History of Terrorism and Violence P1

Various Questions – History of Terrorism and Violence P1

Question 1

1. What, in your view, is the most significant moment in the history of terrorism?
   and
2. By what criteria are you judging this historical significance? In other words, why is this the most historically significant moment in your opinion?

The most significant moment in the history of terrorism is the bombing of the World Trade centre otherwise known as 9/11 where nearly 3,000 individuals lost their lives. The reason this is the most significant moment in history of terrorism is due to both Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda’s profound influence on the safety of Americans, but also because of George W Bush and his “war on terror”. Al-Qaeda’s bombing of the World Trade centre was televised within minutes, instilling shock into the hearts of hundreds of millions of individuals globally, this process gave Osama Bin Laden a global presence and became the most notorious and wanted criminal and terrorist in centuries.

America’s retaliation resulted in the Afghanistan war which lasted 20 years from 2001-2021, which was the longest war in American history, affecting millions of individuals including Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Afghani civilians, American military and allied forces including Australian and UK’s military involvement. America’s involvement in Afghanistan was nothing short of state terrorism, whilst 3,000 American individuals perished due to 9/11 more than 46,000 Afghani civilians were killed in the process of the Afghani war and the war on terror.

The bombing of the World Trade centre was significant as it was a form of dissident terrorism which shocked the world, America for the first time felt un-safe. The result of 9/11 were significant enhancements to border security and George W Bush’s “war on terror” which developed into the man hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the Afghanistan war.

9/11 is one of the most significant moments of terrorism history, this is due to both the impact of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s damage both in terms of individuals killed and the shock that he instilled into America. A key factor in the device of terrorism is audience, terrorist try to receive the largest audience possible to create the most terror, 9/11 was televised globally immediately and caused shock all around the world. After the event, George W Bush enforced the “war on terror”, American Government and Military performed state terrorism in the form of largely non-legitimate violence, delivering death to 46,319 innocent Afghani civilians.

The reason this is the most significant moment in terrorism history is due to the dissident terrorism incurred by the Taliban but also the state terrorism the American military enforced in Afghanistan. One terrorist event killing 3,000 individuals was able to receive world audience and a resulting 20-year war in Afghanistan killing hundreds of thousands of individuals, including 46,000 Afghani civilians.

Question 2

1. Terrorism in the modern world is generally understood to be non-legitimate violence. Therefore, our understanding of terrorism also encompasses understandings of legitimate violence. In what ways was the legitimacy of violence considered and evaluated in the medieval West? How do these ideas differ from our present understandings of legitimate violence?

There were key differences in medieval and modern terrorism, these included religious reasons and feudal structures present during the medieval ages. The crusades were a religious reason sanctioned by the pope, justified by taking back the Holy Land as they “western Christians ‘gods people’ who must combat the evil supposedly present in Islam” (Isaac, 2015, pg.54). The crusades resulted in two to six million deaths between 1095 and 1270 AD as state terrorism a massacre of the Muslim population as Christians wreaked havoc from Europe to the Middle East. The immense deaths were due to the sanctioned violence against Christian non-believers. Religious terrorism is still practiced in modern times, as extremist militant Islamic organisations such as the Taliban and ISIS use religious grounds to wage war against their enemies.

Feudal and legal structures were also used as purpose for terrorism as familial feudal violence amongst communities, but also judicial violence sanctioned by legal authorities and accepted by society were present. Judicial punishment was performative during the Medieval ages as public spectacles were common such as hangings, public humiliation, trial by ordeal and executions were all punishments to both minor and severe crimes. Although this form of terrorism is not common amongst Western society in the modern ages, plenty of countries still use this form of violence to enforce law and fear amongst their population.

Although the above reasons are similarities between medieval and modern times, there are many differences. Due to globalisation and global human rights organisations such as the UN, there are now international legal networks which limit police and military actions alongside internation law which protects non-combatants from torture and violence, creating refugee camps and asylum seekers escaping war torn countries. Human rights considerations are also modern as globalisation was increasing, as the Universal Declaration for Human Rights was implemented into many countries around the world. The Universal Declaration includes such laws as the right to live by liberty, the freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression and the right to work and education.

Another difference in modern times is the introduction of secularisation in Western countries, secularisations result in the lack of warfare being pursued due to religious confliction. Although secularisation of government is now present in Western civilisation, religious activist and terrorist groups such as ISIS and the Taliban are still present in Middle Eastern countries which use religious reasons to pursue violence. So, although Western civilisation does not use religious reasons for warfare, it is still present in Middle Eastern and few central African nations.

• In what ways/contexts did medieval people experience terror? How do these experiences seem to have differed from modern ones, and why? What, if anything, looks the same?

Medieval individuals experienced terror largely from religious and war perspectives. Religious terror was implemented into society as the clergy was a large factor in judicial matters. The crusades which are one of the most prominent centuries of warfare was an extension of religious matters which were started to claim back the Holy Land. Feudal and communal violence was also prevalent, the punishments were often public spectacles practiced instilling a sense of authority amongst the population from the above, otherwise referred to as state terrorism.

The source of fear in modern day terrorism is largely different from medieval terror, modern terror is largely threat based such as political ideologies, technological and nuclear threats. Threats such as these have influenced many conflicts such as the Saddam Hussein’s political threats, technological threats such as Wiki Leaks and nuclear threats such as modern North Korea or the Cold War. Media and communications are also different as dissemination and globalisation created the ability for news to travel worldwide within minutes.

Similarities include war and violence and although the technology and scale has changed, the premise of warfare is still the same. Religious extremism such as ISIS, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda all practice as religious and ideologist extremism and ideologist fear. Another factor of similarity is social and economical uncertainty where due to poverty creates conflict and often results in the supporting of extremism as conservative measures fail.

• On p.55 of the reading, Isaac paraphrases Randall D. Law’s argument that terrorist violence is “performative”. What does this statement mean? What was performative about violence in medieval Europe, and what were the effects of this?

Performative terrorist violence is a form of violence which is intended to have an audience and the “significance is determined by that audience” (Isaac, 2015, pg.55). What Isaac is mentioning is that for terrorism to be functional, people need to witness to spread as much fear and terror as possible. Medieval Europe used performative terrorism to reinforce state authority and to use these performances as warnings to criminals. Performative violence in Medieval Europe included public executions such as beheadings, hangings, public humiliation and trial by ordeal. During the Medieval ages which spanned between for 1,000 years (500-1400AD) there were few prisons, so punishment was largely public spectacles such as executions. Religious violence was also a popular form of terrorism as the clergy held a lot of power during this period; religious violence included the inquisition and the crusades involving Christian supremacy over the Muslims during the crusades.

The effects of performative violence were largely social control, fear and political dominance. Public executions were used to discourage rebellious behaviour and criminal acts. As such performative violence was used for political legitimacy to assert their dominance amongst the population, the fear that was being asserted towards the population generated obedience.

As such Isaac mentions that for terrorism to be successful, it needs to reach a large audience and cause fear amongst the population (Isaac, 2015). In modern day terrorists use the media to share violent behaviour to cause a reaction amongst their target audience, spreading terror as far as well.

References:

Law, RD (ed.) 2015, The Routledge History of Terrorism, Taylor & Francis Group, Oxford. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [29 July 2024].

Question 3

1. According to the Simon Adams article “Terror and Toleration in 1605”, what is clear and unclear about the causes of the Gunpowder Plot? What consequences did the foiling of the Plot have for English Catholics?

Simon’s clear reasons of the gunpowder plot include religious tension, and the gunpowder plots focus to kill King James I of England at the Opening of Parliament in November 1605. The persecution of Catholic individuals, the introduction of protestant England and the strict penal laws permitted on Catholic individuals created religious tension. Adams mentions that even prior to 1605 and the gunpowder plot, there were various violent acts regarding Catholicism and Protestantism (Adams, 2005, Catholicism and Protestantism). The introduction of the 1550’s penal law to implement mandatory church attendance is one of the primary examples of religious persecution and the tension which developed as a result.

Simons unclear reasons include personal motives and extent of catholic support. Individual motives such as personal grievances and socio-economic causes are unclear as they are common factors in violent acts, but uncertainty surrounds the potential motive. The extent of catholic support is unknown as the Catholic population persecution was common during the late 16^th and early 17^th centuries, enforcing a ban on Catholicism and practices in entirety creating uncertainty on how widespread the plot was amongst the Catholic community. Although the gunpowder plot was a form of Catholic dissident terrorism towards the monarch, Adam’s argues that “the plot was a government trap for it served no immediate political purpose” (Adams, 2005, Political Purpose), this perception identifies its religious purpose but not political, demonstrating un-clear factors for the gunpowder plot.

Consequences included further marginalisation and persecution, yet also the intended changes King James I was potentially going to implement such as the alleviation of penal laws against Catholic’s in 1605. Catholics after the gunpowder plot as a result were further penalised as the Anti-Catholic movement developed harsher laws and penalties for those practicing Catholicism. The Popish Recusants act in 1606 imposed harsh laws for individuals who refused to attend Anglican church, further marginalising practicing Catholics from society as England became progressively and aggressively protestant.

2. Drawing especially on the readings by Bryant and Call, consider what roles the spread of information and imagery played in how the Gunpowder Plot has been interpreted and remembered from the early seventeenth century onward. What themes and symbols have persisted over time?

The Gunpowder plot occurred in 1605 was profoundly shaped and distorted by the information and imagery from the incident itself until modern era. Pamphlets and broadsheets were key tools for spreading information during the 17^th century. The gunpowder plots publications portrayed the gunpowder plot as treason, as a diabolical conspiracy of the Catholics which were targeting Protestant England. There was present religious tension between Catholics and Protestants, the gunpowder plots depiction in media was used to further reinforce anti-Catholic sentiment. Imagery of Guy Fawkes became the face of radical Catholicism and due to the plot, the Catholic population were enemies of the state with a crackdown on Catholicism using severe punishments to those practicing Catholicism, such laws as mandatory church attendance enforced.

Mark Bryant’s article Remember, remember (2009) explores the drastic changes in public perception of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot in the form cartoons, characters, mock images and films since 1605 arguing; “together with effigies, masks and bonfires”, (Guy Fawkes) continues to be used as a satirical tool by Cartoonists” (Bryant, 2009, Guy Fawkes). Cartoons and films have persisted since Dutch artist Rispijn’s paintings in 1606 to cartoons such as ‘History Todays’ depiction of Guy Fawkes in 2005. A largely influential and modern depiction of the 5^th of Novembers political imagery is ‘V for Vendetta’ (2005) by James McTeigue, sharing the event as it develops into a form of Post-Modern Anarchism, which is used by organisations such as the anarchist hackers Anonymous which depicts the radical change of political and religious meaning since the event itself over 400 years ago.

Lewis Call’s V is for Anarchy (2008) examines the change alongside the persistent themes in political and social meaning of Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot stating that “it had a profound impact on Anglo-American political culture” (Call, 2008, Politics) stating that the gunpowder plot has become a symbol for anarchism and a powerful critique of anarchist fascism via cartoon and film adaptation (Call, 2008).  The 5^th of November, spanning over four hundred years, where Call assumes “fears of further political terrorism is one of the reasons the date is commemorated (Call, 2008, 5^th of November). In summary of Calls article, he established a strong ground that the development of Guy Fawks has transcended himself, into various political and social meanings in modern era, the use of Guy Fawks as a symbol of internet hacking group Anonymous is a depiction of internet information anarchism, alongside the plot of challenge against tyrannical government in James McTigue’s ‘V for Vendetta’.

These themes established share how persistent themes and symbolism has established since 1605, the gunpowder plot itself. Initially used as Anti-Catholic sentiment, transitioning to mock humour amongst cartoonists and in the 21^st century to share post-anarchist and fascist agendas through popular films, protests, and organisations such as Anonymous demonstrating that modern day Guy Fawkes is a symbol for various politics.

References:

Adams, S. 2005, The Gunpowder Plot: TERROR AND TOLERATION IN 1605, History Today Ltd, London.

Bryant, M. 2009, Remember, Remember . ., History Today Ltd, London.

Call, L. 2008, “A is for Anarchy, V is for Vendetta: Images of Guy Fawkes and the Creation of Postmodern Anarchism”, Anarchist Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 154-172,105.

Question 4

1. What different types of terror does Rapport discuss in the context of Revolutionary France? What did those who used terror hope to achieve?

In the context of revolutionary France, Michael Rapport references political terror, state terror and religious / cultural terror. Rapport refers to the Terror as a “political program or an ideology but a means to an end; the triumph of republican democracy over its many enemies” (Rapport, 2015, p.63), this means that the Terror shifted as the revolution progressed, what was initially a bottom up, popular revolution focusing on egalitarian values shifted into state terror, effectively executing any supposed royalist or counter-revolutionary at will under the Committee of Surveillance and Committee of Suspects which was in place between 1793 and 1794.

Michael Rapport mentions the Great terror was a “routinized political oppression” (Rapport, 2015, p.64). To maintain control, it eliminated opposition such as royalists and counter-revolutionists. Initially a bottom up, popular movement overthrowing the absolute monarch and Ancien Regime, the implementation of the Terror in September 5^th 1793, even suspicion of being a counter-revolutionary resulted in death by Guillotine. The resulting deaths of the Reign of Terror amass 16,500 whilst 40,000 people were executed without trial, demonstrating state terrorism.

The French revolution and the Terror achieved its goals as it eliminated the Ancien Regime and develop power amongst the 3^rd estate. The revolution consolidated power by killing and preventing counter revolutionaries including royalists. The Committee of Public Safety promoted national defence as both the civil war and warfare with the European Powers, whilst the Committee of Suspects executed any individual perceived threat to France.

• What factors turned Maximilien Robespierre from what Marisa Linton calls ‘a vehement opponent of the death penalty’ to an ‘advocate of the Terror’? How much responsibility should Robespierre himself bear for what happened during the Reign of Terror?

Robespierre’s transformation regarding the death penalty is a complex socio-political matter and is one of the most debated factors of the French Revolution. Initially Robespierre represented enlightenment ideals including the abolishment of the death penalty, however due to internal civil war and external conflict with the European powers there was a sense of urgency to create an immediate change to the monarch in France. As a result, Robespierre used the revolution and The Terror to eliminate royalists, monarchists and counterrevolutionaries. King Louis was executed by guillotine on the 21^{st of} January 1793 as Robespierre’s justification was “Louis must die in order for the revolution to live” (Linton, 2006, King Louis) justifying the end of a monarch as a ‘means to an end’, a necessary evil for the progression of France.

The Committee of Suspicion was Robespierre’s paranoid attempt to control the country he was leading, the immense threat of counterrevolutionaries, monarchists whilst Austria, Prussia and other European powers invaded France. This resulted in the radicalisation of the Jacobins and Robespierre’s power, instigating the terror as the Sans Culottes popular movement caused a drastic increase in executions amassing 40,000 individuals being executed by guillotine without trial.

Robespierre was a “radical and a democrat, defending the principle of that the rights of men should extend to all men” (Linton, 2006, Rights of Men), only after the execution of King Louis XVI as an attempt to eradicate royalists and monarchists, the revolution twisted into state terror dictated by a popular movement managed by the Sans Culottes, executing any suspect of counter-revolution and royalism.

As a result, Robespierre’s involvement in the French revolution and the Reign of Terror was largely his fault for various reasons including the radicalisation of the Jacobin’s power, the instalment of the reign of terror to control France, the elimination of other Jacobin members and the introduction of the guillotine. Initially Robespierre was a democrat supporting the third estate, but as time continued and the situation in France developed, Robespierre transformed and introduced the Great Terror as a form of state terror and as he grew paranoid, executed his own political party.

References

Rapport, M., 2015. ‘Terror and the French Revolution’. In: R.D. Law, ed. The Routledge history of terrorism. Taylor & Francis Group, Oxford, pp. 111-125. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [Accessed 12 August 2024].

Linton, M. (2006) ‘Robespierre and the Terror’, History Today, 56(8), pp. 23–29. Available at: https://search-ebscohost-com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&db=azh&AN=21887098&site=ehost-live&scope=site (Accessed: 12 August 2024).

Question 5

1. What is anarchism, and what are/were its goals?

My understanding of anarchism was largely influenced by Jensen’s article. Jenson explores how anarchism developed throughout the mid to late 19^th century. The shift between Proudhon’s peaceful ideologies to the numerous anarcho-terrorist bombings in France, Italy, Spain and America throughout the 1880’s and 1890’s demonstrates the shift in anarchist goals.

Anarchism in my understanding is a form of far-left politics which aims to remove centralised government, abolish capitalism and establish an egalitarian society organised by individuals who govern themselves. French philosopher Pierre – Joseph Proudhon was one of the first self-described anarchist. Proudhon initially established anarchism in the 1840’s alongside his published “In What is Property” (1840) laying down the groundwork for anarchist ideologies.

Proudhon identified as a socialist, but his approach differed from Marxism. Whilst he shared some of Marx’s criticisms of capitalism, he opposed the idea of a centralised state which would become a corner stone of anarchism. Proudhon’s vision was to have a peaceful revolution. However, the movement would change in the latter stages of the 19^th century as Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin’s violent uprising occurred.

Whilst the overarching goals of anarchism remained, the means to achieve it varied significantly between these philosophers. Proudhon’s peaceful approach was contrasted with the further “anarcho-terrorist” approach of Kropotkin and Bakunin. The change in philosophy over the 30-year period displays the both the goals of these two forms of anarchism and the extreme differences in approach.

2. Are anarchism and terrorism inextricably linked?

Anarchism and terrorism are not inextricably linked, although the two have been associated historically. Through both Jenson and Jones’ readings, we can trace a shift in the political methods used to promote anarchism as there was a shift in politics and the method of promoting anarchism. Proudhon, self-described anarchist promoted a peaceful revolution to remove the centralised state and capitalism and promoting an egalitarian self-governing society. Proudhon’s peaceful methods were eventually overturned by Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin’s violent, “propaganda by the deed” method of spreading anarchism.

So, although the most prolific era of anarchist-terrorism bombings throughout the 1880’s to 1890’s in particular link the notion of anarchism and terrorism we should remain aware that the initial political theology of anarchism was peaceful. So, no in my understanding anarchism and terrorism are not inextricably linked.