The evolving face of terrorism

[remnant]

The world is facing a constant flux of circumstances with regard to asymmetrical warfare. Previously, terrorists had their bedrock in the underprivileged youth who had grievances about perceived injustices. The modern terrorist is homegrown, urbane, affluent and with a bright future to boot. Militaries in places like Afghanistan are facing the possibility of jihadi soldiers in their ranks who are increasingly turning their guns on their colleagues. The 9/11 stunt was carried out by trainee pilots. The future seems uncertain indeed.

 

[explorerx7]

Yes, probably we have to be running for cover because terrorism is taking over! It's amazing how after people have seen the ruthlessness of many of these groups that they are able to easily get new recruits on a regular basis. Its seems that their propaganda has been methodically developed and is highly methods have been methodically developed and is highly persuasive. Many of these recruits seem to regret their involvement with these groups soon after joining but by then it's too late because they are not allowed to leave in most instances.

 

[TungstenCube]

If we're discussing the evolving face of terrorism, we can't miss discussing cyber terrorism. Groups like anonymous exist and can commit, "acts of terror." Typically they claim these efforts are under the auspice for good. What do you think? Do you think Anonymous is a terror organization that simply has a set of beliefs that tend to align with society at large?

 

[TungstenCube]

If we're discussing the evolving face of terrorism, we can't miss discussing cyber terrorism. Groups like anonymous exist and can commit, "acts of terror." Typically they claim these efforts are under the auspice for good. What do you think? Do you think Anonymous is a terror organization that simply has a set of beliefs that tend to align with society at large?

 

[John Snort]

There are many wealth business men who fund terrorism and are harder to identify because they are smarter than the average gun-toting or explosive strapped terrorists who blow themselves up because they are brain-washed into believing they are dying for a good cause. What's disturbing is the relative ease with which young people can be radicalized over the internet and recruited by terrorists. It's a really unsafe world we live in now.

 

[gmckeebiz]

Yeah, it's a whole lot harder to profile for terrorism than it used to be. You see examples of this when there are young, attractive, wealthy western men and women joining ISIS to fight the supposed imperialism of the West, and to fight for jihad against us. Many terrorists are not poor or down trodden by any means. Many are wealthy men and sometimes women who simply belief in a radical form of Islam. We don't really profile in America, but in other countries that makes it really hard to determine who to target to stop terrorism.

 

[pwarbi]

I think that when people think of a terrorist, they still think of a middle-eastern man in a white sheet, big beard, AK-47 and a ruck sack strapped to his back in sandals. These days that's probably as far away from a terrorist as you can get.

And that's the problem, anyone can be a terrorist these days, and how often do we hear of a terrorist attack taking place, and the culprit being 'a lovely man' or a 'hard working family man'?We simply don't know who walks amongst us, until it's too late.

 

[Kai]

In order to claim terrorism has evolved, one must provide a working definition of terrorism first. So, what is terrorism?

This is a question that the world has yet to answer, despite the prevalence of terrorist attacks globally, in international law and treaties, there is still much disagreement on the actual definition of terrorism. When used by the media and in debates, the label of terrorism in my opinion simply functions to shut down discussion and immediately discredit the other based on emotion. This is not to say terrorism does not exist, of course it does, but the claim that there is something different about a military bombing a civilian target, and a paramilitary group doing the same is hypocritical to say the least. This is a major point of contention in the debate about what constitutes terrorism, distinction between violence committed by "state actors" as opposed to so called "non-state actors".

I would personally accept a definition of terrorism that says, any intentional attack targeting civilians or endangering civilians for any reason, in contradiction to already established international law, is a terrorist attack.

 

[Kai]

Yes, probably we have to be running for cover because terrorism is taking over! It's amazing how after people have seen the ruthlessness of many of these groups that they are able to easily get new recruits on a regular basis. Its seems that their propaganda has been methodically developed and is highly methods have been methodically developed and is highly persuasive. Many of these recruits seem to regret their involvement with these groups soon after joining but by then it's too late because they are not allowed to leave in most instances.

I think one major factor people do not take into account is the fact that despite us seeing and knowing the brutality and savageness of these different groups, a not insignificant number of the people who support them do not. The conspiracy theories about ISIS in the Arab world are one of the better examples of this. When ISIS first came about, it had many supporters, the way they justified their support was by claiming that the "Islamophobic" western media were heavily misrepresenting what the ISIS is. That they want to stop Islamic unity. They claimed that the gruesome HD execution videos could not be produced by ISIS, that they were all fabricated. It took the death of a Jordanian soldier who was burned alive on video for these idiots in Jordan, where I live, to effectively abandon their previous position.

And you see this with many of the recruits, especially those coming from the west, who travel to Join Islamic state and then regret their decision because it is not what they thought it's going to be.

 

[vash]

While indeed there are screwed up people who might be religious crazy, or anti-social, or simply just like to terrorize people, majority of today's "terrorists" are indeed people who feel being oppressed. For example, many terrorists are from Saudi Arabia and they were under Bin Laden. Why did Bin Laden become anti-America? Because he told Saudi King not to let US military set up base in his country. He predicted that once the US force set foot there, they will never leave. And he was right. Basically he thought his country was under occupation by the US.

As for many others, for example Iraqis... you know why they want you died if your country were among the list of countries of coalition during the invasion of Iraq.

The bottomline is, a lot of terrorists are from the countries which were bombed, invaded, had their government replaced, etc. They felt being wronged.

By the way, under no circumstance I would support the act of attack on civilians. But majority of these "terrorists" are not really attacking civilians. They were called "terrorists" for fighting in their own country against foreign occupation. That happened before... French resistance were "terrorists" under Nazi occupation... right? Only a small percentage of these "terrorists" actually went as far as going to the enemy's homeland and try to terrorize the civilians there, these are true extremists.

Anyway, in my opinion I believe if there is no more invasion of foreign countries, there would be very few terrorists. After all very few true crazies would want to throw away their life for nothing. Yes, there is always a cause, whether you agree with it or not. At the moment, the most common cause is your military had attacked them in their own countries first.

 

[pwarbi]

Well the dictionary definition of terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims, I think that sums up what terrorism is pretty well.

It's the 'especially against civilians' part that we should take note of, because while these terrorist acts are politically motivated, they know that to make the biggest impact, targeting civilians is key, and its also a lot easier to do.

 

[eveliner]

Terrorism is and will always be here to stay. It's part of our human nature. You can't stop it. Although what I'm about to say is a bit dark, permanently being on a hunt for these arising-from-nowhere criminals is what gives our lives a bit of more purpose. That doesn't mean I wish there would be criminals all over the world, because my life would be at risk, too, but my point is, you just can't stop them.

 

[pwarbi]

I agree with you that the world will always have terrorism to varying degrees, and that sadly no matter how hard we try it can't be stopped.

As for you saying hunting them gives our lives more purpose, to be honest, I haven't got a clue what you mean by that. I'd rather live my life knowing these kind of people weren't in the world than live for catching them personally.