International Terrorism

"At 9:02 on the morning of April 19th, 1995, a bomb went off at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The bomb not only killed 160 people and injured over 650 more, but it also shook the illusion held by many Americans of a nation safe from the political unrest and terrorism outside its borders (an illusion that would be shattered for good on 9/11). In the hours and days following the bombing, the media and law enforcement authorities focused on the Muslim terrorists they believed were responsible, including a Muslim Oklahoma City resident detained at Heathrow Airport in London. On April 20th, one day after bombing, another Oklahoma City resident, Iraqi refugee Suhair al-Mosawi, was attacked in his home as retaliation for the bombing. When Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols – two white, Christian, home-grown anti-government activists – were arrested, what became evident was that these were ‘American’ terrorists. In spite of the initial shock of the bombing and focus on Muslims, this was far from a new phenomenon. For many experts who had been researching and monitoring the extreme right, the bombing was the culmination of a fifteen-year trajectory of violence. In response to the bombing, hearings were held, anti-terror legislation was passed, arrests were made and numerous books written and films made about the phenomenon. Yet, following the events of 9/11, Oklahoma City and the domestic extreme right were pushed to the margins of history and memory, as terrorism and terrorists were redefined as Islamic or Islamist, and Christianity and patriotism were evoked in America’s defense.

Throughout American history, both terrorism and extremism have been constructed, evoked or ignored strategically by the state, media and public at different points, in order to disown and demonize political movements whenever their ideologies and objectives become problematic or inconvenient – because they overlap with, and thus compromise, the legitimacy of the dominant ideology and democratic credentials of the state, because they conflict with the dominant ideology or hegemonic order, because they offend the general (voting) public, or because they expose the fallacies of national unity and bi-polar opposition in the face of foreign enemies or international conflicts, such as the war on terror. This chapter looks at how domestic extreme right terrorism has been constructed, represented, evoked or ignored in the American political imagination in the post-civil rights era, with a particular focus on its changing status following the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11."""

Karl Marx’s hostility toward religion masked the religious and millenarian aspects of his own thinking, yet behind Marx’s political theories stands a distinctly eschatological reading of history. The Shining Path insurgency in Peru represented a coherent development of Peruvian Left political culture and orthodox Marxist concepts of violent struggle in the name of ‘progress’. The senderistas were not an irrational Maoist cult, as they have sometimes been depicted, but an ideologically driven movement led by intellectuals and university students who sought to rigorously apply Marx’s ideas while rejecting political compromise with the reactionary state. The suffering inflicted upon the Peruvian peasantry as a result of the senderistas’ uncompromising stance reveals some of orthodox Marxism’s internal contradictions, while the rise of the peasant resistance movements – especially led by evangélicos and women’s groups – highlights the importance of categories of belief and human agency in discussions of the relationship between underdevelopment and conflict.

Over the last decade, the term safe haven has stirred controversy both in the political arena as well as in the academic literature. Several authors have emphasised the imprecise and commonly ill-conceived use of this terminology. This article intends to provide a fresh analytical framework to better understand the notion of terrorist safe haven. Rejecting the orthodox state-centric approach that envisions terrorist safe havens solely in their static and territorial dimensions, we focus rather on the social dynamics that characterise these spaces. We contend that although they might appear socially fragmented, these geographical areas are ruled by alternative modes of governance that impose a form of social order regulating interactions among actors. We use the concept of ‘social space’ to capture the framework in which social interactions between local actors are taking place. While we recognise that the social order that governs a given social space imposes constraints for actors, we contend that it can be subjected to internal contestation, opening a series of opportunities for transnational terrorist networks. We then try to highlight how terrorist groups might take advantage of these internal dynamics and create new ones to ensnare some local actors into forming alliances with them. This article addresses several case studies to further illustrate the theoretical discussion. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the importance of interpersonal relationships between local and transnational actors. While this article proposes a preliminary analysis of the question, it opens up new research avenues in conceptualising why and how some regions have come to attract transnational terrorist groups.

Terrorism is puzzling behavior for political scientists. On one hand, terrorist attacks generally hail from the politically aggrieved. On the other hand, a growing body of scholarship finds the tactic politically counterproductive. Unlike guerrilla attacks on military targets, terrorist attacks on civilian targets lower the odds of governments making  concessions. This article proposes and tests a psychological theory to account for why militant groups engage in terrorism, given the political costs of attacking civilians.

Contemporary discourse in terrorism studies have been polarised into two dominant schools of thought—Orthodox tradition and Critical terrorism studies (CTS). Orthodox approach argued that state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and that terrorism is carried out by non-state actors only. While critical theorists critique orthodox approach for ignoring terrorism used by the state against its own citizens, and argued that terrorism and its nature is not limited to violent acts itself but depends on the context, circumstance and intention. In this paper, the author offered the critique of both theoretical schools for failing to provide a class analysis of terrorism, and then introduce Historical Materialism (HM) as theoretical perspective to fill this knowledge gap. HM approach to terrorism uses Karl Marx’s materialist conception of history and argued that there are two form of terrorism—Individual terrorism and State terrorism, and these forms of terrorism are used by all classes in the society or state (the ruling class, working class and the lumpen class) whenever their interests is undermined or likely to be undermined. With HM approach to terrorism, the paper concluded that terrorism is an inevitable feature of the contemporary global capitalist of mode of production such that the use of terror is the tactics of all classes in the society or state rather than that of the lumpen (suppressed) class.

The article is opened with definitions of terms utilized throughout the article. Terrorism is defined as the threat or employment of violence against noncombatant targets for political, religious, or ideological purposes by sub-national groups and/or clandestine individuals who are willing to justify all means to achieve their goals. Terrorist conduct is designed to attract attention to the terrorist’s cause and to spread fear and anxiety among wide circles of the targeted population. Subsequently I analyse how terrorists use the Internet, and what can be done to counter their activities. The Internet is used to disseminate information, for propaganda, indoctrination, networking, psychological warfare, socialization, motivation, fund raising, spreading tactics, recruitment, planning activities and coordination. As the Internet became a major arena for modern terrorists, we need to devise appropriate methods to forestall their activities and establish security.

The mothers’ discourse is a reflection of the culture of martyrdom as present in modern Palestinian society. The armed groups that wage war foster this culture and actively infuse themes of martyrdom and religio-nationalist duty to the youths. When the mothers relay this culture via representation in the media, and when they teach it to their children, they are acting within a traditionally female role as a repository and transmitter of culture. These communicative roles are both public and private, yet they remain within a feminine sphere of involvement as they are reactionary in nature, and inseparable from the actions of the children. Within the roles adopted by the mothers of Palestine, they are positioned to reproduce the nation in both sexual reproduction and discourse reproduction. In this role, the mother is positioned as a dual reproducer—birthing both future fighters and the dominant narrative that serves to continue the intifada until nationhood is achieved

This paper traces the intersecting trajectories of policy and projection since September 11.  I explore America’s engagement in eastern Africa, the actions of regional allies, and media coverage of terrorism in the region as examples of the confluence of counterterrorism policies, inter-state relations, and mythologies of al Qaeda.  The search for Fazul Abdullah Muhammad and his closest associates provides a unique vehicle to track evolving U.S. counterterrorism strategies in Africa, including security aid, extraordinary rendition, and military intervention.  At the same time, speculation about Fazul offers a window on popular perceptions of a war without boundaries, perceptions that have encouraged a disproportionate response to al Qaeda.  To contextualize the multiple uses of Fazul I begin with a reflection on two tropes—one official, one popular—that have framed American counterterrorist initiatives in and beyond East Africa: war and specters.  I then address the development of the Fazul mythos and its convergence with American foreign policy as well as partner nations’ counterterrorism efforts.  More precisely, I explore perceptions of Fazul as a ‘master-terrorist’, attempts to capture or kill him, and his rhetorical utility as a primary face of terrorism in the region.  I conclude by considering the circumstances of Fazul’s death and its lessons for American counterterrorism in eastern Africa.