Well is this a 2000 word essay? does it count towards 35% of our total unit mark lol, this sounds like one of my assignments for uni.

If that is the case Bill Clinton is to blame for Terrorism, n Hillary is running for Office, we should keep her out, lord knows what they'll cause next.

But I find the statement lacking in depth. The Gulf War was, because of a leader not bowing on his hands n knees, n a powerful country, showing off it power.

The simple solution to, and way to acheive world peace..., put the power into the hands of (truly) God-fearing individuals. And, then you have wars, only for ousting tyrants, not to further your own wishes and aims.

I think Modern Terrorism is the consequence of the creed of a few individuals who wanted money power respect, and wanted to push there religious creed upon the whole Muslim world. Todays terrorist, is a direct consequence of those few individuals, who do not study to come out of ignorance, rather, to push there own pre-conceived agenda's, who think they hav a solution to a problem, which they have not properly analysed.

"You" wrote:

Anyway... I got to thinking the other day... a rare occurrence in itself... but just like how WW2 was a consequence of WW1, Modern international terrorism seems to have its roots in the first gulf war.

Just wanted to see where others stand on this without me trying to buy them in with details to how I see things.

the roots of modern terrorism is surely more likely to be the creation of the state of Israel, or the 1967 'Six Day War', rather than something more recent (that is IF it is one single event in particular and not just a conglomerate of Muslim seperatives in almost every region of the world where they are not in the majority).

A case can be made that "modern terrorism", i.e. Al Qaeda, is a consequence of the first Gulf War.

It's interesting that I'm writing this in the middle of the night wanting to go to bed to get up for work on time but this thread caught my attention.

Anyhoo, we would do well to go just a little bit further back that the US-led UN liberation of Kuwait. During the Russian invasion of Afghanistan the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan supported the Afghan resistance. The Saudis sent Arab fighters to Afghanistan via Pakistan with US support. This Arab contingent was also influenced by the Saudi Salafi branch of Islam. These fighters were loyal to the Saudi regime and the Saudi ulema.

Safe to say the US, Saudi and Pakistani alliance was successful in liberating Afghanistan. However what emerged from the Afghan war was a group of fighters that were well-armed, well-trained, well-funded and indoctrinated in militant Salafism. Once the war was over this movement had little use. It needed a new challenge to keep itself going. Bear in mind that this group was still loyal to the Saudi regime and the Salafi ulema.

That new challenge came in the form of the threat posed to Saudi Arabia by Saddam Hussein. Saddam had invaded Kuwait and was threatening Saudi interests. The former Afghan fighters led somewhat by Osama bin Laden, with their militancy and their loyalty to Saudi Arabia, offered to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam. This offer was rejected. Instead the Saudis allowed the US to station troops in Saudi and defend Saudi against Saddam.

This rejection caused the former Afghan fighters to turn against the Saudi regime and its ulema and they pledged to defeat it and its infidel ally - the US.

Over time these fighters - now led almost entirely by Osama bin Laden (and [i]maybe [/i]calling itself al Qaeda) - carried out attacks against the US inside and outside of Saudi Arabia.

It began to add other grievances to its list of accusations against the Saudis and the US - notably the plight of the Palestinians.

From here on in I don't know if I can articulate my "knowledge" on the subject. Except to say 9/11 happened and I keep changing my views on what is and isn't happening. And I could be here all night into tomorrow night and not get anywhere.

Gulf wars were Bush led right? I thought Clinton's Operation Desert Storm (or was it desert fox) was a Gulf war aswell...Anyhow, needa brush up on my war history.

Well, I think we need to Define Modern Terrorism before we move ahead to try ponder why.

Quote:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are [b]generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population[/b], and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought (Schmid, 1988).

The above is a UN consensus definition of terrorism, obviously each country will have its own definition. But, the UN do not have an official definition as far as im aware.

When in the west we think terrorism we think religion goes hand in hand with it.

N the process of modern terrorism is to blow up buildings, airliners etc. Physical collateral damage as its called.

Now, in my knowledge, this has to have started by US led wars, when they go in to a city, fly over n drop bombs, to blow up bridges buildings etc. The ww2 shellings for example, but nowadays the US led wars are more precise in eliminating targets. Pin point accuracy.

Then, there is religious Terrorism, 7/7 for instance, perpetrated by a bunch of youth, who were clearly indoctrinated, most likely by the Saudi form of extremist Salafism....

(the above are Random Thoughts)

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

one man's president is another man's ****** ****