Domestic Terrorism

Patrick Dancoes

POL-357

Prof. Shirk

Domestic Terrorism

Is Domestic Terrorism in the US Different than Elsewhere?

How Oppression Seems to be a Constant

         Domestic terrorism in the United States has a long history dating back to the nation’s origin. Native Americans were murdered in the 18th century, the assignation of president Abraham Lincoln happened in the 19th century, MLK and many other African-Americans were killed in the 20th century, and the Earth Liberation Front attacked in the 21st century. So how do all of these events connect? Each one of these terror attacks was hinged on an actor/s inability to cope with the current order of America at large. These events developed from the perpetrators’ heeded sense of oppression they felt America burdened them with, and so reacted with violence and lethal tactics. Important to note, this is a framework that directly ties the emergence of domestic terrorist cells with current social and political conditions. So how does domestic terrorism around the world compare? This paper will argue that the link between terrorism in the US, materializing from the oppression of relevant US order, is alike, if not identical to the framework that creates domestic terrorism globally. And the correlation between the two is essential as it might speak to the legitimacy of domestic terror attacks.

Europe and the Middle East have seen their fair share of domestic terrorist attacks and terrorist organizations. A few historically recent organizations include the PIRA, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and HAMAS. To prove that these groups sprang into existence out of dissent to their territory’s current order, below will look at their aims and the current atmosphere of their region. 

The PIRA formed in 1969 as an outgrowth of its parent organization the original IRA. This was due to the discontent and ultimate clash of that between British authority over Ireland, Protestant incited oppressions, and the Catholic men of the IRA. The PIRA vowed to use violence and disturbances in hopes to create a catalyst for change and the unification of Ireland. Al-Qaeda was established in the late 80’s by Osama Bin Laden, and originally it sought to unify Muslims in the fight against the Soviet Union during the Afghan war. Al-Qaeda tried to re-shape the Muslim world by avenging the wrongs of Christians and Jews. Mainly, they wanted to drive out any non-Muslims from Saudi Arabia, especially Americans. Al-Qaeda notably claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. They targeted the US with mass-violence because they wanted to force the US military to withdraw from Arabian Peninsula.  ISIS sprang into existence in 2013 as an outgrowth of Al-Qaeda. ISIS has aimed to create a caliphate or Islamic State across Syria, Iraq and beyond. The group rejects non-Muslim rule and seeks to establish their Islamic State even if it costs them their life (a common and important theme in Islamic violence). Lastly, HAMAS is a Palestinian Islamist political organization and militant group operating in Gaza and the West Bank since the late 80’s. They initially used suicide bombings fighting Israel, but have more recently used missiles and mortars as ways to engage in violence. HAMAS aims to create an entirely Islamic fundamentalist Palestinian state, where the flag of Allah flies over the entirety of old Palestine. Fundamentally they reject Israel as an occupying power and seek to liberate the Palestine territories.  

The common theme within all of these terrorist groups is essentially Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism – “opposition to the current state's regime, and against the current order of their territories.” The PIRA couldn’t stand the current order of British occupation within Ireland, so they fought back. Al-Qaeda and ISIS were in opposition to non-Muslims influence over their given territories and started aggressive campaigns to combat such influence. HAMAS is in a territorial fight with Israel because the current order makes Israel the occupying power. Palestinian individuals declare territory injustices because they have historically had more land. 

The legitimacy of these organizations essentially comes from their participants’, specifically, their decision when first joining the group. Their choice to support the organization is closely connected to the individual’s ideas and convictions and is something that reflects their current environment. Therefore, if someone decides to join one of these groups they must feel deeply about the cause, beliefs, and objective of the group. This reveals that the participants within these groups would not label themselves ‘terrorists,’ but instead, legitimize their participation because their group’s movement has understandable merit. To acknowledge the value behind joining one of these groups means to recognize that any amount of participation in a terrorist group is the result of domestic conditions; conditions that affect people deeply enough to cause a violent reaction. This is important to realize because participation in terrorist groups is the result/response to the specific conditions within a country. Understanding this could be the first step in addressing or combating a terrorist organization. Changing the current conditions by policy in a way that addresses these conditions such that participation in terrorist groups isn’t warranted, is a way to combat domestic terrorism that doesn’t use violence to combat violence. However, this is not to say that policy change is the best or most intelligent way combat terrorism. 

Ultimately, whether you’re analyzing US domestic terrorism or domestic terrorism overseas, the framework remains the same – the rise of many prominent terrorist groups is the direct result of strident conditions made possible by the current order and the opposition to it. It’s critical to recognize that these conditions produce legitimate discontent, and if left unchecked can cultivate an increase in the membership of any domestic terrorist group. And on that level, a policy change may be an intelligent means to check specific discontent.