Terrorism: Research paper, determining a subject. (please add your input)

[jseankil]

I'm doing a research paper on terrorism.

I'm told the majority of previous papers have been done on Iraq (what context I do not know).

I thinking of doing the paper on one of the following:

1. Does U.S. polices create terrorism.

2. Does the U.S. use terrorism as part of it's foreign policy.

The paper is based on all fact, no fluff, no rah rah rah.

Please give me your opinion of what the topic/thesis should be (whether related to the above or not).

Please suggest readings/articles (specific). I'm think Chomsky and Zinn would be where I should start, let me know of anything else. (Post here or PM me)

I have a limited time to complete the paper (2+ months)

I thank you.

[The_Warmth]

1. The U.S. government....

already admitted that the number of terrorists have increased since they invaded, along with many other negative facts. The problem is getting people this knowledge, people aren't evil, they just don't know any better.

[sofa king]

2. Are you confined to the U.S.?

The British ran an operation of limited success in Malaya prior to the Vietnam War. It was a counterinsurgency operation, but I think you will find that most "terrorists," at least as currently defined by Americans, are in fact insurgents.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1622.pdf#search=%22british%20counterinsurgency%20malaya%22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

There is a long and dark history of American responses to "terrorism," both in America and within its fledgling empire. These examples are rarely taught in school today, but they are easily seen around us in our nation's execrable treatment of our Indian tribes. The federal government "won" by condoning the most inhumane and disingenuous treatment of our tribes, by purchasing the land from tribes without intending to pay, and by directing retaliation for any offense against the women and children of the tribes which chose to fight. An excellent and tragic example is the Great Sioux Nation. A more ambigious example might be the Mohawks, for while most other New York tribes were poorly treated, the Mohawks remained defiant (even recently) and actually came out somewhat better off for it.

Those same lessons were also applied in the Philippine Insurrection, which one might argue still simmers today. Consider looking into Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (yes, the MILFs). You might discover interesting and very relevant information if you do.

Military theorists will tell you that when an army cannot fight toe to toe with an enemy, it resorts to a raiding strategy. When that raiding strategy cannot be profitably conducted against military targets the raiders resort to "soft" targets. Usually, terrorism is defined as soft target warfare, though some disagree. Some might argue that the crime of terrorism arises when all military responses are cut off from a people who refuse to submit.

Almost always, the American response to soft target warfare has been to respond with atrocity of some sort against the enemy's own soft targets. It never works quickly, and only our amazing powers of amnesia prevent us from harboring a national guilt for our long, long list of war crimes.

Why am I still awake? Good luck. I hope I helped instead of merely rambled.

[The Straight Story]

3. This is an excellent paper to start with:

www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Soc_Psych_of_Terrorism.pdf

Official reports including the September 1999 'The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?' study.

Now my take on your paper:

1. Does U.S. polices create terrorism.

Not really, like using religion though some folks use hatred of the US to recruit people into cults, and like good little cult members they do whatever their twisted leaders say.

The question may be re-worded as 'Does US foreign policy lead to a more sympathetic audience for terrorist organizations in their recruiting efforts?'

One might note we have home brewed nut jobs like McVeigh, who used ruby ridge/waco as a springboard. Did the government's policies create him or was it simply the case that there are some people out there who think the govt of the US is out to get them, etc? Should we adjust to deal with nutjobs or just realize they will exist no matter what and find other ways to handle them?

2. Does the U.S. use terrorism as part of it's foreign policy.

Terror is a broad term, one could say invading another country or bombing military targets there is terrorism (as it terrifies people). Before asking that question one must define terrorism in a generic way. A somewhat common interpretation is that terrorism is an act which attempts to target the general populace via violent acts in hopes that they will change the issues internally that the terrorist is being affected by externally. IE, instead of confronting those in power that are causing the issue you intentionally target the civilians.

9/11 was an act of terrorism, and I include the pentagon in that even though it was a military target since it used a plane full of civilians. INTENT is key here, the US does use methods one could say are terroristic in nature, but that is not the norm - versus groups like al qaeda which target people as a whole based on national origin, regardless of whether they are directly involved in the oppression which triggered the act or not (they are seen as just as guilty by association and therefore fair game).

The more fair question to consider is: Does the US engage, as a primary method, in terrorism to acheive it's goals? And a followup - how does the US deal with civilians in a general sense when in a situation where they have more control than the civilians (ala Iraq/afghanistan)?

If we compare the US then to islamic terrorists (ie the fringe of the religion) how does one believe each would act given the same situation/same weapons/power/etc?

While the US is guilty of awful things, one could argue that others with the same resources would do many times the damage, which goes to the core I think of what you are looking for. Who would you trust more to occupy your neighborhood - US soldiers (especially under clinton...) or Islamic fundamentalist/al qaeda?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. I think an interesting treatment of the topic...

...of terrorism would be a careful examination of what it actually is---what constitutes "terrorism?" How do we reliably recognize and discern it from all other forms of force or violence?

Would the U.S. military's use white phosphorous on the civilians of Falluja constitute terrorism? Why or why not?

How 'bout Israel's use of cluster bombs on the civilian population of Lebanon? Why or why not?

How 'bout Truman's decision to detonate atomic weapons over the Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was that not an effort to terrorize Japan into submission?

Is there such a thing as "legitimate" use of terrorism? Or is it something only bad and illegitimate people would stoop to?

Is it only "terrorism" when "they" do it?

[Nite Owl]

5. I like the first topic

Do US policies create terrorism?

There should be numerous sources for this. Wes Clark has said this in speeches so you could google that, there must be an article in there somewhere. There is clear evidence that this is true now. I always thought it would in Iraq because once the dictator was removed there would be no barrier to competion for power. Sadaam wouldn't let any movements grow, he didn't want any threats to his power so that kept them out.

You could start by defining terroism to set the parameters of your thesis
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-17,GGLJ:en&q=what+is+terrorism

[jody]

6. Consider whether U.S. military strategies and tactics are capable of

fighting global terrorism as discussed in the following article.

US army??s kill-kill ethos under fire
QUOTE
THE American army should scrap the Warrior Ethos, a martial creed that urges soldiers to demonstrate their fighting spirit by destroying the enemies of the United States at close quarter rather than winning the trust of local populations, according to senior US officers and counter-insurgency experts.

Soldiers are instructed to live by the creed, which evokes the warrior spirit of the modern US army. It begins with the stirring vow, “I am an American soldier”, and goes on to affirm that “I will never accept defeat. I will never quit . . . I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat”.

Admirable though this may be in the heat of battle, the Warrior Ethos’s emphasis on annihilating the enemy is inimical to the type of patient, confidence-building counter-insurgency warfare in which America is engaged in the Middle East, according to Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold, former director of operations to the joint chiefs of staff at the Pentagon.

“The future crises that relate to Iraq and Afghanistan will be a struggle for hearts and minds,” Newbold said. “We’re in a different environment now and that requires different techniques.”

The Warrior Ethos replaced the Soldier’s Creed drawn up in the post-Vietnam era which stated: “I am an American soldier . . . No matter what situation I am in, I will never do anything for pleasure, profit or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform. I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and the uniform.”
UNQUOTE

[annabanana]

7. #1 . Define "terrorism".

What is it.
What is it intended to do?
How does it work? (How can you tell if it has?)
What is the desired overall result.

[ThomWV]

8. I Take It You Are New To This

Let me make a grandfatherly recommendation to you. You defeat your no-fluff rule with your own two suggestions. Each one of them calls for a conclusion which will be your opinion. Do that and you've failed the fluff-test. Limit yourself to a subject for which a great deal of verifiable fact exists, which hasn't been addressed much by others, and about which there can be little controversy once you have completed the work.

Here's one for you. First define what you will include as terrorist activity and what you will not. Then pick a date certain as your starting point from which you will trace the movement of what you have defined as terrorist activities around the globe. That will be enough but if you want to add a second dimension to your study (which wouldn't be a particularly good idea) you could also try to track the number of people involved with the terrorist movement. The result of your work would be useful to others who follow and would not require opinion at any stage.