[lil'babykitten]

Well, as the title asks really. I'm interested in what people think. Was 9/11 the start of something new? or a continuation of previous terrorist activities.

A few points to consider:

1. Western leaders labeled 9/11 as an attack on the 'free', 'democratic' and 'civilised world'. An attack on 'American Values'. Was it?

2. Is the ambiguity of the term 'international terrorism' a problem? The fact that there is no agreed definition on terrorism, never mind 'international' terrorism. Is there a political reason for this? i.e do nations fail to conform to an agreed definition due to the possible consequences? - consider the War in Iraq, Israel's actions etc. If we cannot define it, how do we contend that it is something 'new'?

3. Are groups labeled 'terrorists' in an attempt to discredit legitimate actions? Indeed does labeling a group as 'terrorist' excuse those who employ retaliatory tactics?

4. Why should the events of 9/11 be considered as something 'new' if such atrocities have occurred throughout history? Could it be because it was an attack on the West, specifically a powerful country that would not have expected it?

What are your thoughts on this? Do you feel the 9/11 attacks were something new, or not?
They certainly engendered a new response with the 'War on Terror' but try to steer away from that if possible and just look at the idea of the actual action being something new, or not. By all means extend your analysis to include events other than 9/11 is you so wish.

[daimoni]

.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Well, as the title asks really. I'm interested in what people think. Was 9/11 the start of something new? or a continuation of previous terrorist activities.

What do you think? What do you mean by a continuation of previous terrorist activities? What previous activities?

A few points to consider:

1. Western leaders labeled 9/11 as an attack on the 'free', 'democratic' and 'civilised world'. An attack on 'American Values'. Was it?

What, are you writing a paper? Do you have to use quotes around 'free';'democratic';and 'civilized'?

Can we just say, America? By definition America is a civilized free republic.
Our values were attacked, as those who attacked us are against everything we stand for.
This question sucks.

2. Is the ambiguity of the term 'international terrorism' a problem? The fact that there is no agreed definition on terrorism, never mind 'international' terrorism. Is there a political reason for this? i.e do nations fail to conform to an agreed definition due to the possible consequences? - consider the War in Iraq, Israel's actions etc. If we cannot define it, how do we contend that it is something 'new'?

How is the term 'International Terrorism' ambiguous? It means, they cross the ocean to kill their sworn enemies, hence 'International'.

I don't understand why you think there is no agreement on the definition of the word.

ter�ror�ism __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You are hungup on the word 'new'.

3. Are groups labeled 'terrorists' in an attempt to discredit legitimate actions? Indeed does labeling a group as 'terrorist' excuse those who employ retaliatory tactics?

For example? Or, is this just a bait?

4. Why should the events of 9/11 be considered as something 'new' if such atrocities have occurred throughout history? Could it be because it was an attack on the West, specifically a powerful country that would not have expected it?

We, [the west] have had such an attack before. Pearl Harbor ring a bell? So, it isn't nothing new if you are counting pre-WWII. Your questions are quite 'loaded' for sure.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you feel the 9/11 attacks were something new, or not?
They certainly engendered a new response with the 'War on Terror' but try to steer away from that if possible and just look at the idea of the actual action being something new, or not. By all means extend your analysis to include events other than 9/11 is you so wish.

This has to be a sample esssay quiz [open book] for Junior College Students.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
1. Western leaders labeled 9/11 as an attack on the 'free', 'democratic' and 'civilised world'. An attack on 'American Values'. Was it?

Yes. A successful one, at that.

[b]2. Is the ambiguity of the term 'international terrorism' a problem? The fact that there is no agreed definition on terrorism, never mind 'international' terrorism. Is there a political reason for this? i.e do nations fail to conform to an agreed definition due to the possible consequences? - consider the War in Iraq, Israel's actions etc. If we cannot define it, how do we contend that it is something 'new'?

[b]

I never thought there was ambiguity about the term until fairly recently (past two years or so). I'm not really sure what is meant by new at all. I would say that terrorism is nothing more than an attack on a civilian population. I don't really see how there could be a new kind of terrorism. The only thing new about it was that it gave people a more realistic outlook on the world (which then moved right on to the other extreme...).

3. Are groups labeled 'terrorists' in an attempt to discredit legitimate actions? Indeed does labeling a group as 'terrorist' excuse those who employ retaliatory tactics?

In some cases, definitely yes. The word 'terrorist' has been thrown around way to much in recent years, and has definitely been used as a political tool to stifle opposition.

4. Why should the events of 9/11 be considered as something 'new' if such atrocities have occurred throughout history? Could it be because it was an attack on the West, specifically a powerful country that would not have expected it?

I don't think they should be considered new. It was an act of terrorism, nothing more, nothing less. Bigger in magnitude than some others in the past, but otherwise no better or worse than any other terrorist act.

[lil'babykitten]

OK, first, thanks nonhuman for a reasoned response.

To clarify, the question: Does 9/11 represent 'a new kind of international terrorism'? is at the heart of intense debate among many political theorists. I've put it in inverted commas because that is the suggestion by some theorists. I am doing a research assignment on this question gathering information, theories and opinion from as wide a variety sources as I can in the time I have. Considering MacNN attracts people from all over, I thought this might provide some varying and insightful thoughts. All my research is referenced, I would have then gone on to request permission from the authors of any useful posts before using them in my research.

Daimoni: I'm not 'hung up' on the word 'new'. It is an integral part of the question.
The 'points to consider' reflect ideas that have so far been presented in some political literature.

I've yet to come to conclusion myself on whether I think it was something 'new'

g_f - The definition is a general one. But is still disputed by theorists. Where it says 'for political purposes' this can mean any number of things. 'Political' is the broadest sense of something that could impact on a polity and includes economic, cultural or religious motivations.

[Logic]

Originally posted by daimoni:
2. No.

Do you consider Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace to be terrorist organizations?

3. Legitimate?!?

I could mention a few legitimate actions that have been classified as terrorism. The question is, will everyone agree that they are legitimate. And I will elaborate as soon as I get your reply to the first question I posted.

[Logic]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
What do you think? What do you mean by a continuation of previous terrorist activities? What previous activities?

The rest of the world has had terrorism for a long time. The US has had what, one previous attack on US soil?

How is the term 'International Terrorism' ambiguous? It means, they cross the ocean to kill their sworn enemies, hence 'International'.

I don't understand why you think there is no agreement on the definition of the word.

Do they need to cross oceans for it to be international? And who are their sworn enemies? Answer the first question I asked Daimoni and then we'll see if there is no definition of the word.

ter�ror�ism __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Wouldn't that mean that many of the activities the West have been engaged in the last 50 years would be considered terrorism?

We, [the west] have had such an attack before. Pearl Harbor ring a bell? So, it isn't nothing new if you are counting pre-WWII. Your questions are quite 'loaded' for sure.

How was Pearl Harbour similar to 9/11? That was an attack on a military installation while 9/11 was the brutal murder of innocents. Please elaborate.

[Logic]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Well, as the title asks really. I'm interested in what people think. Was 9/11 the start of something new? or a continuation of previous terrorist activities.

IMO it was nothing new. What was new about it was the response it got(though Israel has used similar tactics before) and how terrorism all of a sudden was declared an act of war. That has not happened before. Well, perhaps back in the 1400's to 1700's but not in recent time. Most western militaries have been trained to deal with terrorists but they have also been instructed that the same laws apply as to regular criminals(with a very few exceptions).

A few points to consider:

1. Western leaders labeled 9/11 as an attack on the 'free', 'democratic' and 'civilised world'. An attack on 'American Values'. Was it?

IMO it was, but the main question is why? Why would someone attack our "free, democratic and civilized world"? IMO terrorism lately has been about revenge and giving us westerners a glimpse of the terrorists daily lives. Very few start doing deplorable acts like this unless they have a good reason. The masterminds might not have it but the people willing to sacrifice their lives must have.

2. Is the ambiguity of the term 'international terrorism' a problem? The fact that there is no agreed definition on terrorism, never mind 'international' terrorism. Is there a political reason for this? i.e do nations fail to conform to an agreed definition due to the possible consequences? - consider the War in Iraq, Israel's actions etc. If we cannot define it, how do we contend that it is something 'new'?

This is for purely political reasons. Like the question I asked daimoni and g_f. The US has been harbouring people that are wanted on Iceland for terrorism. Why? For purely political reasons. They can use the silent support tactic to get support from certain groups(environmentalists etc) and still claim to be tough on terrorists. Look at what is happening in Venezuela. Many of us would classify it as terrorism(most likely sponsored by a western nation) just as many of us believe that supporting regimes or the new colonialism is one of the reasons we have terrorism today. So even if it isn't new, it is just version 2 of what we have seen for a long time. The governments of the west are just as responsible as the terrorists because of their unwillingness to learn from history. But I should make it clear that the victims of terrorism are in no way responsible for the terrorism. It's the survivors that are.

3. Are groups labeled 'terrorists' in an attempt to discredit legitimate actions? Indeed does labeling a group as 'terrorist' excuse those who employ retaliatory tactics?

Indeed. Many would consider the Icelandic labeling of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd as political labeling. Just as many consider labeling Hizbollah or part of the uprising in Iraq terrorists. This is one of the reasons we need to be more precise in how we classify terrorism and make sure we stick to that. We can't change how we classify terrorism(and our reactions to terrorism) to make us look tough before elections or gain support. We need to sit down and without taking examples just make sure we have a clear definition of terrorism and how we should deal with it.

4. Why should the events of 9/11 be considered as something 'new' if such atrocities have occurred throughout history? Could it be because it was an attack on the West, specifically a powerful country that would not have expected it?

Like I said, I don't think there is anything new in the 9/11 attacks except the scale. It's the response it got that is new. And that is one of the reasons for all the debate lately about terrorism and what terrorism is.

[angaq0k]

All that will follow is imho. I am not an expert on terrorism, but know enough on violence amongst individuals to consider that as an "atom" of terrorism. Think of the big brother scaring you at night by playing tricks on you, with the sole motive being for you to react in fear. And I will consider this my definition of terrorism, or at least a starting concept. Something like:

"Terrorism is about injecting fear and doubt about one's security."

But I keep in mind that there is a variety of terrorisms just like there is a variety of violence; it can be physical, psychological, religious, economical, cultural, etc.

Was 9/11 the start of something new? or a continuation of previous terrorist activities.

It is a continuation. It has happened before but the means were different than the classical picture of a masked individual with a bomb. But terrorism is a continuum of ideas. We should never forget the rhetoric behind it.

1. Western leaders labeled 9/11 as an attack on the 'free', 'democratic' and 'civilised world'. An attack on 'American Values'. Was it?

What were the specific targets ?

1) The World Trade Center
2) The Pentagon

The attacks were centred on 2 poles of a society: its management of currency and trade in the World (WTC represented the pretension of managing "world trade" while situated in America.) and the tool to protect it (or guarantee the taking of resources and interests). In that sense, this terrorist attack aimed the "hands" of America. So yes, in that sense, America's values, as well as the economic system, our belief of democracy and our impression of being civilized (America as a "role-model" for freedom and justice etc.) has been under attack. America does represent the capitalistic world and its cutlery (and that would include the G7, WTO, NATO etc.).

Considering the definition I proposed myself to work with, the goal is not always to kill civilians. But the concept of "civilians" should be understood as having the following characteristic among others: "people expendable for the greater good when necessary". (Other characteristics are "electors", "consumers", "workforce" and I miss many others that are just as important.) This expendability attributed to civilians is true for terrorists (the necessary victims, the martyrs, etc.) as well as for any society (i.e. the army). Nevertheless, you also need civilians (especially witnesses and people with a memory) to make terrorism do what it is supposed to do.

Since civilians are what makes a society work one way or the other, scaring them, and lead them towards irrationality, will disable the productivity and cripple the society.

2. Is the ambiguity of the term 'international terrorism' a problem? The fact that there is no agreed definition on terrorism, never mind 'international' terrorism. Is there a political reason for this? i.e do nations fail to conform to an agreed definition due to the possible consequences? - consider the War in Iraq, Israel's actions etc. If we cannot define it, how do we contend that it is something 'new'?

This is a more complicated question than I first thought.

There is certainly a benefit in not acknowledging a common definition of what terrorism is for at least 2 reasons. The first being the set of causes for the terrorist action and how others are involved (either by a commonality in the means to create situations bound to make terrorism happen or because of guilt by direct association to the causes of that terrorism). The second set of reasons may be because of the total disagreement with the interpretation by the victims of the reasons of that terrorist act, either because they do not share the same values or assessment grid, or, because of the first set of reasons explained earlier.

It becomes a problem when time comes for a reaction (we saw a division in the way to react to 9/11) especially when other nations (or alleged potential victims) are bullied into action. It's internationality is define by the targeting of the action by the terrorists, and by how the other nations want to participate in the effort to help the victim. In the case of 9/11, my interpretation was presented in your first question.

It cannot be something new because of the reasons explained earlier (my humble opinion of course).


see next post for continuation

[angaq0k]

Continuation and end of reply

3. Are groups labeled 'terrorists' in an attempt to discredit legitimate actions? Indeed does labeling a group as 'terrorist' excuse those who employ retaliatory tactics?

These are 2 very good questions. Because of my earlier definition, which I think is the simplest possible, I think terrorism inflicts fear and doubt in one's own sense of safety. People who terrorize are terrorists, period. The legitimacy of these acts varies according to the context.

The problem with the first question starts as we refine our definition of terrorism. The more complicated the definition, the more peculiar it gets, and the better it may fit one's self-interests in being recognized as a victim, whether it is right or not. Bullies do that; they claim being victims to whoever is in earshot range, but once everyone has turned their back, they will gladly terrorize the alleged terrorist...

Regarding the second question, one can always ask about revolutionaries. Is there a time when terrorism is the right thing to do? When we refer to the oppression of the majority, what is the minority to do? Until they get recognition by as many third parties as possible what are they really? Is revolutionary action legitimate when the revolutionaries are part of an oppressed majority by an oppressive minority (South Africa), or when an oppressed minority seeks recognition and equality from an oppressive majority (i.e. Basque ETA)?

These are very interesting questions as well as they are very difficult to answer.

Maybe the problem comes from the referential grid of assessment. Ownership of the land and resources is a big factor and its delimitation in a specific territory sometimes over extends the ownership to the people in it (serfdom). This ownership requires a certain conformity to rules of behaviour and cultural values and differences in the group may be interpreted as the beginning of a process of anarchy, and/or a separation of the land, decreasing the benefit of production for the majority. The case of Qu�bec and the FLQ in the '60s-'70s period is a very good example. The hypothetical separation of New York state or Texas from the U.S. would certainly be a trigger to a form of civil war.

I am not an expert in Middle East history. But my understanding is that when the colonial powers started to get involved, there were probably a lot of discussions regarding sharing the resources and controlling it. There is no doubt in my mind that since none of those states of Middle East were democracies, any deals regarding the resources like oil made by these western powers and those dictatorships were made at the expense of the populations. Why would these populations not react after a time to that exploitation? Their religions is often blamed as a cause, but no one is willing to understand it as a source of strength to make them gather under a feeling of justice and self-righteousness. America did the same by using God as a reference for justice and a way to gather under a common belief.

But religion is not the reason. It is a drive that energizes the motivation.

Using another example, in the beginning of the '70s, in Qu�bec, the Front de Lib�ration du Qu�bec (a terrorist organization with a political motive) kidnapped 2 personalities. The reaction of the government was to create oppressive measures of control and arrest any possible partisans or supporters. 450 arrests based on criteria that left a lot to interpretation (being part of a left wing organization for example) and control of the media (no news bulletin was allowed without approval from Federal authorities). In the end, none of the arrests lead to the terrorists themselves. Here we have an example of terrorism used to fight terrorism. The rhetoric of the FLQ was a form of separation of the province of Qu�bec from Canada (viewed as a threat to Canada's integrity). The rhetoric of Canada was to oppose this separation (viewed as a continuation of English cultural and economical oppression by some qu�b�cois). The history of that peculiar situation is of interest because of allegations of wrong doing by the police services (the RCMP was accused of planting bombs and attribute it to the kidnappers).

4. Why should the events of 9/11 be considered as something 'new' if such atrocities have occurred throughout history? Could it be because it was an attack on the West, specifically a powerful country that would not have expected it?

I believe it is especially because it was the first attack on U.S. grounds by a foreign group, and since it is not common to witness such an attack on these grounds, and for the reasons exposed earlier, the drama took a certain expansion to the West. But Europe had to deal with external attacks from terrorists for a long time already, unless you consider them not to be part of the "West".

So, yes.

This was a long reply. I hope you will find it useful.

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[lil'babykitten]

Logic - thanks, interesting too - you're last point about the scale of the attack being something new has appeared in a lot of the literature I'm reading. I think you should become a political theorist

angaqok - thanks very much for putting so much thought and time in to your response.
I'll get back to both of you as well.

Hey daimoni, if you're at all interested in this, then just reply to the question in the thread title and ignore the 'points to consider' - they are, as I have already said, a summary of the thoughts I have taken from my research so far. Alternatively you could just ignore this thread.

[ghost_flash]

A 'new' kind of International Terrorism? < To answer this loaded question. No.

Did they wake up the Sleeping Giant like the Japanese did in Pearl Harbor? Yes.

Your points set up everyone that hates the USA to answer to your liking. Your little thread is slanted at best. (no pun).

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
A 'new' kind of International Terrorism? < To answer this loaded question. No.

Could you elaborate on the 'No', please?

Seriously there is nothing for me to gain from making this research biased. It should be balanced. If you and others feel I have slanted this then perhaps you can elaborate to the contrary.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
A 'new' kind of International Terrorism? < To answer this loaded question. No.

Did they wake up the Sleeping Giant like the Japanese did in Pearl Harbor? Yes.

Your points set up everyone that hates the USA to answer to your liking. Your little thread is slanted at best. (no pun).

And do us a favor: what do you mean by "loaded"?

[theolein]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Well, as the title asks really. I'm interested in what people think. Was 9/11 the start of something new? or a continuation of previous terrorist activities.

A few points to consider:

1. Western leaders labeled 9/11 as an attack on the 'free', 'democratic' and 'civilised world'. An attack on 'American Values'. Was it?

2. Is the ambiguity of the term 'international terrorism' a problem? The fact that there is no agreed definition on terrorism, never mind 'international' terrorism. Is there a political reason for this? i.e do nations fail to conform to an agreed definition due to the possible consequences? - consider the War in Iraq, Israel's actions etc. If we cannot define it, how do we contend that it is something 'new'?

3. Are groups labeled 'terrorists' in an attempt to discredit legitimate actions? Indeed does labeling a group as 'terrorist' excuse those who employ retaliatory tactics?

4. Why should the events of 9/11 be considered as something 'new' if such atrocities have occurred throughout history? Could it be because it was an attack on the West, specifically a powerful country that would not have expected it?

What are your thoughts on this? Do you feel the 9/11 attacks were something new, or not?
They certainly engendered a new response with the 'War on Terror' but try to steer away from that if possible and just look at the idea of the actual action being something new, or not. By all means extend your analysis to include events other than 9/11 is you so wish.

1. No and yes. It wasn't new in any sense of the word. The only thing new about it was that it was a) successful, and b) successful on American soil. Al Qaida was, before 11/9/2001 (International date format), responsible for the 1993 bombing of the WTC in an attempt to bring it down, the suicide bombings of the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the attack on the USS Cole. And that is only Al Qaida. A lot of other so called terrorist groups (so called because in the eyes of some they were freedom fighters) did most of their attacks in the country of their own origin but by no means stopped there i.e. the IRA bombed both N.Ireland and the British mainland, the PLO did their highjackings and attacks everywhere they could, the German RAF did numerous attacks throughout Europe.

As for the attacks being against civilisation and democracy and American values, I should point out that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, was an American who killed almost as many people as the attack in Spain last week. So if you consider McVeigh's attack as an attack on American values (whatever those may be, that's quite a diverse nation you have there) then yes, Al Qaida's attack was an attack on American values. That Al Qaida has a hatred of all things not Islamic (or at least their particular brand of Islam) is well known, but again I point out Timothy McVeigh's attack. He had a hatred of the US government (perhaps) so was his attack an attack on American values?

And I don't think the attack was completely successful in its aim to destablise the US democracy, irrespective of whether the two political parties are using it for election points.

2. The colloquial understanding of terrorism is that some band of people NOT related to the government is killing civillians in their or another country. If you want to include oppression of indigenous groups or people or acts of aggression by a state against those groups or another state (I presume you meant Israel's retaliation against the Palestinians and the US invasion of Iraq) I would not use the term "terrorism", even if it fits some dictionary definition as the man on the street, at least in the west, does not see this as terrorism, perhaps as oppression and unwarranted agression, but not terrorism.

3.One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The US trained and equiped the Mujahedin in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets because it was expedient to do so. In the 80's Osama and his friends were called Freedom Fighters by Ronald Reagan. See the movie, Rambo III for the kitschy Hollywood version. Those very same people turned against the US after the Soviets had left and the Gulf War had been fought. Now they are called terrorists.

4. See number 1.

[daimoni]

.

[fizzlemynizzle]

He had a hatred of the US government (perhaps) so was his attack an attack on American values?

Absolutely yes, perhaps more so than the 9/11 terrorists because McVeigh was a former US soldier who took an oath to defend the citizens of the country. He turned his back on them and betrayed them by using things he learned as a soldier to murder innocent people because he had a problem with the government.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by daimoni:
I am interested in this topic, and to answer the question mark in the title... I don't consider 9/11 a 'new' kind of international terrorism. Not in the slightest. The US was aware of the threats (from past experience) but unfortunately the current administration choose to ignore them.

That said, I think it's less important who brands whom a terrorist than recognizing what terrorism is, how it effects us all, and the steps to combat it.

Regarding legitimacy, just as it's all too easy to brand an individual, group or entire nation 'terrorist'... it's also too easy to label their actions 'legitimate' (or not).

Thanks for your insight - do you mind if I quote some of this in my research?

[lil'babykitten]

Where Simey and Troll at?!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Logic:
Wouldn't that mean that many of the activities the West have been engaged in the last 50 years would be considered terrorism?

The state department said shortly after 9/11 that any attack on US interests is terrorism when talking about their terrorist group list.

So technically, any war with a western country could be deemed terrorism, by their terms. If you really want to take that definition to it's max, you can technically say weather patterns such as hurricanes are terrorist groups.

[daimoni]

.

[swrate]

1.Was it an attack on western values?
If you take into account the demands of those groups, which are consistently the same since many years now, I personally think it goes beyond that.
Now those groups have taken violence one step further (more blood and deaths possible to stain the masses spirit) and are using the concept of an ideal to reach heaven & glory to recruit members. The world is a rough, tough and sad place for many of those fighters, and same as sects, adherents will enter the movement because of their vulnerability and hope for a better future, thus believing the brainwashed dialogue of their sheik/mullahs.
I dread the way religion is used for political reasons, Bin Laden, and others are ruining Islam.
Islam is becoming a bad �marketing product�,
But then, , immediately when such a tragedy happens, many citizens of �Arabic/ Islamic republics� think it is Mossad who should take the blame: difficult to accept groups of one�s own religion mass murdering and sullying in the name of God.

2.imo Terrorism is international, but was not dealt with as an international problem, the WOT focused on the harm terrorism did to the US and how to take revenge, instead of discussing and debating internationally regarding the roots and reasons for terrorism


3.Whereas discriminating legitimate action, to me, killing is never legitimate when one is not directly threatened.
With or without uniform. The worst atrocities of history were committed with uniforms and were considered at the time �legal�. The laws change, what is legal one day becomes illegal, and vice versa.
i.e. Spanking kids here is now illegal here, yet,. some children look for limits and need to be framed. If you use too much disciplinary action, or if the punishment is not justified, the child will see you as a terrorist, since you will be terrorizing him. When you start to use sanctions repeatedly , most children will lie more and more out of fear, and to hide what they know you will consider as bad actions, they will become nervous and commit more stupid deeds.
They may rebel and revolt, in conclusion, if you really find no other way of negotiating, before you strike, make sure the chastisement is justified and do it with lucidity and calm.


4.Imo, Terrorism is not new, explorers and their crew, emperors, generals entering by force in a country probably caused the same feeling within the masses. Gangs and robbers too.
It just depends on which side you are, the weak unarmed will feel exposed to terror, whether the enemy wears or not a uniform, the emotions are similar and cause fear.

What is new?,
imo, same as illnesses i.e. SARS, who now travel more rapidly then anytime before because of the development of transportation, movements of populations happen faster, and a great number of people have easy access to any part of the planet., in a short amount of time..
What is also new is that we immediately are informed, and the groups are playing with that possibility, using it as a pressure mean more then any time before.
What is new is that the terror can hit any time, any place on the planet.
What is new, is the amount of cells who are now regrouping under one ideology.

[Logic]

Still waiting for an answer from daimoni and ghost_flash..................

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Where Simey and Troll at?!

Where am I? I'm procrastinating. I'm supposed to be writing a paper as well, but it sounds less interesting than yours.

FWIW, I took a seminar pre-9/11 under someone who served in the Clinton Administration and who had some responsiility for combating terrorism. What I know is heavly influenced by him. He showed us that there is no agreed-upon definition of terrorism. All the government agencies have their own definitions that mostly represent what they do. So the FBI's emphasises the crime aspect, the State Department the political aspect. The Department of Defense, the violance aspect. You get the idea.

The other idea is that terrorism can be seen as a continuum. As you cross from national to international, you cross a major line. Obviously, a global terror network is pretty dramatically different from a loner like the Unabomber, or even Aum Shinrikyo in Japan.
Also, in terms of organizational sophistication, and the weapons chosen. The use of unconventional weapons, whether nuclear, biological, chemical, or something as destructive but totally unexpected like the use of commercial airliners as missiles, would, I think, be seem by most as something distinct from the common-all-garden pipe bomber.

I think for all these reasons, al-Queda is a qualitatively different and new type of terrorist organization. But you are talking about a continuum, so you can decide for yourself where to put the lines.

Here are a couple of books that I found helpful. They were both published pre-9/11.

The Ultimate Terrorists by Jessica Stern, a former Clinton National Security expert.

The Advent of Netwar by John Arquilla, et, al. The book focusses a lot on the internet, but it is the leading new study of how new technology allows for terror organizations to be structured "horizontally." Al-Queda seems to use elements of this structure, which is new.

Now back to James Madison, et al.

[gadster]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
[B]Well, as the title asks really. I'm interested in what people think. Was 9/11 the start of something new? or a continuation of previous terrorist activities. etc[B]

I believe 9/11 signalled a seismic shift in global power relations. Since Pearl Harbour, the dominant nation on the planet has suffered only the odd flea bite. An embassy here, a barracks there. Business as usual, no cause for alarm.

On 9/11, however, things changed. New York resembled something from a Hollywood blockbuster. I saw it live, I was glued to the TV at 11.00 pm local time until about 4.00 in the morning. I saw the whole thing unfold.

Yes it was something new. But, at the same time, it was just an escalation of what had preceded it, only different in terms of scale. And that only means the enemy is getting more adept. Ain't competition grand?

1. From what I can gather, It wasn't so much an attack on American values, so much as a protest against what have been (and still are) plainly hypocritical US Foreign policy initiatives over the past few decades.

2. Why should we be trying to contend that terrorism is something new? What agenda lies behind that contention? That's like a leading question.

3. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, so the South African Government said. And Ghandi would have been labelled too, if he had been provocable.

4. The school bully got smacked down, that is the only thing that was a 'first'. But instead of confronting his attacker and finding out what the problem was, he went home and bought his M16 to school. Many of us said: "Put - the - gun - down", but that fell on deaf ears. So here we are.

So at the moment the US has a PR problem with people from the middle-east. South American 'terrorists' must be watching with interest. Then there are the people in south-east asia, etc. etc. etc. The chickens are coming home to roost. I'm surprised it took them this long.

LBK: since you have asked for our input on this, may I request that, towards the end of this thread, you provide a link to your final paper (as a pdf, preferably). Whaddayareckon?

[gadster]

In attempting to edit, I quoted myself, like an idiot.

ie: DP

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by gadster:
LBK: since you have asked for our input on this, may I request that, towards the end of this thread, you provide a link to your final paper (as a pdf, preferably). Whaddayareckon?

No need, all my brilliant political theories shall soon be published for the world to see. maybe not....
I've run in to a few problems recently, first that I haven't collated as much theories from political scientists that I had hoped and am running out of time. Political theory takes precedent over MacNN opinions! So I'm not sure how much time I will have to include as much of the opinions here as I would have hoped. To top it all off I've just found out that my tutor is taking part in a marking boycott! What the hell am I doing this for?!!?

Anywho, if people are interested in reading it whatever happens I'll post it!

And thanks swrate, simey and gadster for the input. Hey simey, my assignment is more interesting than yours - nyah!

As an extension of this thread if people want to discuss further, what role do you think the media has had to play in presenting 9/11 as something new?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
And thanks swrate, simey and gadster for the input. Hey simey, my assignment is more interesting than yours - nyah!

You aren't kidding. Unfortunately, you may discover as i did that a political science degree doesn't pay the bills. So after undergrad, you may end up doing something practical like becoming a lawyer. And that can mean writing dullllllll papers like the one I'm supposed to be writing on the 9th Amendment.

If you need political scientists to cite, check out the back issues of Survival magazine. I am sure you will find what you want there. It's published in London, and any decent academic library will have it. They also have a web site, I just can't find it right now. Type "Survival" into Google and you tend to get hunting sites.

[dcolton]

I went to American Simey (Poli-Sci). Where are you studying?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I went to American Simey (Poli-Sci). Where are you studying?

Hey neighbor. I did undergrad at SFS and now I'm at GULC. I guess I just like giving money to Jesuits.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You aren't kidding. Unfortunately, you may discover as i did that a political science degree doesn't pay the bills. So after undergrad, you may end up doing something practical like becoming a lawyer. And that can mean writing dullllllll papers like the one I'm supposed to be writing on the 9th Amendment.

If you need political scientists to cite, check out the back issues of Survival magazine. I am sure you will find what you want there. It's published in London, and any decent academic library will have it. They also have a web site, I just can't find it right now. Type "Survival" into Google and you tend to get hunting sites.

No wonder your legal system is so complicated and people can sue so much!

;o)

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You aren't kidding. Unfortunately, you may discover as i did that a political science degree doesn't pay the bills. So after undergrad, you may end up doing something practical like becoming a lawyer. And that can mean writing dullllllll papers like the one I'm supposed to be writing on the 9th Amendment.

Ahhhh! don't think I could stay awake reading law never mind writing about it! It's hard enough wading through yours and Trolls posts

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you need political scientists to cite, check out the back issues of Survival magazine. I am sure you will find what you want there. It's published in London, and any decent academic library will have it. They also have a web site, I just can't find it right now. Type "Survival" into Google and you tend to get hunting sites.

Thanks for the tip. I only got hunting sites from google too! i'll check the library...