated the Tamil population. In conclusion, terrorism is indeed a considerable anomaly in the modern society. However, it is evident that acts of terror also occurred in different historical periods because of specific reasons. Such reasons have transformed into ideological, religious and nationalist motives. Even though terror movements embrace such different motives in committing violent acts, the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis proves that underlying frustrations and grievances form part of the major reasons why various people engage in acts of terrorism. References Connor, T. (2009). The criminology of terrorism: Theories and models. In Borgeson, K., Valeri, R. (Eds.), Terrorism in America (17-54). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Fattah, K., Fierke, K. M. (2009). A Clash of Emotions: The Politics of Humiliation and Political Violence in the Middle East. European Journal of International Relations, 15(1), 67-93. Gough, H. (2010). The terror in the French Revolution. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Hudson, R. A. (2010). Sociology and psychology of terrorism. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Hussain, S. R. (2010). Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE): Failed Quest for a ‘Homeland’. In Mulaj, K. (Ed.), Violent Non-State Actors in World Politics (381-412). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. O’Hern, S. K. (2012). Iran’s Revolutionary Guard: The threat that grows while America sleeps. Washington, D.C: Potomac Books. White, J. R. (2012). Terrorism and homeland security. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Whitley, B. E., Kite, M. E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.