Final Presentation

Causal Analysis on Terrorism

The conventional definition of terrorism portrays it as the use of violence in order to pursue political interests (Sandler, 2013). The awareness of terrorism increased along with the realization that human beings have the tendency of using violence to influence politics in order to suit their psychological, emotional, and physical needs. Likewise, terrorism has increased along with the understanding that governments can be forced to agree to the demands of specific groups. Arguably, the September 9/11 attack on the United States caught the attention of many people (Sandler, 2013). The successful attack on the most powerful nation revealed the extent of people’s vulnerability.

Consequently, many studies which attempted to explain the causes of terrorism in the contemporary society emerged. In the past, scholars placed much emphasis on low-level education, few economic opportunities, and poverty as the primary facilitators of terrorism. However, terrorism has not reduced despite the implementation of interventions which focused on redressing such factors (Sandler, 2013). It means that there is still a gap in the information regarding the cause of terrorism regardless of the studies. Therefore, this paper seeks to examine terrorism as a response to political conditions while proving that low-level education, poverty, and religious and cultural differences are not the primary causes of the problem.

Discussion

A study conducted by Enders and Hoover (2012) to determine the relationship between poverty and terrorism forms a part of the basis underpinning this discussion. The study methodology involved the analysis of information entailing the extent of domestic and international terrorism. It also involved the estimation of models which could predict a nonlinear relationship between poverty and terrorism (Enders & Hoover, 2012). The study determined that poverty can cause terrorism, but not to the extent to which it has been exaggerated by the media and some scholars. In fact, poverty can only significantly influence domestic terrorism. The study also established that the difference in population characteristics and political freedom can facilitate terrorism relatively more compared to poverty and lack of economic opportunities (Enders & Hoover, 2012). Comment by Author: Transition between these sentences to show you are adding on a fact that helps to support the points you are making about false causes.

In a different discussion, Cinar in conjunction with Epoka University (2010) reviewed several literature sources and determined that it is misleading to perceive terrorism as a response to inadequate education or lack of thereof. Likewise, the difference in ideological roots, religious, and cultural diversity are not the predominant causes of terrorism. In the past, terrorists used religion to find acceptable justification for their acts. Otherwise, religion cannot influence people to form a particular political opinion. Religion is an independent identity which influences followers to adopt a specific way of life in which loyalty to authority is a central theme (Cinar & Epoka University, 2010). Likewise, terrorism can be understood as lacking any ideological form or political agenda. However, terrorists have the tendency of using particular ideologies to advance their activities. In most cases, they use excerpts from cultural and religious statements to convince people to join their movement. They customize the related messages to suit their position and portray a given government in a negative way. Comment by Author: Comment by Author: Topic sentence should introduce your own idea or the criteria of analysis and then the evidence should be used to support that topic sentence.

Human beings tend to believe in things irrespective of their credibility, and sometimes it is difficult to change their minds regarding such beliefs (Cinar & Epoka University, 2010). For instance many people are affiliated with particular religious and cultural groups even when they cannot prove the legitimacy of their principles. Therefore, terrorists use such strong affiliations to earn the loyalty of many individuals. For instance, it is difficult for loyal members to question the teachings and activities of terrorist groups if they are justified within the context of a religious education (Cinar & Epoka University, 2010). This analysis reveals that religious and cultural differences are not the primary causes of terrorism, but have been used to justify terrorism in the contemporary society. Comment by Author: Transition and connect to last paragraph

People can only assume, and rightly so, that political conditions are the primary facilitators of terrorism. The analysis of 9/11 attack on America, one of the famous and most successful terrorist attempts in history, can be used to assess and legitimize the assertion that terrorism is influenced by political conditions relatively more compared to the factors discussed in the preceding sections. Between 16th and 17th of June, 2004, the commission formed by the United States government to understand and respond to the attack sought to determine what motivated such occurrences. The question provoked a further and thorough analysis of the data collected by various security agencies in the country. Various organizations, including the FBI, concurred that the terrorists were motivated by the opinion that the United States had been imposing their ideologies in the Middle East, thus undermining the sovereignty of many nations such as Palestine (Nia, 2010). They also claimed that the terrorists were opposed to other nations meddling in the political affairs of their countries but targeted America because it was leading in the interferences.

At the time of the attack, several superpower nations openly condemned and tried to influence the political affairs in Palestine. The United States foreign policy favored Israel over Palestine, thus provoking negative reactions from a larger section of leaders from the region. In separate circumstances, leaders from the Middle East condemned America for trying to impose their opinions, leadership, economic practices, religious practices, and culture on other nations. Additionally, the United States has a long hostile history with countries of the Middle East. Consequently, the involvement of the American leaders in the Middle East affairs was likely to be interpreted as an attempt to control the region and its resources. Hence, the attack on the United States was politically instigated and strategized to create panic around the world (Nia, 2010; Sandler, 2013). If America could be attacked, then it meant that no country in the world was safe.

The 9/11 case provides a platform for assessing how specific political conditions

may facilitate terrorism. Terrorism is similar to war because it promotes the continuation of a given political agenda. Arguably, terrorism has been a central part of politics since the realization that people hold different political ideologies and may be willing to protect such opinions at all costs. Terrorist types are characterized by the attempt to influence change in political systems through violence despite the perceived differences in their causes. The rationale is that a substantial cause of panic can make people criticize their governments, consequently promoting unplanned change. For instance, Americans pushed their leaders to review their foreign policies which favored Israel following the attack (Nia, 2011). A critical analysis of the case reveals that they felt insecure and were afraid of experiencing another attack. The extent of the damage and loss of life caused by the incident was devastating and surprising. In the past, people believed that America had the most stable security. It can be argued that the Al-Qaeda succeeded in its mission because Americans acted predictably.

In most cases, terrorists accuse governments of oppressing them and infringing on their rights as explained by Marx Weber (Nia, 2011). Marx Weber’s opinions regarding the conceptualization and causes of crime have been considered orthodox by many scholars in the contemporary society (Nia, 2011). In fact, they can be used to contextualize terrorism and support the ongoing argument. According to Marx, conflicts tend to exist between the low-class and high-class members across the world. Political leaders belong to the wealthy and powerful categories of people in every country. Such people serve in positions where they can influence processes to favor their ambitions regardless of society's resistance. For instance, they own and manipulate production processes, thus making it difficult for low-class members to experience upward mobility. Likewise, government policies tend to favor them at the expense of the rest of the community. For instance, the government tends to impose unreasonable barriers to SMEs aiming to break into various industries. This approach aims at protecting existing corporations due to their perceived critical role in the growth of the economy. The government believes that corporations tend to employ many people, thus should be protected. The related trade policies limit the chances of growth among SMEs and low-class members of the community. In the end, they are forced to provide cheap labor because all the production processes have been monopolized by the government. Comment by Author: Transition – moving from extended example into analysis

Marx Weber’s arguments claim that sometimes people resort to violence as a last resort or when they feel that they are likely to face a lot of challenges while attempting to convince the government to review the existing policies. Some of domestic terrorism begins as social movements aiming at representing and advancing the agendas of the low-class members of the community. Later, they resort to violence when the government refuses to address their needs. International terrorism such as the one which happened in America can be considered a larger reflection of domestic terrorism. Foreign terrorists may feel that it is their need to protect their country or their friends from the invasion of foreigners. For instance, America and Palestine were considered superior and inferior forces respectively. Therefore, the Al-Qaeda group concluded that it was not possible for Palestine to oppose and influence change in America’s international politics using formal channels. Consequently, they used violence to send a message to the rest of the world and persuade America to stop interfering in the politics of the Middle East. They also sought to assert that Palestine was a sovereign nation and had the right to decide on its leadership and the direction of its international relations with Israel without America’s influence.

Conclusion

This paper has provided a definition and historical context of terrorism. It has established that terrorism should not be perceived as a response to low education levels, poverty, and limited opportunities. Such factors can only arise if a political system has flaws and is biased towards the wealthy and powerful members of the society. The discussion has also proved that terrorists use culture and religion extensively to cover up their real intentions and create social agendas. To show that terrorism is caused by political conditions, the discussion has first demystified the related myths. It has also used 9/11 terrorism case as the basis for understanding how politics can cause terrorism, as well as how people are likely to behave in such circumstances. The paper has also used Marx Weber’s theory on the occurrence of conflicts to explain how it is possible for political conditions to facilitate terrorism. The same opinions can be applied in the context of international relations. Terrorism may persist as long as people are willing to use violence to influence politics. It is also likely to continue because absolute democracy cannot be attained. There will always be a group of people who are not satisfied with political processes.

References

Cinar, B., & Epoka University. (2010). Can terrorism be prevented? Combating terrorism in a liberal democracy. Albania: Epoka University.

Couto, R. A. (2011). The politics of terrorism: Power, legitimacy, and violence. Integral review, 6(1), 63-81.

Enders, W., & Hoover, G. A. (2012). The nonlinear relationship between terrorism and poverty. The American Economic Review, 102(3), 267-272.

Nia, M. M. (2010). From old to new terrorism: The changing nature of international security. Globality Studies Journal, 18(1), 1-20.

Sandler, T. (2013). The analytical study of terrorism taking stock. Journal of Peace Research, 1-15. doi: 10.1177/0022343313491277.