You are on page 1of 5

The term "terrorism" comes from French terrorisme, from Latin: 'terror', "great fear", "dread", related to the

Latin verb terrere, "to frighten". The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against biblical battle between good and evil: in the Bible, the battle between the forces of good and evil that is predicted to mark the end of the world and precede the Day of Judgment.(Revelation 16:16) . noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. Political Reasons: Here one party usually participates in an act of violence or terrorism to prove their point when the other party is not listening or paying heed to their requirements. These parties usually induct general public and that even people from low income group to participate in their cause. In some cases where there is a much tensed socio-economic condition where morale of the people is very low and there is frustration when their normal household expenses are not met usually one lone incident can prove to be a catalyst of a massive terror campaign. Religious Reasons: Here the ball game is completely different! These fanatics are not in pursuit of material wealth and glory (which these groups will deny but usually is the case) but more from the fear of the afterlife and Armageddon! These groups have a definite thinking how an individual and a society must lead their lives in accordance to the religious conformities and when they dont see people following their beliefs these groups commit act of terrorism to scare people in following their path and way of thinking. Motivational factors for people joining such groups, is not money or fame but more towards inner satisfaction and spiritual values. Socio-Economic Reasons: These acts of terrorism usually end up in the form of a Civil War, when the citizens of a particular state or nation are not satisfied with how their ruling parties are handling matters of the state and there is a general atmosphere of grudges and frustration. Usually there is an individual or a group of individuals that motivate, or in some cases aggravate, the general public to take a stand for their right and to make the government understand and react to their requirements.

There Are Two Causes of Terrorism All terrorist acts are motivated by two things:

Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrongwhen they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these. The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.

Asking a Better Question: What Conditions Are Favorable for Terrorism

In fact, the question, "what causes terrorism?" is not quite the right question to be asking, because we will never be able to answer it. We cannot say that the presence of one factor provokes terrorism in the same way that we can say with scientific certainty that certain toxins cause diseases. If you listen closely to the explanations that are usually given as answers to the question, "What is terrorism?" you will find that they actually answer the question: "What are the conditions in which terrorism is most likely to take place?" Sometimes these conditions have to do with the people who become terrorists (they are described as having certain psychological traits, like 'narcissistic rage') and some conditions have to do with the circumstances they live in (a poor society; a formerly colonized society, for example). Although many people today believe that that religious fanaticism "causes" terrorism, it isn't true. It may be true that religious fanaticism creates conditions that are favorable for terrorism. But we know that religious zealotry does not 'cause' terrorism because there are many religious fanatics who do not choose terrorism or any form of violence. So there must also be other conditions that in combination provoke some people to see terrorism as an effective way of creating change in their world. There are two more reasons why asking, "What conditions create a favorable climate for terrorism?" is better than asking about causes The first is, it makes it easy to remember that there are always at least several conditions. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon; it is a specific kind of political violence committed by people who do not have legitimate army at their disposal. A second reason that has been useful for me, as I ask questions about terrorism, is that thinking in terms of 'conditions' helps me remember that people have a choice about whether to use violence. .The narcissistic rage hypothesis assumes that terrorists are full of rage that developed because of their imperfect psychological development in childhood. The concept of narcissistic rage in psychology, speaking very generally, starts with the premise that children are "grandiose" at a certain stage: they experience themselves as all powerful. If they do not have the opportunity to test their power in reality, as they grow up, they do not learn the limits of their control over events, nor how to live normally among other people, despite these limits. In adulthood, external threats or other events that threaten the narcissist with loss of control are greeted with intense rage, and the effort to assert control while avoiding the shame of its loss. "Taking the-terrorists-as-mentally-ill approach, this hypothesis concerns the early development of the terrorist. Basically if primary narcissism in the form of the "grandiose self" is not neutralized by reality testing, the grandiose self produces individuals who are sociopathic, arrogant and lacking in regard for others. Similarly, if the psychological form of the "idealized parental ego" is not neutralized by reality testing, it can produce a condition of helpless defeatism, and narcissistic defeat can lead to reactions of rage and a wish to destroy the source of narcissistic injury. "As a specific manifestation of narcissistic rage, terrorism occurs in the context of narcissistic injury," writes Crayton (1983:37-8). For Crayton, terrorism is an attempt to acquire or maintain power or control by intimidation. He suggests that the "meaningful high ideals" of the political terrorist group "protect the group members from experiencing shame."

/////The deployment of U.S. troops to the Philippines to fight the war on terrorism is not an entirely new development, but may herald a new phase in relations between Washington and Manila. However, Philippine President Gloria Arroyo must first weather the criticism that her decision to accept U.S. assistance in the ongoing campaign against Abu Sayyaf has provoked among many Filipinos,

including her vice president and foreign affairs secretary, Teofisto Guingona. Guingona came close to resigning over the issue, and dissent still lingers despite Arroyo's ability to win much-needed support for the controversial initiative at a Jan. 23 meeting of her National Security Council. The roots of this controversy run deep in the Philippines, a side effect of the long American military presence that ended at the start of the 1990s. A decade after America's departure, the issue still is near the surface for many Filipinos. However, while some, such as Guingona, may fear the specter of colonialism, others, like Arroyo, grasped quickly the heightened convergence of American and Filipino interests that followed Sept. 11. While reportedly turning down an offer by the United States last November to contribute combat troops to her country's continuing fight against Muslim insurgents (something forbidden under the Philippine Constitution), Arroyo did accept an offer of some $100 million in military aid to assist in this struggle, including a C-130 military transport aircraft, eight helicopters, 30,000 M-16 assault rifles, and several coastal patrol vessels. She also took the opportunity to press for greater access to U.S. markets for Filipino goods. The renewed military relationship between Manila and Washington includes the recent deployment of U.S. troops to the southern Philippines. The number of American troops in the country is projected to grow to around 660, some 160 of whom will be Special Forces personnel. These field exercises, scheduled to last six months, represent a quantitative and qualitative increase over existing annual joint U.S.-Filipino military cooperation. The deployed U.S. troops who, under the Philippines constitution, cannot directly engage in combat but are authorized to defend themselves under rules of engagement currently being developed will serve as advisers to the Filipino military. Meanwhile, no doubt mindful of the need to assuage fears among some Filipinos that the return of U.S. troops to their country represents a return of the colonial 'bogey-man,' Philippine Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes has repeatedly emphasized that the American role is as non-combatants, even if it is possible they could be involved in defensive fighting. Abu Sayyaf, the terrorist group upon which the U.S.-Filipino effort will be focused, currently holds two American hostages missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham from Wichita, Kansas as well as Deborah Yap, a Filipino nurse. Guillermo Sobero from Corona, Calif., was beheaded by his Abu Sayyaf captors in June 2001. As U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said, such factors add a further dimension to American interest in the campaign against Abu Sayyaf. However, the main motivation for such interest appears to be the purported links between Abu Sayyaf and al Qaeda. According to Rumsfeld, there is no doubt that such a link exists. The United States has three pieces of "evidence" to back up this stance. First, Abu Sayyaf founder Abdurajak Janjalini met with Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law, Muhammad Jamal Khalifa, in the early 1990s. Second, the group received training from Ramzi Yousef, convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, who also has been linked to bin Laden. Finally, members of Abu Sayyaf trained in Afghanistan with al Qaeda leaders. Despite this, there is little substantive evidence currently linking Abu Sayyaf with bin Laden's organization, and the main business of the Filipino group (whose name means "Bearer of the Sword" in Arabic) is viewed not as pursing its self-professed goal of establishing an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu islands as much as seizing hostages for money. Arroyo has herself described the group as "a money-crazed gang of criminals without any ideology." However, whether the link with al Qaeda is as clear-cut as Rumsfeld claims is ultimately irrelevant. For, as he himself admits, the United States is "interested in a lot more than al Qaeda." Even if the connection between Abu Sayyaf was completely non-existent, the Filipino terrorist group's activities warrant U.S. interest not least over the matter of the U.S. citizens it holds captive. Likewise, if any link al Qaeda exists, however tenuous, the message being sent to others who might consider such a relationship is an unequivocal one. Empty threats frighten no one. U.S. action to help put the Al

Sayaffs of the world out of business will demonstrate to other such groups that the strategic environment after Sept. 11 is not one that favors them. As such, sending U.S. troops to the Philippines is a viable strategy that allows the United States to retain the initiative while keeping open other more difficult or time-consuming options, including covert ones. It does so by the relatively simple expedient of expanding the sort of training that U.S. Special Forces already conduct with foreign militaries worldwide. True, the situation in the Philippines carries more risks than are usually faced in such programs, but it also presents less danger than another Afghanistan-type operation. Indeed, it is possible that the Philippines, rather than Afghanistan, will provide the dominant model for future overt U.S. actions in the war against terrorism. "REVOLUTIONARY" TERRORISM "Revolutionary" terrorism is terrorism that is planned and executed outside the power of direct influence by state organs on the terrorists. The terrorists alone decide how, when and where they are going to strike. "Revolutionary" terrorists for the most part intellectuals impatiently break off from the main body of the mass struggle for reforms. They revert to tactics of spectacular violence, in the hopes of extorting concessions from the ruling elite in order to take a "shortcut to revolution." They labor under the illusion that the ruling circles can be "terrorized" into giving up power or, at least, making meaningful concessions to the movement of the "powerless." This form of terrorism is not to be confused with the national liberation struggles and their guerilla warfare carried out in countries of the Tricont. This amalgam was/is often used by propaganda organs in order to justify foreign imperialist intervention to repress a popular uprising against a client or puppet regime under a "war on terrorism" banner. The point of difference between terrorism and a national liberation struggle is that the national liberation struggle moves on to the phase of armed struggle at a point where it already controls an organized infrastructure capable of replacing the current social order. "FRIENDLY FIRE" TERRORISM. Friendly fire and false flag terrorism share the same objectives: have terrorist attacks carried out in order to strike fear in the population, on the one hand, and to create a "public enemy" on the other. This creates a "circle up the wagons" sentiment in the population, which the government can exploit to win acceptance for restrictions of civil rights. The population hopes these restrictions will bring a bit more personal security. The boogey man created by the government's terrorism can at any time be pulled out and dangled, whenever the government wants more concessions or the citizens try to get those lost rights back again. (One need only count the number of times the terror alert color codes have gone up in the US.) Unlike the usual cases of "revolutionary" terrorism, the targeting in this type of terrorism becomes the wanton, media-spectacular, indiscriminate destruction of both human life and property. FALSE FLAG" TERRORISM: False Flag terrorism is where the state has no "terrorists" available and must make the attack itself, to blame it on an existent or a fictitious terror organization. Suicide bombings can fit into any of the 3 categories of terrorism. "Revolutionary" terrorists could have independently decided to make the attack. Would-be terrorists could be manipulated into sacrificing their lives "for the cause" making it a case of friendly fire terrorism. But there is also the possibility that a bombing was disguised to appear to be a suicidal act. Suspicions concerning a false

flag background to "suicide bombings" arise particularly when like clockwork a series of "suicide attacks" occur at the most unfavorable conjunctures for the Palestinian struggle, attacks where Israel alone is the side to benefit from such an attack. Consider the case of the bombing in Rishon Lezion.