Blog #3 War on Terror Tactics

The War on Terror was declared by George W. Bush in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks took place. There are many parts and components to the War on Terror, including extradition, rendition, torture, drone strikes, and targeted killing or signature strikes. While the War on Terror is not terrorism, in itself, certain components of the War on Terror may be considered acts of terrorism. The major conflict in this debate is the varying opinions on whether a state can commit terrorism, but if one answers yes to that question, or if one disregards the question, it is clear that some of the tactics that the United States of America uses, in its War on Terror, especially black sites, torture, and targeted killing and signature strikes, can be considered acts of terrorism.

Black sites are areas of the world where the United States holds terror suspects far away from the US. These sites are often unregulated and usually consist of systems where fewer protection rights are included and considered. In these secret sites, what goes on is hidden and ignored, and although that may not be terrorism, terror undoubtedly takes place at these black sites, and it is very possible that there are inhumane conditions.

Torture is a tactic that is used either as a punishment, or as a strategy to extract information from a potential suspect, or someone who has valuable knowledge on a particular situation. When using torture as a tactic, officials will inflict severe pain on the person being interrogated to force the person to do something, or to say something of value. There are arguments for using torture as a tactic, and there are arguments that are against using torture as a tactic. When using torture as a tactic to gain information from a valuable and knowledgeable person, it does not always prove to be successful. A lot of times, the person being interrogated will answer the questions with false or misleading information. When a person is under extreme and stressful conditions, such as torture, the priority and more prominent goal is obviously to break free from the immense stress or pain. The person will say or do anything to get away quickly, including giving false information to the officials. If torture is not as useful and successful as it was once thought to be, then putting a person in a situation where he or she is facing extremely stressful and painful circumstances is unarguably a form of terror, and depending on the details, this can be seen as terrorism.

In other situations, torture and terror are used as a way to punish a person for an act that he or she has committed. This is unnecessary because if the person committed this crime, he or she should be tried fairly, and should be given a fair and just sentence.

Targeted killing, and signature strikes are very similar tactics, but are a bit different. Targeted killings are extrajudicial executions based on knowledge that the person committed a crime or attack. A signature strike, on the other hand, is when a suspect is killed based on a pattern of behavior that is consistent with terrorist activity. Civilians do become victims to these attacks sometimes. In addition, the information may not be 100% accurate. Targeted killing and signature strikes are two tactics that inflict immense terror onto people.

Blog #3 War on 'Terrorism' not Terror

Brady Gambone
4/21/17

The United States 'War on Terror' is not a terrorist act. Although the use of drones, torture, and rendition are all aspects of the war on terror, none of them are terrorist in nature, even if they are designed to cause terror. Causing terror alone is not terrorism, especially if the end goal is peace.

Drones have been used mainly in Afghanistan, but also in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq. These unmanned aerial vehicles, UAV's are designed to gather signals intelligence, SIGINT, and to drop missiles on specific targets, known as drone strikes. A drone fly's without any pilot physically in the vehicle. The United States uses them because they keep American military personnel safe, and its much cheaper then a conventional fighter jet. They are also more accurate and versatile then a conventional manned jet. However, they are designed to cause terror. The low altitude and buzzing noise they create, and the un-defendable strikes they carry out drives fear into all below it. This has been seen by some as terrorism because it causes terror in individuals whether terrorists or not, on the ground. This is not terror, Drones keep more people safe, and, unless you are a terrorist, there is nothing to be afraid of. Drones do not target civilians, although some civilians have been killed in drone strikes. They are MUCH more accurate than if the United States carpet bombed a city. They not only keep American military personnel safe, but while keeping civilians relatively safe, they can eliminate thousands of terrorists.

Torture is the act of causing pain, discomfort, and/or fear in someone to get them to give up information or do something. This is not terrorism. Although torture is designed to cause terror, most forms cannot kill you. When an individual is water boarded, they will not die, and eventually give up information the torturer wants. Its biology, if I keep hurting you until you tell me something, eventually you will to get me to stop. Torture with the intent to cause pain, without any desire for information, just for punishment, is terrorism. The United States does not practice this, and anyone who does, should be considered a terrorist.

Rendition, the act of arresting, or detaining an individual from a foreign country and transporting them to another foreign country, or to the United States without permission from the country of origin. This is not terrorism. Terrorism would be if we came in, took a person at random, and locked them away for the rest of time with no reason. The United States targets specific individuals known to be involved in terrorism, or suspected of it. These individuals are then used to fight the war on terror in the hopes they will be punished for their crimes, and/or to help fight the war in order to save more lives, and bring peace to a region.

The war on terror is not terrorism, even if terror is used. It does however use tactics and equipment designed to cause terror, but in order to bring an end to war. Without the threat of terrorism, these aspects of war would not be used. This gives the justification to use these aspects including drones, torture and rendition.

Kennedy Muise

4/23/17

Blog Post: 3 Abu Sayyaf is a Terrorist Organizaiton

     There is a general disagreement over whether Abu Sayyaf is a terrorist or criminal organization. Abu Sayyaf is an ideologically and politically motivated group that attacks noncombatants, which would make them a terrorist group by many definitions. However, some of their tactics are more characteristic to a criminal group, such as kidnapping for ransom. Amongst these two arguments, the argument that Abu Sayyaf is a terrorist organization is more convincing because Abu Sayyaf ultimately has a political goal, to create an Islamic state, and deliberately targets noncombatants, which makes them a terrorist organization, even if they use criminal acts to achieve these goals.

     First, Abu Sayyaf is a group with ideologically and politically motivations to create an Islamic state in Mindanao and Sulu. While other Islamic terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, often extend their goals on an international level, Abu Sayyaf’s goal “does not extend beyond the Philippines” (Santos and Dinampo 119). Like HAMAS in the Israel/Palestine region, Abu Sayyaf wants an autonomous region for the Muslim Moro people (Santos and Dinampo 117) ; however, when the MNLF failed to negotiate an adequate agreement with the Filipino government, Abu Sayyaf decided to take things into its own hands by using violence and terror, which is very similar to what HAMAS did in response to the PLO’s negotiations with the Israeli government. After separating from the MNLF, Abu Sayyaf acquired political and ideological ideas similar to Al Qaeda, such as the creation of an Islamic state in the Philippines. In addition, Abu Sayaff believes in Islamic jihadism and is “[willing] to die for the cause,” which drives Abu Sayyaf to the violent acts it commits against its enemies (Santos and Dinampo 120).

     Second, Abu Sayyaf violently targets noncombatants. Abu Sayyaf specifically identifies its enemies as “Philippine soldiers but also non-combatants, both Christian and Muslim, who disagree with their version of jihad qitaal”; more specifically, Abu Sayyaf targets “Jews and Christians who will never accept the Qur’an, Muslims who do not read the Qur’an, and the ‘sick ulama (Islamic scholars)’ who quarrel with the Qur’an” (Santos and Dinampo 120). These targets show that while Abu Sayyaf is generally centralized in the Philippines, its actions and goals can be applied on the international level by targeting non-Filipinos. In addition, Abu Sayyaf’s attacks its enemies to incite fear and create terror in the region. A few of Abu Sayyaf’s tactics include bombings, assassinations, raids, kidnappings for ransom, and piracy (O’Brien 325). While bombings and assassinations are often correlated to other terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf’s use of kidnapping leads many scholars to believe that they should be categorized as criminals instead of terrorists. Many scholars believe that Abu Sayyaf only uses Islamic ideologies as a “front” and that the members’ main objective is to obtain large sums of money (Santos and Dinampo 127). Despite these financially motivated arguments, kidnapping can be a terrorist act. While kidnapping for ransom can be a tactic to obtain financial assets, Abu Sayyaf specifically used this tactic to “raise funds” for its political goals, such as to pursue bombing attacks and to support more recruits to fight for the cause so their Islamic state may eventually be established (Banlaoi 68). In addition, Abu Sayyaf’s use of kidnapping was not a purely financially motivated as Abu Sayyaf often beheads its prisoners if the ransom is not met which creates a sense of terror and fear for future prisoners and any group that would have negotiate with Abu Sayyaf later on (O’Brien 329).

      Abu Sayyaf’s ideological and political motivations, in addition to its civilian targets and terrorizing tactics, show that Abu Sayyaf is a terrorist organization. While some scholars may argue that Abu Sayyaf is classified better as a criminal group, it is important to acknowledge that Abu Sayyaf only used criminal acts, such as kidnappings for ransom, in pursuit of a political goal; and, if Abu Sayyaf was given the same funds from Al Qaeda as it did under the leadership of Abdurajak Janjalani, the group may not have participated in kidnappings or other criminal acts at all. Therefore, Abu Sayyaf is a terrorist organization and should be treated as such by western states and the United Nations so the group may be properly dealt with if it was to pose a significantly dangerous threat to the Western world.

 

Works Cited

Banlaoi, Rommel C. "Maritime Terrorism in Southeast Asia." Naval War College Review, 2005, Vol. 58, No. 4, 63-76.

 

O'Brien, McKenzie. "Fluctuations Between Crime and Terror: The Case of Abu Sayyaf's Kidnapping Activities, Terrorism and Political Violence". Terrorism and Political Violence. Routledge, 2012, 320-336.

 

Santos, Soliman M. and Octavio A. Dinampo. "Abu Sayyaf Reloaded: Rebels, Agents, Bandits, Terrorists". Primed and Purposeful. 115-134.

 

 

 

 



Reaction Post #3 - Domestic Terrorism

Bobby Orokos

Reaction Post #3

Factions of Domestic Terrorism

Domestic terrorism is a prime example of factions existing in the modern world, as seen through James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10.  Described as, “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Madison, 1787), domestic terrorist groups such as the ELF and IMPACT push forward their own political agendas, while disregarding the lives of those opposed to their ideals.  As James Madison writes, the best way to solve the issue of domestic terrorism is to not destroy the causes of these groups, but to control their effects.

Madison is a strong believer that freedom is given to all, including the freedom of thought.  Therefore, Madison would not want us to kill the ideas of these groups, but would want them to act in a better way, perhaps through the political system, to achieve their goals rather than achieve their goals through terror.  Should these groups be a part of the political system, the effects of their faction would be able to be controlled.

Although different in the sense these terrorists are not elected into office, but freely act against the agendas of others, controlling their effects is a more difficult task than should they have been elected into office.  Madison explains how when factions are a part of the government, the people hold power over them.  In the case of domestic terrorism, there is no power over these organizations, besides the police and military when they are caught, and therefore allows these groups to act freely.  By including these groups in the political system, the people gain power over these groups, as opposed to these groups holding the power of fear over the people.

Once incorporated into the political system, these groups would be forced to adhere to the laws of the land, and could not commit the violence and rule through fear as they once did.  The best example of this theory in reality is with the recent peace between the FARC and the Colombian government, in which the FARC rebels are allowed to run for political office, and are in the process of turning over their weapons to the government.  Should these organizations be given the option to be more incorporated into the political system, the people would hold power over them, and not be ruled by fear.  Getting these organizations to give up their violent ways is the difficult part, however, as many are non-negotiable.

For example, as seen with the Army of God, they are a strong Christian organization that will not negotiate when it comes to the topic of abortion.  Even working with people who support abortion is not an option for their group, as their website praises Scott Roeder, a man responsible for the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who performed abortions.

If the opportunity arises where these groups could be incorporated peacefully into the political system, it would be better than letting them rule with fear over the people.  At least when in the political system, people could hold control over the effects of what they could achieve, whereas when a rogue organization, they can freely perform whatever actions they please without being held responsible, besides jail time.  If in the political system and an act goes bad, people could force them out of the political system and the group would lose all legitimacy.