miniProject Blog Post Layout. f17
An Abstract Diagram/Ideal-Type of a Social Disease
Intro. The social disease that I investigated was terrorism, which affects areas as :daily life of people, human rights, education, movement of people (refuge, crossing borders), peace of a country and security.
Motivation for Project. My interest in this phenomenon comes from various terrorism activities that causes the insecurity and threat among the citizens of country. Recent terrorist activities in France, India, Syria are the major motivations for my project.
OUTLINE. The primary symptoms of terrorism are:
1- Religious extremism
2- High extent of migration (legal/ illegal) from one country to another
3- Socio-economic symptoms: Poverty, violation of rights, lack of peace and security, political instability.
4-Cold-wars among countries
In the present context, terrorism is found to be occuring mainly due to religious issues. Majority incidents that is related to terrorist attacks around the world can be tied to groups with religious agenda. Jewish and Islamic group terrorism are the religious terrorism most prevalant in world at the present context. Such terrorism activities has lead in various socio- economic crisis in certain countries of world. These socio-economic aspects include lack of security, peace, threat among people etc. When these sorts of problems arise in a country, migration occurs at the peak. Sometimes, illegally which may result in various sorts of crimes and consequintly, cold wars among countries occur.
Virus: The Micro-RPG
What is this game about?
The game is all about the youths getting drawn towards terrorism, what things draw them towards violence and what role do the government, citizend and the terrorist gangs play in terrorism.
Terrorism has major impact in the youths of world. Due to various reasons, youths are drawn towards terrorism which vastly affects life of thousands of civilians. Government on one hand does some efforts for controlling terrorism, while on the other hand it directly or indirectly supports the group by funding.
An unemployed youth is looking for a job. He is highly disappointed with the government and the policies. He is disappointed in the way the country is not being able to give oppourtunities to him. A virus; terrorism is searching for someone it can infect. It is trying to victimize the young man.
Rules: How is the game played?
Ten cards numbered from 1 to 9 is distributed among the participants of the game: young man, government, virus and citizens of the country. Virus is actively trying to grasp the young man into terrorism, while the citizens are trying to protect the man from being a terrorist. Government is neutral in this game; it can reflect the positive impact while sometimes negative.
Basically, man and virus are the two main characters of game. However, every participant gets two cards. If the sum of two cards is greater than 10, power of that participant gets higher. For eg; if the young man’s two cards are 5 and 6, his sum will be 11 and he will have a greater chance to get employment and hence his life may go on well and he will not involve in violence. If virus and man both have sum of cards greater than 10, comparision is made. Citizen has the power to donate the least numbered card to make man win against virus. Even if the sum does not exceed that of virus’s cards sum, virus wins and competes government. Government has the power to persuade the virus not to spread violence and not to involve the youths in terrorism. If government can convince with strong points, terrorism is uprooted and if not terrorism wins over others.
miniProject Blog Post Layout. f17
An Investigation of the Symptoms of terrorism.
- What motivates terrorist?
- Terrorist usually perform intentionally indescriminate violence in order to create fear among people. These violence are usually committed with the motive of achieving political, religious or ideological aim. Different forms of deprivations; poverty, lack of education, and lack of political freedom drive people towards terrorism. Most of the terrorist activities are carried out as a revenge against state or action against the citizens.
– Excerpt. Attacks on ‘collaborators’ are used to intimidate people from cooperating with the state in order to undermine state control. This strategy was used in Ireland, in Kenya, in Algeria and in Cyprusduring their independence struggles.
Attacks on high-profile symbolic targets are used to incite counter-terrorism by the state to polarize the population.[clarification needed] This strategy was used by Al-Qaeda in its attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the United States on September 11, 2001. These attacks are also used to draw international attention to struggles that are otherwise unreported, such as the Palestinian airplane hijackings in 1970 and the South Moluccan hostage crisis in the Netherlands in 1975.
Abrahm suggests that terrorist organizations do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness. Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined. Additionally, Michael Mousseau shows possible relationships between the type of economy within a country and ideology associated with terrorism. Many terrorists have a history of domestic violence.
Some terrorists like Timothy McVeigh were motivated by revenge against a state for its actions against its citizens.
CAUSE & EFFECT
- How is terrorism linked to religious extremism?
- Religious extremism is both the cause and effects of terrorism. Religious extremism have stood up to be the main driver of terrorist attacks around the world. This is one of the biggest reasons why the Muslims are often believed to be terrorist. The recent terrorist activities suggest that the extremists create such violence in the name of their god. These extremists see themselves as the soldiers of god who fight eternal fight of good against the evils. In the terrorism activities like such, religious ideologies become more important to them than their practical aims. Especially, Islamist and Jewish are found to be most extremist in the field of their religion and the recent violence in the world are also seen to be done by these group of extremists.
– Excerpt. Over the past thirty years, religiously motivated groups have become the dominant actors using terrorism and sub-state violence. While, until the mid-1980s, conflicts such as those in Kashmir, Israel/Palestine, and the Philippines were dominated by secular-nationalist, sometimes Marxist groups, religious sub-state actors have infiltrated and become dominant in nearly all asymmetrical conflicts worldwide. Even new emerging conflicts which begin as nationalistic or ethnic, such as the Syrian or Lebanese civil wars, have spiraled to include, and often become dominated by, religiously motivated groups. Has academic research fully understood the influence of this change?
- Such as Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (New-York: Columbia University Press, 1998); Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (California, Los-Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2003); Jessica Stern, Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill (New-York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2003).
- Academics studying religiously motivated terrorism1 suggest that, unlike secular terror organisations, religious groups do not see themselves as engaged in an earthly conflict against an enemy that has committed some historic wrong. Rather, they see themselves as soldiers in the army of God, fighting against ‘His’ enemies as part of a larger cosmic, eternal battle of good against evil. Two main outcomes of this crucial difference are predicted in the literature: 1) religious groups will tend to carry out deadlier, more extreme acts of violence as they are trying to destroy a demonic enemy rather than convince their earthly enemy to do something; and 2) religious groups will not negotiate or accept anything less than total victory, as their success has been prophesised by God Himself. How far are these theoretical predictions borne out by facts on the ground?
- At first glance, both prophesies appear accurate. The most extreme terrorist attacks, including 9/11, chemical terrorism in Tokyo, and the lion’s share of suicide attacks over the past 45 years, have been committed by groups guided by a religiously inspired ideology. In addition, these attacks are often not accompanied by a coherent list of demands from the group’s enemy, and it could be suggested that their aim is more to generally lash out against that enemy, or in some cases bring about a prophesised Armageddon. Regarding the absolutism of violent religious extremist groups, the predictions also seem to have merit as, compared to the secular examples of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Colombian FARC, or the Kurdish PKK, religious terror groups tend to avoid negotiation with the enemy of God.
- However, despite these seeming corroborations, anomalies abound. Academic research predicting that religious terror groups will be inherently more violent and will not accept any negotiation with the enemy has been hard pushed to account for circumstances in which such groups, without any obvious change of ideology, deviate from these patterns. Deviations include distinguishing between national enemies despite religious affiliation, tacitly accepting ceasefires and recognising negotiated agreements, and in some cases de-radicalising and accepting political process.
- One factor which has been overlooked to date may provide the answer to these anomalies: the hybrid terror group. Dividing groups into ‘secular’ or ‘religious,’ researchers have not been able to sufficiently account for the full breadth of the extremism spectrum. A vast array of groups incorporate only certain degrees of religious guidance into their ideology, combining this guidance along with other elements such as nationalism (such as the Syrian Army of Islam) or racism (such as the KKK). As a result of this combination of religious and other ideological tenets, groups may ‘break the mould,’ following the predicted patterns of religious terror groups only to a certain degree.
- The Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas is an example of this type of hybrid. Established in 1988 by the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, the group’s founding covenant presents the combination of different principles that make up Hamas’ ideology. While article one opens the covenant by declaring that “The Movement’s program is Islam,” and article seven links the group to all Islamic movements worldwide, article six limits the group to historic Palestine, explicitly asserting that the group “is a distinguished Palestinian movement.” More explicit is article 14, in which the group declares its allegiance to three circles in no uncertain terms: “the Palestinian circle, the Arab circle, and the Islamic circle.”
- How are the efforts of even the most powerful nations not enough to take control over the terrorism? Or is there a different background to the story?
- A. It is very obvious that the powerful nations if engage to overcome terrorism, it can be totally uprooted from the world. However, various researches suggest that these terrorist groups are funded by state agencies and sponsers for weapons and other explosives to make their power even higher. Some countries intentionally use the terrorist groups of their nation in order to create threat to neighbouring countries. One major example is Pakistan. In such ways various countries want their terrorist group to be strong so that they may create threat and hence get benifited in national issues. Such tactises from national level make terrorism even dangerous.
– Excerpt. State sponsors have constituted a major form of funding; for example, Palestine Liberation Organization, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and other groups considered to be terrorist organizations, were funded by the Soviet Union. The Stern Gang received funding from Italian Fascist officers in Beirut to undermine the British Mandate for Palestine.Pakistan has created and nurtured terrorist groups as policy for achieving tactical objectives against its neighbours, especially India.
“Revolutionary tax” is another major form of funding, and essentially a euphemism for “protection money“. Revolutionary taxes “play a secondary role as one other means of intimidating the target population”.
Other major sources of funding include kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling (including wildlife smuggling), fraud, and robbery. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has reportedly received funding “via private donations from the Gulf states“.
CRITIQUE OF REASONS
- Can collective trauma promote positive changes/ Can terrorism be justified?
- Sometimes terrorism is often taken as a means to bring out positive changes in the government of any country and give freedom and liberty which is taken as a much bigger aspect than a single human life. Some evidences about the positive changes in various fields have been seen after a terrorist attack occurred. Terrorism is often caused with laudable objectives. The violence and suffer of the innocents is just a narrow concept while the outcome can be fruitful.
However, violence can never lead to a positivity. Since the success of terrorism is not guarenteed, it is just a immoral gamble of killing in hope of achieving something. It is unfair for an innocent to lose life in a may be true/false hope of achieving something that may/may not be fruitful.
– Excerpt. In extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause.
Terrorism works. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate with them and make concessions to them. Where governments have not been willing to concede to rational argument and peaceful protest, terrorism can compel recognition of a cause. Nelson Mandela moved from terrorist to President. In many other countries we see this trend too – in Israel, Northern Ireland, recently in Sri Lanka, and in the Oslo peace process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, terrorism is justified by its success in achieving results when peaceful means have failed.
Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause. The hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s brought publicity to the Palestinian cause, helping to bring it to the attention of the world. States can use their wealth and media to put across their side of the story; their opponents do not have these resources and perhaps need to resort to terrorism to publicise their cause. In this way, limited and focused use of violence can have a dramatic international impact.
Ideals like “freedom” and “liberty” are more important than a single human life; they are what gives meaning to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Of course, peaceful methods should be tried first, but when all else fails then a nation/ethnic community or other group must be able to fight for its freedom and independence.
Actions should be judged by their consequences. In bringing hope, popular recognition, and ultimately relief to the plight of a group, terrorism is aimed at laudable objectives and can achieve sufficient good to outweigh the evil of its methods.The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view – the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified. A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars – all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions. Effectively, such a definition says that the armies of sovereign states should have a monopoly on violence, and that they can only act in certain ways. Some exceptions to this are surely easy to justify – e.g. the actions of the French resistance to German occupation in World War II, or of American patriots against the British in the 1770s.
A narrower definition would say that terrorism was the use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve a political end. Such a definition would allow freedom fighters and resistance groups with a legitimate grievance to use force against dictatorship and occupation, providing they only targeted the troops and other agents of oppression. Yet even this tight definition has grey areas – what if the soldiers being targeted are reluctant conscripts? Are not civilian settlers in occupied territories legitimate targets as agents of oppression? What about their children? Doesn’t it make a difference if civilians are armed or unarmed? Don’t civil servants such as teachers and doctors count as agents of an occupying or oppressive state?
ALTERNATIVE FORMS &/or SIGNS OF HEALTH
- What efforts are being made for combation of terrorism?
- Since, terrorism is a hazardous disease in the world, steps for its combation is a must. Some of the national organizations are actively working against terrorism. Education is given to people about the dangerous outcomes that terrorism may cause so that future generations will not get involved in such violence, groups to work against various terrorist acts have been established. Military and security system have been extremely tight in places. Since, youths are the most probable participants in terrorism, youths are provided with wide range of employment oppurtunities so that they don’t have to participate in violance causing acts.
– Excerpt. America is at war with a transnational terrorist movement fueled by a radical ideology of hatred, oppression, and murder. Our National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, first published in February 2003, recognizes that we are at war and that protecting and defending the Homeland, the American people, and their livelihoods remains our first and most solemn obligation.
Our strategy also recognizes that the War on Terror is a different kind of war. From the beginning, it has been both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas. Not only do we fight our terrorist enemies on the battlefield, we promote freedom and human dignity as alternatives to the terrorists’ perverse vision of oppression and totalitarian rule. The paradigm for combating terrorism now involves the application of all elements of our national power and influence. Not only do we employ military power, we use diplomatic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement activities to protect the Homeland and extend our defenses, disrupt terrorist operations, and deprive our enemies of what they need to operate and survive. We have broken old orthodoxies that once confined our counterterrorism efforts primarily to the criminal justice domain.
This updated strategy sets the course for winning the War on Terror. It builds directly from the National Security Strategy issued in March 2006 as well as the February 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, and incorporates our increased understanding of the enemy. From the beginning, we understood that the War on Terror involved more than simply finding and bringing to justice those who had planned and executed the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Our strategy involved destroying the larger al-Qaida network and also confronting the radical ideology that inspired others to join or support the terrorist movement. Since 9/11, we have made substantial progress in degrading the al–Qaida network, killing or capturing key lieutenants, eliminating safehavens, and disrupting existing lines of support. Through the freedom agenda, we also have promoted the best long-term answer to al–Qaida’s agenda: the freedom and dignity that comes when human liberty is protected by effective democratic institutions.
In response to our efforts, the terrorists have adjusted, and so we must continue to refine our strategy to meet the evolving threat. Today, we face a global terrorist movement and must confront the radical ideology that justifies the use of violence against innocents in the name of religion. As laid out in this strategy, to win the War on Terror, we will:
- Advance effective democracies as the long–term antidote to the ideology of terrorism;
- Prevent attacks by terrorist networks;
- Deny terrorists the support and sanctuary of rogue states;
- Deny terrorists control of any nation they would use as a base and launching pad for terror; and
- Lay the foundations and build the institutions and structures we need to carry the fight forward against terror and help ensure our ultimate success.
miniProject Blog Post Layout. f17
DISSECTION OF MICRO-RPG
The Game’s Fiction
– Essence. What is the game about? –
Roles. Young man, virus, citizens and government.
Core Activity. Young man is trying to find job, virus is trying to grasp the unemployed man into terrorism, citizens are trying to combat terrorism by making efforts to stop the young man joining terrorism, government is neutral, however, its priority is to help the young man.
Adversity. Young man is struggling with finding job. Since, he is very disappointed with government, he is very likely to get influenced ti terrorism. Virus is searching for a chance to involve the man into violence and use him against government. Citizens are terrified with terrorism so, they don’t want terrorism to win over others.
Motivation. The young man is trying to find a better way of living so he is trying to find a job. If he doesn’t find a job, his aggression is going to reach at peak and he is going to spill the agression through violence by getting involved in terrorism and blaming and going against the government. Since, the violence puts peace and security at risk, citizens are trying to help young man not get trapped into terrorism. Government works in the sake of its benefit. It may sometimes support man while sometimes the virus.
Setting. The characters are in the controversial world. The scene is in fact the real world scenario where every characters fit into real world scenerio.
The Game’s Non-Fiction
– The game is totally based on the sum of the cards’ number each get. If only the young man has his card sum more than 10, he gets a job and finally leads good future.
If only the virus has sum greater than 10, it becomes powerful. In this condition, government tries to persuade virus to not spread the violence. If the virus gets convinced, terrorism loses.
If both the virus and man have sum more than 10, citizen can donate its least numbered card and help man win the virus.
If still virus is greater, again government persuades. If the man has greater number than virus then, he doesn’t get involved in terrorism but government can help virus in this case by funding (giving least card). When this happens citizens get affected by virus, not the man.
Conditional Rules. In the game, virus doesn’t win unless it gets the highest sum of cards after all the strategies that citizen and man apply. Even when the card may be way too greater, government has to persuade the virus not to spread crime. If the virus doesn’t get convinced that’s the only point where the virus wins.
Start. Game starts by distributing the cards.
Finish. Game ends when terrorism is impossible to be uprooted; when the young man gets involved in crime/ when both government and citizens are not enough to win over virus.
– Experience. I want my game to give the players real life experiences that some countries have faced in terms of terrorism. I want the participants to feel the problems that unemployed youths face and hoe they get drawn to terrorism, how citizens try to uproot terrorism as it is a very dangerous disease of world that causes many harms, how government plays selfish roles in the field of terrorism.
Take-away. I want my players to know the harm of terrorism, causes and effects of terrorism and how is it a social disease.