Terrorism Is One the Most Peril Word In Of Inquiry of Social Sciences

Question: Discuss about The Terrorism Is One the Most Peril Word In Of Inquiry of Social Sciences ? Answer: Introducation Terrorism is one among the most disputed terms in field of inquiry of social sciences. Although extensively examined the problem lies in its distinction and proper explanation. The term is yet to come with a proper definition as it is used differently by the different agencies. However, many scholars, analysts and politicians believe that the terrorism has shifted into an entirely new form which is called new terrorism. Relying on such articulation this new concept has come with new actors who have different motivations and aims; who are further equipped with different tactics and differ in actions unlike the old terrorism of the mid twentieth century (Spencer 2006). Moreover, there is some ambiguity as the boundaries drawn against these two types of terrorism are often blurred. In order to draw a contrasting line most of the texts refer old terrorism to secular groups and other group, that existed prior to 1990s and after the end of cold war, with an overwhelming example of over 400 groups and even more if one precedes beyond that to the 19th century (Crenshaw 2009). Yet the contemporary terrorism is not an elusively new phenomenon rather a phenomenon that has evolved over the period of time and has a proper historical roots or context ( Kalyvas 2001). The present day terrorism like the past, shares some of the common characteristics. Even it is hard to comprehend the emergence of new one and the decline of old as the transition is blurry. Although through the efforts of David Rapoport one can acquire knowledge about the historical evolution of terrorism in which nationalism has been termed as a major cause of terrorism. With the works of Laqueur; Simon and Benjamin, emerged the concept of new terrorism where they at times conclude that the new terrorism is joined by the old one (Roy et al. 2000; Laqueur 1999). However, a distinction can be drawn between the two forms of terrorism as they tend to differ in aspects like goals, methods and methodology, organizational makeup and resources through which the acts of terrorism are performed by differen t groups. It is believed that the aims of terrorism are perplexing and nebulous and simultaneously its ends are nonnegotiable and beyond limits. Based on the above distinctions a discussion is followed. Variance in goals among the old and the new: While understanding the perspective of the believers of new terrorism it becomes clear that the philosophy which guides the terrorists is religious in nature and derives primarily from the religious doctrines. These religious doctrines often emphasize on altruistic and apocalyptic beliefs and can be found in all monotheistic religions. It is often reflected in their works as well for example, Walter Laqueur who characterizes the new terrorists as religious extremists or fanatics suffering from illusions, delusions and different manias (Hoge Rose 2001). However, ambiguity persists in his views, and confusion arises as it is not clear from his works whether he attributes it to sole motivation of an individual or a groups purpose. However, it is assumed that the present day terrorists hate the western population particularly their culture, their existence, civilization and values. They often compare new terrorism with the communism instead of linking or comparing it with the old terror ism (Simon 2003). Following this analogy one gets sense that the whole idea is totalitarian and thus they compare it to the fascism to which they attribute the horrific World War II. As per the new terrorism argument the ends of terrorism are inextricably linked to the means. Even the new terrorists are deemed as fanatics who are unconstrained and cease to show any respect or value to human life. They are all proponents of violence and its violence that constitutes their beliefs. Even ambiguity persists over the nature of violence, as per Simon and Benjamin the new terrorists use terrorism strategically and not tactically, which indicates that killings are an end by itself (Simon Benjamin 2003). It can be stated that if destruction is presumed as an end rather than a way to end then the whole process cannot be stated as strategic rather it can be stated as expressive. On the other hand, the governing assumptions of the new terrorism school of thought are that instead of choosing am ong different or alternative ways to achieve political ends, it is the killings that the new terrorists primarily resort to. It is lethality, which serves the purpose of a goal rather than as a means. They want to acquire all the deadly weapons that are ever produced on this globe in order to cause catastrophic damage. This deadly combination which is on one side driven by the religion and on the other by a desire to cause maximum damage differentiates new terrorism from the old (Laqueur 1998). Old terrorism on the other hand is believed to be limited in terms of its goals which were often believed to be negotiable and limited. Even the area to which the old terrorism was restricted was believed to be local rather than global (Giddens 2004). The proponents of this school believe that the aims of such terrorists (those who are associated with the old terrorism) were tangible and more or less understandable. They believe that the old terrorism was mostly arising of issues pertaining to nationalism or territorial autonomy and under such circumstances it was easy to struck deals. Under such circumstances it was possible for the state to bargain with the group resorting to terrorism and eventually leading to the resolution of conflicts. The proponents of new terrorism presumably state the old terrorists as sensible while analyzing their objectives, which were often pragmatic as well as realistic. They believe that the old terrorists restrained themselves from committing mass mur ders as they feared public backlash. Crenshaw while quoting Laqueur (2001) states, They hated their enemies, but they had not been totally blinded by their hate. For the radical religious practitioners of the new terrorism, however, murder and destruction on an unprecedented scale did not pose much of a problem. (Crenshaw 2009, p 11) From the above argument it is clear that the old terrorists were not as lethal as the present ones however such arguments are mere presumptions and cannot be validated by actual empirical data. Even it is not also clear whether they valued life of human beings more than the present day terrorists. Even there is ambiguity as all terrorists cannot be weighed though same lens due to individual differences. Ideology and even religion can be useful devices as they help in recruiting more numbers to these groups. Methods that increase destruction Another contrast can be drawn in terms of methods adopted by the old terrorists and the new terrorists. It is assumed that the means adopted by the new terrorists are radically different from terrorists of the past. Such assumptions are based on the premises that the means and ends of present day terrorism are beyond limits. The groups of terrorists in the present day context are capable of inflicting maximum possible damage. Even it is believed that the present day terrorists can go beyond limits in order to cause massive damage to their counterparts which then not only involves the trained militia but also the local populations (Laqueur 1999; Roy et al. 2000). For the new terrorism the means is end in itself and they dont fear public backlash or are not concerned about drawing public support. For them death is an achievement. Thus it can be stated that the drivers of new terrorism are more inclined to use destructive weapons than the old ones. Jessica Stern in her argument states a bout the risk of abuse of the destructive weapons (which include a wide array of chemical, nuclear and biological armaments) by the new terrorists due to the high level of motivations in them (Stern 2000). It is believed that the apocalyptical motivations that drive these terrorists can result in large scale lethality. With an aim to destroy, the new terrorists are more concerned about after world achievements rather than deriving any political change. This is quite visible when one analyzes the suicide bombing attempts done by terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even the atrocities committed by the ISIS terrorists in Syria and other parts of the globe are heinous and heart wrenching. While as old terrorism is more or less restrained and specific while choosing its target. They were more concerned about making people to watch rather than wiping them out by killing them. According to Hoffman the old terrorists were selective in their approach and were often discriminative in their nature (Hoffman 2006). Crenshaw while quoting Benjamin and Simon states that the old terrorism used carefully calibrated violence as they well aware about the consequences of brutality which often would have resulted in loss of negotiating powers (Laqueur 1998). With a aim to achieve their desired goals they often tended to impose restrictions or restrains on their actions. They choose not to be destructive and their reference populations were mostly tangible. They were guided by their political interests rather than heavenly achievements. In short it was their pursuit of legitimacy that had put a stop on their actions and behavior. Although there are ample examples which show that the ol d terrorism at times resulted in mass killings and the actions were not discriminative in nature. Be it the French anarchists who bombed restaurants in 1880, or the Zionist terrorists bombing hotels in Jerusalem in 1946, or the Japanese red army attack on airport in Tel Aviv and many others (Miller 1995, Bell 1976). It can however be stated that the old terrorism has a lacunae in their capabilities rather than having a sense of imposing restraints on their actions. Structure and organization Organization of the terror groups and the resources can be another area though which distinction can be drawn between the old and the new terrorism. Organization is one of the visible attributes that distinguishes new terrorism from the old one. The new terrorism is thought to have a different structure than the old terrorism. It is believed that the new terrorists operate through a flat network and are decentralized rather than having a hierarchical structure (Lesser et al. 1999). Even the sub units of these terror groups are believed to have a little bit of autonomy if not complete autonomy and are believed to act beyond transnational boundaries. The new terrorism draws mostly from inspirational indicators rather than flowing from top. And bearing that in mind these terrorists are believed to be more radical in their approach (Laqueur 1999). The war on terror has now shifted to inflict the ideology of terrorism rather than inflicting the organization itself. While as old terrorism was believed to be centralized in their structure and was mostly adopting top down approach. In words of Hoffman, the past groups associated with terrorism were collections of individuals belonging to an organization with a well-defined command and control apparatus, who had been previously trained (in however rudimentary a fashion) in the techniques and tactics of terrorism, were engaged in conspiracy as a fulltime avocation, living underground while constantly planning and plotting terrorist attacks, and who at times were under the direct control, or operated at the express behest, of a foreign government. . . .( Hoffman 2006. P 197; Roy et al 2000). Thus hierarchies were dominating and the structure was cellular and paramount. Even the organizational structure of the old terrorism was not firm and hierarchical as it may appear in the present day context. However a contradictory example can be drawn by invoking al Qaeda as an example. But the problem arises over the assumption that it is either different from what it used to be or it can serve as a model for future analysis. Even it is not clear to the agencies, that how much centralized or decentralized this terrorist organization is. While assuming there may be centralization however they are veiled from the public. Also there is need to understand and underline the importance of experiences and their impact on the socialization of afghan population, a vital factor in understanding the organizational development of groups like al Qaeda which emerges as a new terrorist group. Even it is not properly clear whether the organizational structure of the old terrorism was always centralized as there are possible probabilities of fragmentation even among the serious groups. The anarchists during 19th century formed a transnational conspiracy, wherein they linked activists in different count ries like France, Russia, Switzerland, Spain, US, Italy, and Germany. In essence anarchism was having antipathy towards central direction, while terrorism was generated locally. In addition to that, there are instances where in some of the hierarchical groups demonstrated significant autonomy at the local level. IRA for instance provided some autonomy to its Active Service Units which was at times disapproved by its army council. Similarly Italian Red Brigades were also organized in independent units operating in different cities with some degree of autonomy. Also the French Action Directe a amalgam of two groups, of which one was limited to France and other had operational area internationally. Thus there is not a clear cut distinction between the two forms of terrorism (old terrorism and new terrorism) the way it is propounded by the proponents of the new terrorism. Even the differences among groups arise with the passage of time and these differences are attributed to a number of factors varying from opportunities, learning, progression and the environment itself. New terrorism as an idea in itself: Another contrast can be drawn on the basic idea of new terrorism as a looming treat on globe itself. While as the emergence of new terrorism as an idea is attractive and the reason is the over reliance of the policies through which restrictions is put forth on the civil liberties (Khosrokhavar 2004). By invoking the threat of religious fundamentalism policy makers are able to draw or mobilize support for cross country interventions. This new idea of terrorism is further complemented when the threat is magnified by invoking the weapons which can cause mass destruction. Even the new models that define the new terrorism state that the information is processed through a top down approach. These models do not emphasize much on the dissimilarities rather they rely mostly on the said assumptions and conclusions. By adopting such approach the researchers would not overburden themselves to understand the long and complicated premises of terrorism. It not only narrows the scope of analysis but also streamlines it. Even the new approach to understand the terrorism saves time as all ailments are attributed to the religion and thus neglecting the other vital indicators. For instance defining a group like Hamas as a terrorist group with whom the democracies wont negotiate, such framing also saves time and effort of the world powers where in they dont invoke deliberations with the non state actors who are democratically elected. Even the new idea saves time of the researchers who dont want to complicate themselves with the history of terrorism and its phenomenon (Burnett Whyte 2003). If researchers and analysts will focus primarily on the new terrorism and this way they can disregard the vast records on terrorism that were witnessed by the world before 1990s. However by narrowing the scope of research helps them to streamline the hefty task of analysis. Furthermore it is the religion that they blame for all the evils particularly with the rise of radical Islam and it position of global Jehad. While assuming such there are more chances of encouraging terrorism rather than controlling it. It is quite evident from the fact that how hostile it has been f or the followers of Islam in the west as most of the Muslim countries which are believed to be associated with terrorism are denied entrance in countries like USA. This labeling of religious community is problematic in itself as it leads to counter violence. For instance the places of worship were attacked by some individuals in US; they, attackers attributed all the causal implications to the religion itself and thus resorted to terrorism. Conclusion The existing knowledge base on the terrorism is vast and useful. However, entailing the new models of terrorism, which believe in new terrorism can lead to mistakes and improper policy implications. Terrorism in todays world is highly contingent and reactive in nature. Like other things terrorism also exhibits evolutionary progression and learn through experience. New terrorism as an idea is based on inadequate historical knowledge and mis-interpretative present context. By drawing such distinction issues arise in drawing conclusions about whether one has ended or resulted in the creation of other. Simultaneously it becomes hard to categorize present day terrorists having attributes of old terrorism. It can be concluded that there is a need of systematic empirical research in order to get more understanding about terrorism and its new facets. The new models of terrorism which mostly allege religion as the sole reason of terrorism often tends to overestimate it. A clear line is not drawn between the religious fundamentalists, nationalists, revolutionaries or secular forces, the actions of whom are acts of terrorism. Even the facts are not substantiated properly. There are evident examples where in secular ideologies and revolutionary ideologies have resorted to fundamentalist and totalitarian approaches. Even it would be inappropriate to assume that only religious groups are capable of terrorism. Religiously motivated terrorism is not a new phenomenon as it has existed thousands of years ago. Terrorism has always been a violent phenomenon as resulted in death and destruction. Bearing in mind the present context of the globe one can state that the terrorism has evolved with the evo lving trends of the globe. Terrorism has led to counter terrorism which is quite evident from the Iraq and Afghanistan, where war on terror has resulted in subsequent destruction and violence. References Kalyvas, S.N., 2001. New and old civil wars: a valid distinction?.World politics,54(01), pp.99-118. Roy, O., Hoffman R Paz, B., Simon, S. and Benjamin, D., 2000. America and the new terrorism: an exchange.Survival,42(2), pp.156-172. Laquer, W., 1999. The new terrorism: Fanaticism and the arms of mass destruction.New York. Laqueur, Walter. "Left, right and beyond: The changing face of terror."How did this happen(2001): 71-82. Laqueur, W., 1998. The new face of terrorism.Washington Quarterly,21(4), pp.167-178. Hoge, J.F. and Rose, G., 2001.How did this happen?: terrorism and the new war. PublicAffairs. Giddens, A., 2004. The Future of World Society: the new terrorism.Paper delivered at the London School of Economics,10. Hoffman, B., 2006. Inside Terrorism. Rev. ed.NY: Columbia U Pr, pp.32-33. Daniel, B. and Simon, S., 2003. The Age of Sacred Terror: Radical Islams War Against America. Stern, J., 2000.The ultimate terrorists. Harvard University Press. Miller, M.A., 1995. The intellectual origins of modern terrorism in Europe.Terrorism in context, pp.27-62. Crenshaw, M. ed., 2010.Terrorism in context. Penn State Press. Bell, J.B., 1976.Terror out of Zion. Transaction Publishers. Lesser, I., Arquilla, J., Hoffman, B., Ronfeldt, D.F. and Zanini, M., 1999.Countering the new terrorism. RAND corporation. Khosrokhavar, F., 2004. Terrorism in Europe.ISIM Newsletter,14, p.1 Simon, S., 2003. The new terrorism: Securing the nation against a messianic foe.The Brookings Review,21(1), pp.18-24. Crenshaw, M., 2009. The debate over new vs.old terrorism.Values and Violence, pp.117-136. Spencer, A., 2006. Questioning the concept of new terrorism.Peace, Conflict and Development, pp.1-33.