User:Tammam Albarmaki

== A simple approach to terrorism by Dr.Tammam Ali AlBarmaki

Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. Terrorists often use violence and threats to create fear among the public, to try to convince people that their government is powerless to prevent acts of terrorism, and to get immediate publicity for their causes. Acts of terrorism can range from threats to actual assassinations, kidnappings,building explosions, mailings of dangerous materials, agro- terrorism, computer-based attacks, and the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons—weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Another type is called hand-made terrorism which is utilized very perfectly in order to draw the attention of the strong nations and subsequently received support from them, this type is also described as seasonal terrorism and it is of two subtypes either primary that was not there before or secondary which is already existing and weak but is aggravated or stimulated by the government. And the cause for its aggravation or stimulation is either due to the government does not receive any support (any form of support) from those donor countries or the support which was done by these donor countries is now stopped. It seems that there is some agreement between the two parts, the government and the terrorist groups and the answer is Yes in the former and may be in the later.

People face threats of terrorism posed by extremist groups, individuals, and hostile governments. Terrorists can be domestic or foreign, and their threats to people, communities, and the nation range from isolated acts of terrorism to acts of war. High-risk terrorism targets include military and civilian government facilities, international airports, large cities, and high-profile landmarks. Terrorists might also target large public gatherings, water and food supplies, utilities, and corporate centers. People become terrorist in different ways, in different roles, and for different reasons. Mental illness is not a contributing factor to these terrorist processes, it means that those terrorists are not psychopaths and there is not terrorist personality. History of childhood trauma , abuse, and themes of perceived injustice and humiliation may make the person susceptible to be a terrorist but do not really help to explain terrorism. Terrorist groups, like all social collectives, have certain internal (e.g., mistrust, competition) and external (e.g. support, inter-group conflict) vulnerabilities to their existence.

Effective leaders of terrorist organizations must be able to: maintain a collective belief system; establish and maintain organizational routines; control the flow of communication; manipulate incentives (and purposive goals) for followers; deflect conflict to external targets; and keep action going.

We must know that terrorism is not an official state by itself otherwise it is called violence. In many Arab countries and in this current political situation and the spring of the ongoing Arab masses revolution. The acts done by the government against the protesters such as attacking them by any form as shooting them, poisoning them with poisonous weapons, or arresting them are not involved in the definition of terrorism, instead it is called violence against humanity and the innocents. I will not go deeply through this path but I try to concentrate hardly on the prevention and role of the governments in fighting terrorism.

Jerrold Post has similarly theorized that “the need to belong, the need to have a stable identity, to resolve a split and be at one with oneself and with society- … is an important bridging concept which helps explain the similarity in behavior of terrorists in groups of widely different espoused motivations and composition.”

Because of the malicious behaviors and intentions of those terrorist groups all nations and states world wide stand together for fighting terrorism in all its forms.

The United State and the European Unions play a major role in fighting terrorism through their partnership. Since the end of the Cold War, the role of non-state actors forming transnational networks and adopting the methods of political violence associated with low intensity conflict and insurgency (e.g., bombings, kidnapping, assassinations, hostage taking, etc.) has increased, especially in geographic regions where governance is weak or non-existent. The American strategy has four main components to limit and fight terrorism:

Defeat terrorist organizations of global reach;

Deny further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists;

Diminish underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit;

Defend the homeland and extend defenses abroad.

Also the European Union has its four main components to limit and fight terrorism:

Prevent people turning to terrorism by tackling root causes;

Protect citizens and infrastructure;

Pursue and investigate terrorists and bring them to justice;

Respond (prepare) to manage and minimize consequences of an attack

First the US sees the fight against terrorism as a "war". Consequently, there has been a heavy input from the Defense Department and armed forces in disrupting terrorist networks. As the State Department’s legal advisor has argued:

[The United States was] clearly justified in using military force in self-defense against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is not a nation state, but it planned and executed violent attacks with an international reach, magnitude, and sophistication that could previously be achieved only by nation states. Its leaders explicitly declared war against the United States, and al-Qaida members attacked our embassies, our military vessels, our financial center, our military headquarters, and our capital city, killing more than 3,000 people in the process. In our view, these facts fully supported our determination that we were justified in responding in self-defense, just as we would have been if a nation had committed these acts against us.

Second, the US approach places an emphasis on the external. For the United States, the extraterritorial nature of the al-Qaida network (not to mention the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which harbored al-Qaida terrorists) led the Americans to view the threat’s external dimension. Consequently, the US approach consistently has been to “take the fight” to the enemy and push the borders out. As Dan Hamilton writes, “Despite the impact of September 11 on the United States, the natural instinct in a nation bounded by two oceans is still to fight one’s enemies abroad so one doesn’t need to fight them at home.” Thus, the focus of the American counterterrorism strategy has been to reach out to beyond Europe to the rest of world, including the Philippines, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Australia. As the National Counterterrorism Strategy states, “As our enemies exploit the benefits of our global environment to operate around the world, our approach must be global as well.” This is one reason why the US developed the Container Security Initiative.

Third, the US approach has been proactive. From an institutional perspective, the US created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and implemented major reform of the Intelligence Community in order to be better prepared for future threats. Even if transatlantic threat perceptions vary somewhat, American and European officials generally agree on the threat and that it is real. A cursory comparison of the US national security strategy and EU security strategies is a case in point. According to the 2002 US National Security Strategy, global terrorism is a major threat to democratic regimes and the civilized world. The European Security Strategy of December 2003 lists terrorism as one of five key threats to the EU. The attacks in Madrid and London have helped European governments recognize that they are not immune. European intelligence officials believe that as many as thirty “spectacular” attacks have been planned since September 11. In October 2006, EU officials conducted a mock exercise to test their preparedness for a wave of terrorist attacks. In the exercise scenario, officials had to respond to a near-simultaneous terrorist attack in five EU cities. The purpose was to see how well EU institutions such as the Commission and Council Secretariat coordinate their various responses. According to Commission officials, the EU’s joint capacity was pretty good, although a review of the exercise highlighted the need for better use of communication technology. In March 2007, Europol released its first EU terrorism trends report, which stated that the terrorist threat to the EU is “more serious than ever.” One proposal put forward by the Europeans was to develop a “non-emotive lexicon” for discussing issues “in order to avoid linking Islam to terrorism.” Yet, in the same paragraph, the EU strategy talks about encouraging the “emergence of European imams” and engaging with “Muslim organizations and faith groups that reject the distorted version of Islam put forward by al-Qaida and others.”

There is a strong link between the US department, EU department and the other government in the world for the purpose of fighting terrorism in all its forms either providing the government with any form of support to fight the terrorism by its own way or sharing the weak nations for fighting terrorism by military forces.

I would like to emphasize that terrorism is like HIV/AIDS, once some body is infected with it he /she will be exposed to many threats such as decrease his/her immunity and appearance of other infections and cancers which are the most common cause for death in patients infected with HIV. Likely the nations that are attacked by terrorism will be weak and said to be powerless if not all people stand together against this threat.

References: 1. Psychology of terrorism…….Randy Borum, director, psychology of terrorism initiative, University of South Florida 2. David T. Armitage: US and EU Efforts to Fight Terrorism 3. Dr.Tammam Ali AlBarmaky: Terrorism in a medical point of view