|
Post by Naitch on Aug 5, 2014 10:48:41 GMT -5
So I just started this really interesting class for my new Bachelor's degree, Global Terrorism. The assignment for this week is write about what I think the 3 most important moments to global terrorism are. Off the top of my head I can think of 9/11 and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Both were catalysts to huge wars. I'm a little iffy on what my number 3 should be, l so I became interested on your guys thoughts on what the biggest acts where, and since this board has a heavy European user base I would love to see that perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Aug 5, 2014 12:45:18 GMT -5
That's interesting. It really does depend on what you mean by "terrorism" - and "global terrorism" for that matter. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was inspired by a local issue, even if it set off a chain of dominoes that resulted in world war.
Would you consider the Boston Tea Party an act of "terrorism", for example?
Assassination of Abe Lincoln?
Russia's actions in Ukraine? Is that starting to get too nebulous?
|
|
|
Post by Naitch on Aug 5, 2014 13:04:29 GMT -5
I don't think Russia vs Ukraine counts as terrorism because it is Government funded, and once it is Government funded it no longer fits the heavily debated definition I have to use for this class.As close as it gets to terrorism is state funded terrorism. Also, the use of the word global is for this is loose, as in it is meant to inspire us to look outside of the United States at what is happening in the world.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand wasn't really a local issue my recent research has taught me. It was basically the Slavic people where sick of Ferdinand's occupation and due to some incompetence on his staff's part is how the assassination happened. Obviously, his murder alone didn't set off World War 1, it was just the last of many things that happened before that war started.
Personally, I do not consider the Boston Tea Party terrorism. Deceitful, for sure, but at the end of the day it was Colonists dressed as Indians pouring tea in the harbor. That would be an attack on morale and commerce to me.
The assassination of Lincoln is actually what I ended up using for my third example. It was a group effort that demoralized a country and killed a leader. The others in the group where pussies and that's why the attack didn't work out.
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Aug 5, 2014 16:20:53 GMT -5
Ah okay, that's fair enough, I misinterpeted that to mean "a global cause".
I meant local in the sense that it was an issue of Serbian / Yugoslavian independence rather than for some global cause. Although per the definition of global we're using, it's now a moot point.
See, this is why the definition of "terrorism" is so important, and why "terrorism" is pretty hard to pin down. The English could call the tea party "terrorism" just as Nelson Mandela was branded a "terrorist". Does it stop being terrorism if it's for a just cause?
As for Ukraine, it's very murky. Terrorism implies a small group vs a large entity, such that the small group could never be victorius in open combat, which is why they adopt such tactics. I guess something on those lines is what has been debated in your class. On the other hand, if those tactics yield results, and if the large entity adopts those tactics, does that stop being terrorism? Because the Crimea is now part of Russia.
The assassination of Lincoln is a safe bet though. You could go for something involving the IRA or the Palestine/Israel situation, but it just sounds like too much work.
|
|
|
Post by Naitch on Aug 5, 2014 17:01:03 GMT -5
V, we are about to have a bunch of disagreements in this thread, which I think is awesome and I hope you do too. So, let's have a gentleman's agreement about no hurt feelings and both of us remember we are grown ups and just some friends debating.
-Regarding Franz, yes it was for independence. I'm going to guess you know European history better than I do and skip the part where Europe was bigger countries during this time. The assassination led to Yugoslavia being formed shortly after the end of World War 1. It was carried out by a terrorist cell "The Black Hand." It was simply, them trying to scare, I believe, the Austrian empire as they wanted a Slavic territory. The idea kinda shit the bed in the mid-late 90s, but they got what they wanted. But, because we had two different sections of Europe involved, I think we can use the word global here. In my mind global is anything bigger than a time zone, for all intents and purposes, not necessarily different nations, but geographical separation.
-In your mind, why is the Boston Tea Party a terrorist attack? I have the American mindset on it was a statement about taxation with representation, yadda yadda yadda. Since no one was hurt by it, I see it as much as a terrorist attack as a prank by frat dudes. I also realize that my history books and teachers were really good at lying to me about this period of countries history.
-Nelson Mandela is seen as a terrorist mastermind by some for the part he played with the Apartheid. He was the mastermind of bombs going off, which, no matter what side you are on is terrorism. History says he planned it so the bombs wouldn't hurt anyone and that doesn't change that it was terrorism, using actions to scare people into a different thought process.
-I did put some thought into Bloody Sunday, but it just seemed to big to me, like it went from terrorist attack to full on militant attack. Like you've said, it's difficult to nail definitions. Palestine and Israel is just to big and way to much information to filter through. I think those two have been going at it since 1965.
|
|
|
Post by Champ on Aug 5, 2014 19:25:04 GMT -5
Technically "terrorism" can be funded by a government unknowingly. But then that just turns into a declaration of war. There really is a fine line. "Terrorists" are generally a cult group of people. Once the government is involved they tend to remove the "terrorism" title. But one can argue that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. But "technically", he was just an evil dictator. The whole thing is fucked up lol
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Aug 7, 2014 13:34:16 GMT -5
But, because we had two different sections of Europe involved, I think we can use the word global here. In my mind global is anything bigger than a time zone, for all intents and purposes, not necessarily different nations, but geographical separation. Maybe "local" has connotations that it is happening in one's back yard. Perhaps "regional" would have been a better choice of words on my part. However, when people use the word "global" in the context of "global issues" I assume it means it affects a number of different peoples and places scattered across the world. Al-qaeeda is a global problem. Climate change is a global issue. English is a global language. The consequences of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand were global, but the actual cause of it - Yugoslavian independence - was a regional issue. I can't agree with using the word "global" to mean bigger than a time zone, but I'm not getting bent out of shape about it. I don't really think it was a terrorist attack, it's a stretch to call it that. I was just interested in how it could be interpreted by vested interests. Yeah, nobody was hurt, but material damage can be terrorism (the IRA usually gave warnings to the British security services before exploding bombs), otherwise we wouldn't have "cyberterrorism". If you are a large empire, and you have a bunch of malcontents threatening to destroy your stuff and cause serious financial issues in a far-flung part of the world because they're not getting their way... I mean isn't that kind of terrorism-ish? And I'm not at all pro-empire in this. I'm just thinking aloud really. Terrorism is such a nebulous concept - you can identify it when it's obvious - 9/11 - but once you get away from the extreme the harder it becomes to pin down.
|
|
|
Post by MasterSnit on Aug 20, 2014 16:59:52 GMT -5
All I know is that I had been terrorised by John Cena for ten years until the Beast, Brock Lesnar set me free this past Sunday. Yet, every young fan who supported John Cena and his decade long main event dictatorship will be crying about the new regime and his threat of sustained change. The young fans might even come to see Brock as a terrorist who overthrew their leader through merciless force and imposed himself on the masses.
Yeah, terrorism is an impossible subject. As long as one can convince oneself and others that their actions, however heinous and immoral, are just and necessary then any "act of terrorism" becomes a matter of opinion.
V mentioned that it is easier to look at terrorism when there are extreme examples, especially ones fresh in our memory, such as the attacks on 9/11, and I agree. Much more mundane, every day acts can potentially be defined as terrorism too though, that is why it is scary when you see the power authorities can hold over individuals who are suspected of terrorism.
Also, if the aim of your essay is to consider terrorist acts which were catalysts to larger atrocities, then how about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. A seemingly innocent man who spoke his mind in an attempt to help others, unjustly tortured and murdered in an attempt to halt his influence, only for his death to spark religious movements which have spread across the world leaving a fair bit (understatement) of destruction in their path. It's all subjective of course, but without the crucifixion would the Christian Crusades have occurred? Would the tensions between Christianity and Islam be as harmful as they are today?
|
|
|
Post by Naitch on Aug 20, 2014 18:22:43 GMT -5
All I know is that I had been terrorised by John Cena for ten years until the Beast, Brock Lesnar set me free this past Sunday. Yet, every young fan who supported John Cena and his decade long main event dictatorship will be crying about the new regime and his threat of sustained change. The young fans might even come to see Brock as a terrorist who overthrew their leader through merciless force and imposed himself on the masses. Yeah, terrorism is an impossible subject. As long as one can convince oneself and others that their actions, however heinous and immoral, are just and necessary then any "act of terrorism" becomes a matter of opinion. V mentioned that it is easier to look at terrorism when there are extreme examples, especially ones fresh in our memory, such as the attacks on 9/11, and I agree. Much more mundane, every day acts can potentially be defined as terrorism too though, that is why it is scary when you see the power authorities can hold over individuals who are suspected of terrorism. Also, if the aim of your essay is to consider terrorist acts which were catalysts to larger atrocities, then how about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. A seemingly innocent man who spoke his mind in an attempt to help others, unjustly tortured and murdered in an attempt to halt his influence, only for his death to spark religious movements which have spread across the world leaving a fair bit (understatement) of destruction in their path. It's all subjective of course, but without the crucifixion would the Christian Crusades have occurred? Would the tensions between Christianity and Islam be as harmful as they are today? MS, I go to school online, so a lot of it is forum work, and that was a forum assignment for the first week of the project. So we are actually done writing about this and have moved onto Domestic Terrorism. Which really has just sparked an argument about the differences between international and domestic terrorism. Your point about Christ is interesting. Was it an act of terror by itself or a form of justice? Was all of the crucifixions at the time terror or a form of justice? And if Christ was crucified because he was sent here by God to die for our sins, is it still murder or is it an act of compassion? And if Christ was sent here to die, and we are all part of God's plan, is anything really terrorism or just going according to a sometimes compassionate and sometimes vengeful God's plan? Throw religion into it and it almost becomes to much to think about.
|
|
|
Post by MasterSnit on Aug 24, 2014 15:38:08 GMT -5
3 most important moments to global terrorism. 2 of them occurred in the U.S.A. ![](http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/57/78/09/577809d764473e5e32e8141193a6ff62.jpg) Typical American!
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Aug 26, 2014 8:11:50 GMT -5
Well if you want to go Biblical on the subject, how about the Ten Plagues of Egypt?
It might seem strange, but we're pretty lucky to be living in a time where "all" we have to deal with is terrorism. I'm not underselling the issue or being naive, because the world is always going to be a scary place, but we don't have to worry about nuclear annihilation (at the moment) or being drafted into a war on our doorsteps. This is probably the most peaceful time to live in several millennia, if not ever.
|
|
|
Post by MasterSnit on Aug 30, 2014 17:05:54 GMT -5
Yeah, good one. So God is clearly the biggest terrorist ever, isn't he. No wonder all the modern day terrorist whackjobs causing havoc and blowing stuff up do it for their "God".
I think we have now provided enough evidence to justify the number one moment in terrorist history as being the Big Bang.
Slightly off topic, but I had to laugh the other day when Russia sort of admitted their involvement in Ukraine. A day that we may look back on some years later as the moment when a small war became a huge war, and the front page of the BBC website was dominated by a bemused old lady and a crying hipster who were arguing over some melted ice cream.
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Aug 31, 2014 6:45:44 GMT -5
Yeah, good one. So God is clearly the biggest terrorist ever, isn't he. Well, as Homer Simpson once said, The Bible is the prankster's bible. You do wonder what exactly Russia's end game is here. Is it just to annexe some more territory in eastern Ukraine, and then they dust off their hands and say yep we're done now? Slightly back on topic, I read that the Islamic State has $2.5BN in the bank. Jesus. I've got a depressing feeling that in 10 years time there will be a new entry in the top three.
|
|
|
Post by Champ on Sept 9, 2014 21:54:12 GMT -5
I don't understand how anyone does anything for "God". The truth is, if you, yourself, are deciding what "God wants", and you've never seen him or met him, you're actually acting on your own will, which is usually against what "God wants" anyway.
Religion causes so much destruction. That's why I'm not religious. Religious factions produce the most terrorists. Who the fuck are we to decide what "God wants"? The way I see it is, I don't know SHIT. Is there a God? I don't know. Is there NO God? again, I Don't know. HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW?
This is not a knock at anyone's beliefs either. V I know you have Atheistic beliefs. But here's the thing, it's simply something that you believe because it makes sense to YOU. I can respect that with anyone. You are created in a way to think and believe a certain way and no one has the right to tell you otherwise. What I have a problem with is people behaving like animalistic assholes over it. Belief and action are two completely different things. I want to push a bunch of people down a flight of stairs every day because I believe that they don't behave or act in a way that's "right". But I never do because that's just common sense. If I want to watch a bunch of idiots fall down a flight of stairs, then I need to look in the mirror and ask, why do I FEEL that way?...instead of actually pushing a motherfucker down a flight of stairs! Lol That's SELF WILL any way you look at it, which is 100% hypocritical to these religions. WHOSE GOD wants you to terrorize human beings over beliefs? That's why these terrorists and religious nuts are so full of shit and sick they can't even begin to understand that concept about themselves.
The thing with me is, my personal belief, I'm a realist at heart. To me, 2+2 = 4. 2+2 does not = "hey that guy believes in this god, that guy believes in that god, this guy believes there is no god, these people believe in freedom and we don't, let's fuck up the world because of it". I feel like I truly just don't know anything because realistically, I don't. If I can't see something right in front of my face, I can't possibly know whether it exists or not.
It's funny because most of the people that I know that is a Christian who doesn't curse and they go to church religiously, they usually turn out to be the biggest hypocrites and the people that go to the church across the street from my building are the crankiest bastards you'll ever meet. It's just an amusing side note
The most powerful person in the world that you have to work every single day at staying out of their way is, yourself. No one gets in their own way more than we do to ourselves. I need to worry about keeping myself in check. If God exists, I can't imagine that he/she would expect anything different out of me, being they are the one that created me, right? If God doesn't exist, then, again, what else can I do but the same. Meanwhile, this "being" that no one has ever seen or had proof of their existence, is why terrorism exists for the most part. Kind of sick this world we live in huh?
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Sept 13, 2014 11:31:42 GMT -5
This is not a knock at anyone's beliefs either. V I know you have Atheistic beliefs. But here's the thing, it's simply something that you believe because it makes sense to YOU. I can respect that with anyone. You are created in a way to think and believe a certain way and no one has the right to tell you otherwise. What I have a problem with is people behaving like animalistic assholes over it. Not that anyone gives a shit, but I would describe myself more as an agnostic than an atheist. My essential position on religion is that if you are killing people indiscriminately then you are doing it wrong.
|
|