Milan Gligorevic

Professor Jonathan Tinnin

Wrd111
30 June 2016

Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. In
modern times, terrorism is something that has unfortunately become a common topic of
debate. Its always in the news. Just a few weeks ago, 49 people were shot dead and
many others were wounded when an ISIS militant targeted a LGBT bar. The day this
paper is being submitted, 41 people were shot and killed at an airport in Istanbul,
Turkey. A Gallup poll released in December of 2015 showed that terrorism was the #1
concern among the American population. But, for as much of a terrorist-caused crisis as
we are in, the topic is not debated nearly enough and a more general discussion needs
to be had. While I was doing my research into the current debates and opinions on the
subject of terrorism I became both intrigued and also began to feel a sense of
responsibility. Not to handle the problem myself or take initiative and help make peace
between the east and west, but to be open. After doing my research it was obvious to
me this was no simple problem with a simple solution. If anybody knew a sure and
concrete solution it would have been implemented, but thats not the world we live in.
So, when as sensitive of a topic as terrorism is being discussed all people present
should try their best to not offend anybody. Putting the blame on individuals is easy, but
beneath terrorism are root causes greater than people.
What causes terrorism, and how should we handle it? These are two extremely
loaded questions. Answering them takes much more than a simple response. When

these questions are brought up, they evoke strong emotion and it can be difficult to put
ones emotions aside and focus strictly on the logic of the problem. First, I am going to
give an overview over the question of what causes terrorism. From there on we can
better combat the issue as a whole.
As many people interested in the subject of terrorism will tell you, terrorists are
extremely driven people. They believe their cause is worth their own life and then some.
This can be difficult to understand from the perspective of a college student in the US
because life is going pretty well for me and I would rather live to see another day. But,
upon finishing my research I have found that there are two main causes people attribute
terrorism to. The first is a lack of employment and/or education in a region. Dustin V. of
Prevent Weapons of Mass Destruction Organization uses the old saying you can kill a
person, but it will take ages to kill an ideology when analyzing the cause. Dustin argues
that as long as people are going hungry and lack opportunity to educate themselves
terrorist organizations will fill the void and provide them with money for their families and
their own education (manipulating them for a radical cause).
During surfing on the Prevent Weapons of Mass Destruction Organization
website its easy to notice a recurring theme. Time and time again Dustin V. and other
writers on the site point to the repeated failures of the battle against terror, especially
stressing the armed response. They write, many countries including the US, UK and
Israel have launched armed missions and that these armed missions only resulted in
more terror attacks. Their logic seems to be that since larger and more advanced
militant efforts from the west cant stop the conflict a deeper cause must be addressed.
Dustin uses the metaphor of cutting the branches of a tree, he says the tree will keep

growing until the roots are pulled. Basically, as long as these people need stuff and
terrorist organizations have stuff, the organizations will thrive. Therefore, that puts us in
quite the predicament. If we want to stop being terrorized by people from regions known
for extremists, we need to go to these regions and help develop them economically to a
point where they can support themselves.
While the opinion that underdeveloped regions lead to terrorism seems logical
and useful, one should also take a look at a conflicting view. To do this, look no further
than Beenish Ahmed and others part of his team at the Think Progress Organization.
Beenish directly compares his opinion, that anger is the root cause of terrorism to
poverty/underdevelopment being the root cause. During his comparison, he references
an interview done with Keith Proctor of the Mercy Corps who points out some very
compelling logic within his opinion. Beenish and Keith both believe difficult social
situations breed terrorism, not poverty. They point out that a very small percentage of
people become radicalized among those impoverished, so that cant be it. Keith
mentions his research, in which he interviewed and discussed with thousands of former
terrorists. He claims very few of these people did what they did for money, almost all of
them did it out of anger. A 23 year old former terrorist fighter is quoted as saying, I did
not join the Taliban because I was poor. I joined because I was angry. The fighter goes
on to explain that he was in school before becoming a fighter and a US led airstrike on
the region (to combat terrorism) destroyed his school. This loss left a gaping hole in his
life and what was once filled by education became filled by fighting in a war against the
west. So, while it can be seen that both opinions came into play in this situation (if there

were another school perhaps that may have prevented the young man from joining a
terrorist organization) one, anger, was directly claimed by a former terrorist.
When discussing the causes of terrorism youre usually involved in a less heated
discussion. Personally, thats why I wanted to overview those opinions first. Because,
when you begin to discuss what should be done in response to terrorism, restriction and
obstacles begin to come into play. First of all, emotional people are known to not be in
the clearest mindset. Anybody affected by terrorism will likely be extremely emotional
and even the average citizen cant help but feel angry or threatened when he/she hears
news of an attack. Also, resources come into play. Going back to the average citizen
(because they are after all the ones who vote for things), they usually prefer not being in
war to being involved in it. Wheres the logic in protecting American lives by risking
American lives?
Theres no better time to overview the opinions on the subject of terrorism
because theyre consistently in the news with elections coming up. So, in honor of this I
will overview none other than Donald Trumps opinion on the matter. According to The
Week the Republican Presidential hopeful claims when fighting terrorism, you must
fight fire with fire. He goes on to say Americans must fight so viciously. And violently
because were dealing with violent people viciously. While his opinion is very strong this
makes it easy to analyze. Trump believes he needs no other criteria to base his actions
on other than those of the people the nation is dealing with. Because were dealing with
barbaric and extremely violent people, thats what it will take to stop them. Forget
negotiating with them, forget increased cooperation with foreign governments and a
more restrained approach in the middle east. If terrorist organizations want blood and

battle, he thinks we should give it right back and destroy them as they wish to do to us.
Trump even suggests that our laws are too strict when it comes to what can be done
interrogating a terrorist and what cant. He reasons that water torture is peanuts
compared to ISIS and other militant group chopping heads off of innocent people.
On the contrary to Mr. Trump you have the opinion of Real Time host Bill Maher.
During a show Maher is discussing the issue of stopping terrorism. Soon into the
broadcast, Maher proposes an interesting and perhaps rhetorical question. He asks why
terrorists hate the west. He doesnt delve into the issue in an extremely academic sense
but does follow it up with some personal insight. He says, when you capture one, or
when they leave a note, you know what they say? Because youre there. Because
youre in Muslim lands. I have a crazy idea, why dont we get out of Muslim lands?
Basically, Maher is saying if we want to stop terrorism we need to let these people be
and change the policy of maintaining a constant presence in their territory. He goes on
to point out that if any terrorist was watching the Republican debate which recently took
place they would be further infuriated and their reasoning would seem more valid.
According to Maher every single candidate except Rand Paul focused on bolstering the
military in aggressive fashion so that America as a whole would be more advanced
should battle be necessary. However, Maher reasons that if were already 10 times
where all the other countries combined are, why do we have to keep adding to it? and
says they always talk about, you know, Im going to wipe out ISIS.This idiot talk we
have to stop. If we actually put boots on the ground, what would ISIS do? They would
melt back into the population, just like the last time we were in Iraq. And, to put the
cherry on top Maher states bombing them over there is what is causing the Paris thing

to happen. I must say, Maher may be oversimplifying his stance because of how
passionate he is about it. Im not sure, if he were in charge, that a complete absence of
American influence would take place. But, what Maher is strongly advocating is
removing our military intervention in the Middle East. He thinks it isnt our problem to
deal with, we shouldnt be picking any sides in the area and we should quit any military
intervention because it seemingly always harms civilians and provides more fuel for the
fire of terrorism. According to his logic, if we removed our military presence there would
be no justification for terror attacks in the west and this scenario is one that must be
tested. His crazy idea may not be so crazy after all.
While terrorism may be a sensitive topic, like many other sensitive topics, a
public discussion on the matter is completely necessary. So many people are affected
by terrorism, even outside those whose lives are directly endangered by the violence.
People lose loved ones, economies are harmed in ways they cant quickly recover from,
and conflicts are often further escalated. In order to better understand and deal with the
issue of terrorism people can begin informing themselves on the issue by reading the
words of prominent social leaders such as the ones included in my writing. Perhaps,
with this improved understanding and dialogue progress can be made and a problem
that has plagued generations before us may begin to slow down.

Works Cited
Shirkey, Zachary C. A Better Way to Combat Terrorism. The National Interest. The
National Interest, 21 Aug. 2014. Web. 24 June 2016.
Donald Trump: When Battling Terrorists, You Have to fight Fire with Fire Donald
Trump: When Battling Terrorists, You Have to fight Fire with Fire The Week, 28 June
2016. Web. 29 June 2016.
United Nations Action To Counter Terrorism. UN News Center. UN, n.d.Web. 24 June
2016.
Margon, Sarah. Another Way to Fight Terrorism. American Progress. American
Progress Organization, 3 May 2011. Web. 24 June 2016.
Lakey, George. 8 Ways to Defend against Terror Nonviolently. Waging NonViolence.
Waging NonViolence Organization, 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 24 June 2016.
Hanchett, Ian. Maher: US Should Get Out of Muslim Lands to Stop Terrorism, Good
for Rand Paul - Breitbart. Breitbart News. Breitbart, 13 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 June 2016.
Grass, S.M., Major. Military. Understanding And Combating Terrorism. Global Security
Organization, n.d. Web. 24 June 2016.
Egan. Anthony, S.J. Dealing With Terrorism. America Magazine. America Magazine,
01 Oct. 2001. Web. 24 June 2016.