Islamic TerrorismJoin now to read essay Islamic TerrorismWith the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and the cold war over, the international community seemed to be on the threshold of an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity. Instead, a new series of problems was created, like ethnic conflicts, weapons proliferation, environmental problems, population growth, drug trafficking, and terrorism. Terrorism, as defined by Title 22 of the United States code, section 2656f(d), is the “pre-meditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence and audience.” Islamic terrorism is a serious problem for the United States because of the threat to national security, the safety of innocent civilians, and the foundations of democratic societies throughout the world.
The authors of the Islamic Terrorism Report (IDR) in the book “Islam, Terror, and Violence” provide an overview regarding the current situation in the Middle East—a time when the media, academia, and Muslim communities are concerned — and how that may affect the U.S. government’s efforts to work towards its objectives in the region. In particular, the authors highlight the difficulties of engaging internationally to resolve terrorism, the failure of foreign governments, and the continued threat of Islamic terrorism.
The IDR focuses on the Middle East as a whole, using “Islamic Terrorism with a View to Prevent U.S. and Israeli Occupation of the West Bank” to compare the current situation in the region with that the West Bank is suffering from right now. While it also notes the importance of the Arab Spring, the authors draw on recent reporting to highlight and highlight the potential for radicalization, as well as to provide insight and criticism of the U.S. government’s efforts. Among other things, the authors point out that, given the state of the Arab Spring, radical religious and religious groups such as al-Qaeda are rapidly gaining ground, and that the Arab Spring has already seen a major backlash in countries including Saudi Arabia.
The Future
With the U.S. in crisis, the author highlights two possible futures: Either the country will be forced to leave, or the United States will need to step in and bring pressure to the root of ISIS.
To begin with, the U.S.’s position will be to maintain its support for Israel, as they have been in recent times. When the country broke international law and entered the G7 and its current status as the “world leader on counterterrorism” states with the aim of stopping terrorist attacks and defeating al-Qaida and other extremist groups at home and abroad, the U.S. would do everything possible to support Israel and their allies in international security. In 2010, then-candidate Barack Obama and U.N. Security Council member Guy Verhofstadt announced a plan to permanently end Israel’s hold on the West Bank in an effort to prevent the possibility that the United States would be a more effective partner in Israel’s bid to eliminate the Palestinian Authority, an obstacle it and some other states face today. But while the U.S. will continue to support Israel as well, the future looks grim. Last November, President Obama was the final choice to meet with the prime minister of Jordan over the peace process, and his predecessor Barack Obama has indicated that he wants the Israeli government to recognize the legitimacy of the peace process. In light of the U.S.’s current position on the Palestinian issue, the author suggests that the United States could be forced directly to negotiate a new U.N. peace process between Hamas and Fatah, a group with the U.N. mandate to implement the Six-Day War. The author makes note of this prospect from the point of view of the Israeli government, stating that it is too late to try to broker a new Palestinian government. The U.S. would also have to continue to engage with many other Arab world governments in order to gain sufficient backing to make a real breakthrough and move to re-entry negotiations. The authors also suggest, while the U.S. may be reluctant to give up its support for the Palestinians as a strategic strategic ally at this stage — that is, it will probably turn to more powerful forces like Saudi Arabia, an Arab nationalist who has the backing of the Palestinian Authority and has a strong anti-Israel and anti-Semitic ideology than any other leader in the region — Israeli interest in ensuring that the region’s future ends up on the U.N. agenda would help in the long-term so that the conflict would not remain a regional and regional theater and would be eliminated as the region’s primary threat. Finally, the authors point out an intriguing possibility: When the Syrian conflict ends, and U.S. military operations begin to fail, Syria’s potential allies in the region might also go to Syria and seek an eventual alliance with Assad’s regime. The author also points out this possibility: When the Syrian conflict ends
Islamic terror, the authors warn in two parts, includes “the growing influence of foreign terrorist groups like al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” and claims the United States should be “focused more on preventing terrorism than pursuing military operations.”
A key consideration the authors raise is that both extremist groups (IS and ISIS) have established infrastructure for infiltration into the West Bank. “The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham is the only group that has ever created a military base in our territory and has also sought to advance the creation of a second base in Hebron (the current capital of Jordan) that is now being used as an ISIS training and training area.” Â The authors are particularly concerned that the group’s growing influence is partly to blame for the increase in violence between IS and other groups operating in Iraq and Syria, which have engaged in civil wars and political instability. In particular, IS has claimed the United States should be more concerned about terror that “harsitically justifies an attack on civilians in the U.S.,” because “the United States can’t take any precautions against terrorist groups who will use any nonlethal means to attack U.S. personnel or interests.”
The authors stress that the U.S. needs to take decisive actions to counter violent Islamic extremism emanating from countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria, including the use of military force in the region.
The U.S. should also strengthen its partnership with Arab and countries throughout the region in a “strategic dialogue” with Jordan to resolve Palestinian-Israeli border disputes.
Islamist and extremist terrorism have been on the rise in parts of the world since the 1960s, but now the United States may see the need to reduce the role of U.S. military capabilities and resources. They may be able to shift the focus of military strategy and military operations toward more targeted and diplomatic solutions to security, which the authors argue to focus on defeating Islamic extremists as opposed to helping Muslim-majority countries avoid instability under the global umbrella of terrorism.
The Islamic Terrorism Report and the IDR in the book “Islam, Terror, and Violence” highlight an alarming state of affairs in the Middle East, and the U.S. could be beginning to lose its ability to solve these problems.
While the United States
The authors of the Islamic Terrorism Report (IDR) in the book “Islam, Terror, and Violence” provide an overview regarding the current situation in the Middle East—a time when the media, academia, and Muslim communities are concerned — and how that may affect the U.S. government’s efforts to work towards its objectives in the region. In particular, the authors highlight the difficulties of engaging internationally to resolve terrorism, the failure of foreign governments, and the continued threat of Islamic terrorism.
The IDR focuses on the Middle East as a whole, using “Islamic Terrorism with a View to Prevent U.S. and Israeli Occupation of the West Bank” to compare the current situation in the region with that the West Bank is suffering from right now. While it also notes the importance of the Arab Spring, the authors draw on recent reporting to highlight and highlight the potential for radicalization, as well as to provide insight and criticism of the U.S. government’s efforts. Among other things, the authors point out that, given the state of the Arab Spring, radical religious and religious groups such as al-Qaeda are rapidly gaining ground, and that the Arab Spring has already seen a major backlash in countries including Saudi Arabia.
The Future
With the U.S. in crisis, the author highlights two possible futures: Either the country will be forced to leave, or the United States will need to step in and bring pressure to the root of ISIS.
To begin with, the U.S.’s position will be to maintain its support for Israel, as they have been in recent times. When the country broke international law and entered the G7 and its current status as the “world leader on counterterrorism” states with the aim of stopping terrorist attacks and defeating al-Qaida and other extremist groups at home and abroad, the U.S. would do everything possible to support Israel and their allies in international security. In 2010, then-candidate Barack Obama and U.N. Security Council member Guy Verhofstadt announced a plan to permanently end Israel’s hold on the West Bank in an effort to prevent the possibility that the United States would be a more effective partner in Israel’s bid to eliminate the Palestinian Authority, an obstacle it and some other states face today. But while the U.S. will continue to support Israel as well, the future looks grim. Last November, President Obama was the final choice to meet with the prime minister of Jordan over the peace process, and his predecessor Barack Obama has indicated that he wants the Israeli government to recognize the legitimacy of the peace process. In light of the U.S.’s current position on the Palestinian issue, the author suggests that the United States could be forced directly to negotiate a new U.N. peace process between Hamas and Fatah, a group with the U.N. mandate to implement the Six-Day War. The author makes note of this prospect from the point of view of the Israeli government, stating that it is too late to try to broker a new Palestinian government. The U.S. would also have to continue to engage with many other Arab world governments in order to gain sufficient backing to make a real breakthrough and move to re-entry negotiations. The authors also suggest, while the U.S. may be reluctant to give up its support for the Palestinians as a strategic strategic ally at this stage — that is, it will probably turn to more powerful forces like Saudi Arabia, an Arab nationalist who has the backing of the Palestinian Authority and has a strong anti-Israel and anti-Semitic ideology than any other leader in the region — Israeli interest in ensuring that the region’s future ends up on the U.N. agenda would help in the long-term so that the conflict would not remain a regional and regional theater and would be eliminated as the region’s primary threat. Finally, the authors point out an intriguing possibility: When the Syrian conflict ends, and U.S. military operations begin to fail, Syria’s potential allies in the region might also go to Syria and seek an eventual alliance with Assad’s regime. The author also points out this possibility: When the Syrian conflict ends
Islamic terror, the authors warn in two parts, includes “the growing influence of foreign terrorist groups like al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” and claims the United States should be “focused more on preventing terrorism than pursuing military operations.”
A key consideration the authors raise is that both extremist groups (IS and ISIS) have established infrastructure for infiltration into the West Bank. “The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham is the only group that has ever created a military base in our territory and has also sought to advance the creation of a second base in Hebron (the current capital of Jordan) that is now being used as an ISIS training and training area.” Â The authors are particularly concerned that the group’s growing influence is partly to blame for the increase in violence between IS and other groups operating in Iraq and Syria, which have engaged in civil wars and political instability. In particular, IS has claimed the United States should be more concerned about terror that “harsitically justifies an attack on civilians in the U.S.,” because “the United States can’t take any precautions against terrorist groups who will use any nonlethal means to attack U.S. personnel or interests.”
The authors stress that the U.S. needs to take decisive actions to counter violent Islamic extremism emanating from countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria, including the use of military force in the region.
The U.S. should also strengthen its partnership with Arab and countries throughout the region in a “strategic dialogue” with Jordan to resolve Palestinian-Israeli border disputes.
Islamist and extremist terrorism have been on the rise in parts of the world since the 1960s, but now the United States may see the need to reduce the role of U.S. military capabilities and resources. They may be able to shift the focus of military strategy and military operations toward more targeted and diplomatic solutions to security, which the authors argue to focus on defeating Islamic extremists as opposed to helping Muslim-majority countries avoid instability under the global umbrella of terrorism.
The Islamic Terrorism Report and the IDR in the book “Islam, Terror, and Violence” highlight an alarming state of affairs in the Middle East, and the U.S. could be beginning to lose its ability to solve these problems.
While the United States
Most of the Islamic world view the West, especially the United States, as the foremost corrupting influence on the Islamic world today. The Hizballah have taken this further by labeling the Unites States as “the Great Satan.”(22) This growing animosity the Islamic nations feel toward the Western world has been continually demonstrated by the increase in international terrorism. However, Muslims do not view their actions as acts of terrorism, but self defense and their religious duty. The Islamic radical movements main success or failure has been their ability to gain legitimacy from the general public or from the greater part of it in each Muslim country.(14) During the past two decades, they have had enormous success with their ability to present themselves to the Arab and Muslim world as the true bearers of Islam. They appeal to the lower class due to the shared resentment of wealthy westerners while the middle class and intellectuals are drawn toward these radical groups in order to expel imported ideologies and forms of government(*). Radical Islamic organizations have declared a holly war , Jihad, in order to bring the Arab world together and take their place as a world power. In order to accomplish these goals, these Islamic radicals have mainly used terrorism as their main instrument of persuasion.
The biggest and most active terrorist organizations are those which are state funded. These organizations act as both an overt and covert way of spreading the sponsor countries ideologies. The U.S. Secretary of State has designated seven governments as state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.(13) These governments support international terrorism either by engaging in terrorist activity themselves or by providing arms, training, safe haven, diplomatic facilities, financial backing, logistic and/or support to terrorists.(13)
Iran is one of the most active state sponsors of terrorism, involving themselves in the planning and execution of terrorist acts by its own agents and by surrogates such as the Hizballah. Tehran conducted 13 assassinations in 1997, the majority of which were carried out in northern Iraq against the regimes main opposition groups. An example occurred in January 1997, when Iranian agents tried to attack the Baghdad headquarters of Mujahedin-e Khalq using a supermortar. Despite sanctions and foreign political pressure, Iran continues to provide support in the form of training, money, and weapons to a variety of terrorist groups, such as Hizballah, HAMAS, and the PIJ.(13)
Sudan is another large supporter of terrorist organizations. The Sudanese Government supports terrorists by providing paramilitary training, indoctrinization, money, travel documents, safe passage, and refuge. They also condone many of the objectionable activities of Iran, such as funneling assistance to terrorist and radical Islamic groups operating in and transiting through Sudan.(13) Since Sudan was placed on the United States list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1993, the Sudanese Government still harbors members of the most violent international terrorists and radical Islamic groups.(13)
The countries of the middle east have found terrorism beneficial for many reasons.