The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men, they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada.
Terrorism is growing and new tactics are created to make a change. For my part I think that the trigger that started all these debates, the people asking question and the interest about terrorism is the 9/11 terrorist attack. On Tuesday, September 11,2001 four passengers airliners were hijacked by a group of 19 terrorist from AL-Qaeda so they could be flown into buildings in suicide attacks. Suspicion quickly fell on AL-Qaeda. Although the group's leader. Osama Bin Laden, initially denied any involvement and in 2004, he claimed responsibility for the attack.
Two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City.
The attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,996 people, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims. The victims included 246 on the four planes, from which there was no survivors they are all dead, 2,606 in New York City in the towers and on the ground and 125 at the pentagon.
What is the difference in between the old and the modern terrorism ? The old terrorism is considered to be much more restrained and specific in targeting. The traditional terrorism wanted people to be watching and not people to be dead. These terrorists imposed restraints on their actions because they aimed to change the attitude of popular audience who could actually help them achieve their goals. They could of been more destructive but they chose not to be because it wouldn't help to actually reach their goals. Second, the means of the new terrorism are assumed to be different. The premise is that because the ends of the new terrorism are unlimited. The new way of terrorism are supposed to be eager to cause the largest possible number of casualties among their enemies and also to be willing to sacrifice any number of their own in the process. The new terrorism is often associated with advent of suicide terrorism. These terrorists are also thought to be more inclined than secular groups to use weapons of mass destruction. Apocalyptic motivations are said to lead to unprecedented legality. Presumably for the new terrorist the means have become an end in themselves, not a way of reaching an audience other than the deity. The new terrorists seek only to destroy, and their deaths will result only in a place in paradise and not a political change.
In conclusion, terrorism is an extremely effective method of making your voice heard and getting your view known, it is not the way it should be done for sure. Terrorism has been used since millenniums to get heard and still will be used in the future. As long as there will be something to fight for there will be terrorism.
I agree with you when you say that the methods have changed. But I don’t think the goals have entirely changed. Even in the times of the Zealots of Judea the fight was a fight of faith and religion. In much the same way the terrorism that exists today especially that associated with the Islamic nations is again for their faith and religion. In both cases they were extremists that did not feel they were justifying their faith by living under influence of a different culture. I feel like the change in methods and severity of the actions makes it a little difficult to see the similarities. I can definitely see where you would differentiate between the two. There are many significant differences that you fantastically outline. But if we go back into the history of Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist group I am sure you could find that there are tensions that existed that mainly revolved around misinterpretation of faith and extremist actions. I agree with you when you say “the new way of terrorism are supposed to be eager to cause the largest number of casualties among their enemies.” but again I feel that reinforces the change in method. It could be said that to get what they want they are turning to suicide bombers and actually killing people. After a while people become immune to certain tactics and don’t see it as horrid. Once people begin to die maybe people will begin to take them seriously. So the question really becomes is there a real difference between the two other than their methods?
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean by saying that the way of terrorism has changed. But I do believe that they are still using terrorism in order to change political and/or religious views. Of course there is many differences between the two but I think at the end of the day, modern day terrorism is just larger-scale. They need to make a bigger impact in order to get the attention they want. You never really went in depth of explaining how the Zealots of Judea were different then modern day attacks such as 9/11. During your conclusion you also counter-balanced yourself and stepped back on what you said before. Earlier in your post you said that the only goal of modern-day terrorism is "to cause the largest possible number of casualties among their enemies", but then during your conclusion you said that "as long as there will be something to fight for, there will be terrorism". This goes back on what you said because you were saying how modern-day terrorism is only for killing, rather than making your voice and beliefs aware. I agree and it is unfortunate that terrorism is a very real way of getting your voice heard and that it will most likely always exist, but I think you should reconsider if modern-day terrorism and old terrorism has really changed.
ReplyDelete