1
   

Has Terrorism Always Been This Bad?

 
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 09:28 pm
It seems that everywhere you look these days you wither see mutilated bodies, destroyed buses, crashed planes, or demolished buildings. And these occurrences are blamed on thousands of people that all fit into one distinct disillusioned group: terrorists.

The furthest back that I can remember hearing about bombings were either the ones in England or the ones in Israel. Are they a relatively new tradition among the self-proclaimed 'oppressed' or have terrorism tactics been around a lot longer? If terrorists have been around for a while, have they always gone to such high levels of destruction (or at least the worst according to the technology at the time)?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,082 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 10:21 pm
IMO terrorism is actually not as common now as it was in the 70's and 80's but I didn't check this impression against the stats.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 08:27 am
Craven's probably right on this one. News from South America tends to get short shrift in the US news reports, and ignored when it's there.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 09:12 am
Back in the 1880s through the turn of the century the main worry was "anarchists." They tended to favor political assassinations (such as Tsar Alexander II, King Umberto I of Italy, William McKinley) but they could also engage in more extensive acts of terrorism. Likewise, ethnic or nationalist groups could and did engage in terrorism (e.g. there was some extensive "ethnic cleansing" in Macedonia in the first decade of the twentieth century, almost a century before the term gained any currency). So terrorism has been around a lot longer than Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.

Is it worse now? Well, weapons are worse now, so we shouldn't be surprised that terrorists are worse now.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 09:18 am
Terrorism seems to be an out growth of globalization. The first round which took place between c 1875 and 1915 produced its own terrorist reaction. The second round which began to seriously have a global impact in the 1970's has produced a similar reaction. The problem is cultural (social) change which not all people respond positively to.
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 06:25 pm
Thanks for clearing that one up!
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 06:36 pm
Terrorism is indeed more visible these days, thanks to the magic of television, but it is important to notice exactly what terrorists get the most press. I'm with Craven, I don't think it's any worse than it ever was through history, it's just being manipulated via the media in a different way, since we have the technology.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 06:53 pm
Ok, I'm still too lazy to run through the stats but the U.S. State Department released a report today that claims that terrorism last year was at a 30-year low, which would be in line with my impression.

Note that they are not counting any of the stuff in Iraq, as that's not within their definition of terrorism so your impression from the news might feel different because of that.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/29/terror.report/index.html

There's some interpretation of the stats to say that it's a result of the US war on terror, but my impression is that there has been a decline that predates it (though I am again too lazy to check the stats).
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 06:59 pm
I love how the government sends out a report saying that terrorism is at a huge recession just as things seem like they can't possibly get worse.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 08:34 am
If you think things can't get any worse then you are greatly mistaken!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 09:41 am
Terrorism is an old phenomenon which precedes globalization and the Russian anarchists-- by centuries. Here's the beginning of Encyclopedia.com's article on terrorism. (Edit: upon rereading, Encyclopedia seems to hold a different view than Britannica; it thinks the pheomenon is quite modern. So there appears to be disagreement about what terrorism is, and how far back the practice really goes.)

Quote:
terrorism
Related: Political Science

the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances. The term dates from the Reign of Terror (1793-94) in the French Revolution but has taken on additional meaning in the 20th cent. Terrorism involves activities such as assassinations, bombings, random killings, and hijackings. Used for political, not military, purposes, and most typically by groups too weak to mount open assaults, it is a modern tool of the alienated, and its psychological impact on the public has increased because of extensive coverage by the media. Political terrorism also may be part of a government campaign to eliminate the opposition, as under Hitler , Mussolini , Stalin , and others, or may be part of a revolutionary effort to overthrow a regime. Terrorist attacks also are now a common tactic in guerrilla warfare .


According to Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the subject. (Link -- for subscribers only -- here), the practice goes back to biblical times.

Quote:
Terror has been practiced by state and nonstate actors throughout history and throughout the world. The ancient Greek historian Xenophon (c. 431-c. 350 BC) wrote of the effectiveness of psychological warfare against enemy populations. Roman emperors such as Tiberius (reigned AD 14-37) and Caligula (reigned AD 37-41) used banishment, expropriation of property, and execution as means to discourage opposition to their rule.

The most commonly cited example of early terror, however, is the activity of the Jewish Zealots, often known as the Sicarii (Hebrew: "Daggers"), who engaged in frequent violent attacks on fellow Hebrews suspected of collusion with the Roman authorities. Likewise, the use of terror was openly advocated by Robespierre during the French Revolution, and the Spanish Inquisition used arbitrary arrest, torture, and execution to punish what it viewed as religious heresy. After the American Civil War (1861-65), defiant Southerners formed the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate supporters of Reconstruction (1865-77) and the newly freed former slaves. In the latter half of the 19th century, terror was adopted in western Europe, Russia, and the United States by adherents of anarchism, who believed that the best way to effect revolutionary political and social change was to assassinate persons in positions of power. From 1865 to 1905 a number of kings, presidents, prime ministers, and other government officials were killed by anarchists' guns or bombs.


I would guess that terrorism is neither much better nor much worse than it used to be. If you hear more and more about terrorists in the news these days, I would suggest two connected reasons. For one, the share of Americans among the victims of terrorism has increased. Dead Americans are shocking to Americans, but dead foreigners are not. Second, American media have become more willing to call bombers terrorists. Standard political terminology has it that our bombers are freedom fighters while the other side's bombers are terrorists. Before 9/11, American journalists considered it unprofessional to take sides in this terminology game, but they changed their minds when their professional standards got criticized as unpatriotic. As far as I know, only European news agencies such as Reuters continue to adhere to ]the old editorial policies.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 10:01 am
Ask an Indian, or maybe a druid.
0 Replies
 
Zedd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 04:50 pm
I really think that terrorism is simply a play of the mind on the ppl. I mean, it wouldn't make much of a news if there are no blood and mutilated body. Therefore, reporters tend to show the worst of everything. In reality, things might not be always that bad as the media seems to portray.
0 Replies
 
JimmyK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 04:59 pm
TERRORISM: N. Defined by the opposite party. (a) An act of an outgunned determined group desperate to accomplish their purpose. (b) The act of farting on an elevator as you exit on floor 11 with the next stop at floor 38. (c) Fast food. (d) Honda Motorcycles and those that ride them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Has Terrorism Always Been This Bad?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 05:00:41