Actual Goals vs Obtainable Ones ?

So I wanted to talk a little bit about the goals of terrorists organization and explain why I think that Pres. Carter is doing one of the worst things possible.

1. We studied about a lot of groups who had very large demands over the years. As the demands in most cases were not met they generally died off in attacks and had to attempt at finding other ways to get the attention they wanted, and in most cases just kind of died off and gave up.

2. The few that were successful became legitimate organizations or got some kind of official recognition and as a result were more successful in their claims or at least were able to air their grievances on a more acceptable platform.

3. President Carter negotiating with Hamas is going to legitimize them or ie in the minds of Americans or the media they are no longer radical terrorists groups who cant be dealt with they are more rational. The idea of helping a terrorist group become legitimate I am not against however, Carter is going to them not the other way around so.... Can they truly change in the way they need to without having an internal shift of policy and idea or is Carter going to fix it all ? I don't think and that is why I think that public figures should be very careful on how they treat criminals least they legitimize unfairly.

Agree or Disagree ?

David

Dozens killed in Iraq

Here is yet another article about car bombings in Iraq. Suicide bombings have become a very frequent and seemingly "normal" occurrence in Iraq in the last couple years, it has been a problem for many many years, but it seems to have gotten worse since the United States entered in with forces five years ago.
Would these suicide bombings be considered terrorist attacks or are they simply acts of war? We did invade their country so what is the result? Is it an actual terrorist organization that is committing these attacks or just everyday Iraqi citizens?

Jimmy Carter and Hamas

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_carter

The author of this article states that Jimmy Carter hopes to help negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine by serving as the spokesman for the Hamas terrorist organization. He believes that beceause Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, their cooperation is essential for peace in the region to be realized. Hamas involvement in peace talks is contrary to the wishes of the U.S. and Israeli governments because both the U.S. and Israel view Hamas as a terrorist organization that should not be negotiated with.

I had a few questions I wanted to pose to the class. Has Hamas ever been involved in any peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine? How long has Hamas been in control of the Gaza Strip, and is it likely that they will continue to hold the region. If they continue to hold the region, will their participation in peace talks become more necessary as they become more established? It seems to me that their involvement will become more important if they continue to exert influence over the Gaza strip.

Crusaders

So I came across this video that was on Hamas television Friday the 11th. In this video, a Hamas MP and cleric rants on and on about the jihadist conquest that will free the world from the hellfire that it is on the brink of. One very interesting thing about this video is that this MP clearly targets Rome. He states "very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constatinople was." He goes on to say that Rome is the Crusader capital and has been very hostile towards Islam. After Rome, this man claims, Islam will sweep over Europe in its entirety then move on two both Americas then the rest of the world. I just thought that it was interesting that another country, besides the United States, was the center of attention. I know that I mainly focus on attacks and hostility towards the United States which leads me to believe that we are always their #1 goal to take down, but the U.S. wasn't even specifically mentioned in this video.

To the grader - Unfortunately, when I was trying to post this at the last minute last night it would not work, so I did it first thing this morning. Please grade it for the week ending April 13th.

One for the road

Well, it's our last day of class, and I thought it might be fun to have one last contest for brownie points. So, goodbye to Bobby Sands, and hello to a new blog header featuring a new alleged terrorist.

The rules are the same as they ever were: The first student with a correct answer to any of the six questions listed below gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post.

Questions:

1) What is a definition of terrorism from a scholar, a US government agency, or an international organization that would include this man as a terrorist?

2) What is the relationship between this man and his primary accomplice?

3) What was the weapon he used in his attacks?

4) In what way was his car modified to help him in his attacks, and where did he get the idea for this modification?

5) In what way did the police violate the instructions he left for them during the course of the investigation?

6) In what US states has he been convicted of murder?

Good luck!

In Response to Nepal: A Shot at Cooption

These are all excellent arguments and questions posed on the counter-terrorist strategy of cooption. In spite of these points, however, I would have to say that the success of the co-option method in Nepal will depend not on governmental action but on the nature of the Moist opposition group. According to Benjamin and Simon, for cooption to work and for there to be a diversification and eventual democratization of a given country, several key criteria need to be met. First, the government must extend the olive branch and accept this pariah group into the political arena. This the Nepali regime has done. Second, there must be a mutual trust between reform minded individuals in the targeted regime and moderate members of the opposition. Essentially, both parties have to agree that they are willing to abide by the rules of democracy. This is a more normative question - therefore rendering it more difficult to measure empirically - however, for the sake of my argument, I will assume that this trust has not been fully met. Regardless of this fact, I would venture to posit that part of this trust has been fulfilled since the Nepali regime is allowing the Maoists to run in the current election cycle. And lastly, since successful transitions require “reformers to trust the opposition party’s commitment to democracy” and “willingness and ability to reign in its radicals,” one must look at the ability of the opposition group to moderate itself over a long period of time. An example of this murky last point can be seen in the October elections in Pakistan in 2002. An alliance of six religious parties netted 11 percent of the vote, thus garnering the coalition: several seats in parliament, a partnership in ruling Baluchistan, unprecedented control of the North-West province and the status as the nations leading opposition party. “At first the ruling officials of the opposition party sought to demonstrate their ability to rule” rather than “in provoking the military and President Musharraf.” However, the group sought to push several of their more radical views through parliament without compromise which in turn lead to a breakdown in relations with the ruling government. This breakdown has turned into an impasse which - as of yet - has threatened to bring Pakistan down into a nasty civil war. To recapitulate, if the Maoists try and adopt the same tactics as the opposition groups in Pakistan, then they will fail and so will the method of cooption. However, if the group can continually compromise and retain the trust of the government - and vice versa - then the method of cooption might have a chance in Nepal. All of this will depend on whether or not these groups can put their differences aside and bargain with each other (for a positive example of cooption look at Sinn Fein and the IRA in the ongoing peace process in Northern Ireland). In the end, only time will tell if the cooption method can work for in Nepal for only time will us if the Maoists can moderate themselves and truly stick to the rules of democracy.

President arrested on Terrorism Chargers?

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/index.php?itemid=3200
I found this article online, about Jimmy Carter bring arrested. I thought this would be a good article to share with the class since we talked about it the other day in class. In this article I read that it said the former president was arrested because he was trying to meet with members of Fatah. The suspect was a 83 year old white male. It said that the former president will be transfer to Guantanamo Bay.

[Note: President Carter is not going to Gitmo. Unconfirmed Sources is a joke news site like The Onion. --Prof. Payne]

This article was made me think of several things that came to mind. One was what happens if a president supports an opposing terrorist group? Would we do whatever we could to bring them to power? The only things that I can think of the PLO, but that was in a time when the threat of WMD's was not as large. Every other thing that I can think of deals with gurrilla (spelled wrong sorry) fighters that have overthrown governments. I aslo question if we discovered a president of another state supporting terrorism would be try and detain them and send them to Guantanamo Bay or just have them excuted? Let me know what you guys think about this article and the questions that I posed.
THanks
Austin Conners

Nepal: A Shot at Co-option

Though the Maoists in Nepal view themselves as guerilla freedom fighters, we can consider them as terrorists, given their political demands and means used to achieve them. After over a decade of bloody civil war between the monarchy and the Maoists, the government of Nepal is experimenting with the counter terrorism strategy of co-option by allowing the Maoists to participate in the current elections.

The elections held on the eve of Nepali New Year promises peace and end to war in Nepal. The latest poll results show the Maoist party as winning with an overwhelming majority of votes. I believe that the strategy of co-option usually works because it appeases the parties which are stirring conflict. It makes them feel that their demands are being recognized by the entire country and leads them to vent their frustrations through peaceful legitimate means, rather than resorting to spectacular indiscriminate attacks (armed propaganda).

My only question however, is whether the strategy of co-option will work even if the Maoists lose the elections, or would that lead to more violence in the country? Is an election victory the only way to appease rebel groups, or does co-option work irrespective of election results? Since the final results are not out, it will be interesting to see how events turn out.