NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually a better word would be criticisms. I'm looking at developing this outline into a paper for my Terror and Terrorism class. If you notice an obvious flaw in my logic, or a point I've missed, bring it to my attention. If you do, I'll be extremely grateful.

Thesis: Modern Islamist terrorism is rooted in an identity crisis that has taken hold of the Arab world since the end of the Ottoman Empire. To understand its causes one must understand the importance of national and religious identity, as well as the importance of capability. It is clear that Islamist Terrorism has spread because of the perceived weaknesses of institutions found throughout the Arab world.

Terrorism as identity crisis
-Individuals identity comes from two sources, internal and external
-Important source of external identity is the concept of the nation
-Weak identities lead to universalism of self: bullies in middle school
-Weak national identity leads to desire to make others like you
-national universalism
-Nazi Germany
-Strong national identity leads to stability and self confidence, but no desire to “convert” others
-Modern Italy

Failure of the state for national identity
-When faced with a state incapable of providing national identity people search for other sources
-Ottoman empire collapse after World War One
-Failure of Arab Nationalism to:
-Improve life of common people
-Unify a pan-Arab state
-Successfully confront Israel
-Provide itself as a voice for the people

Seizing religion as identity
-Religion has proven to be the traditional fallback for those faced with national identity problems
-Medieval Europe
-Fundamentalist Christians in US (explore American identity issues?)
-Ill defined status of Islam: No central authority
-Religious universalism: Establish central authority that is just like you for the Umma
-Lack of strength and power to do this: Hindered by states and other sects
-States may be weak, but more powerful than individual
-Terrorism is the “Weapon of the weak.”

Defining the targets of Islamic Terrorists
-Focus on those hindering their goal: The Arab States that keep the “Umma” divided as well as Israel.
-And those perceived as supporting those states: US & Western Europe
-Use “Terror as Theater” to sway populace of Arab States against their government, show their weaknesses, your strengths, you ability to do stuff.
-Do same with Israel, show selves as weak, as someone Israel cannot beat. Increase perception that groups are more powerful than Arab states, did what the Arab states could not do.
-Hiz’bo’allah: Summer of ‘06
-Attempt the same with the US: September 11, 2001 attacks, coordinated attacks against images of American strength.
-Monoliths such as WTC, Capitol Building, Pentagon etc.
-Iraq: Grinding assault on US Military “We can fight the Americans, and they can’t destroy us!”
-Project image of strength that Arab States cannot portray.
-Focus on how weakening these targets could make strides towards unification of the Umma.

This isn't really a criticism, more of a suggestion: I would concentrate more on the failure of Arab Nationalism than anything else, the connection between the collapse of the Ottomans and modern Jihadism is a bit of a stretch.

Also bear in mind that I am way over my head with this stuff.;)

Terror and Terrorism class? I thought we were air striking those. :p

This isn't really a criticism, more of a suggestion: I would concentrate more on the failure of Arab Nationalism than anything else, the connection between the collapse of the Ottomans and modern Jihadism is a bit of a stretch.
Aye, what I'm thinking with the Ottomans is how the Muslim world has lost prestige relative to the Great Powers since WWI.

Also bear in mind that I am way over my head with this stuff.;)

We all are, we all are.

Terror and Terrorism class? I thought we were air striking those. :p

That's why you hide 'em at OSU. Mixes right in with the curriculum :D


Bizarrely enough, we had a discussion about how terrorists could break a dam and send muddy water spilling into a city once.

That's why you hide 'em at OSU. Mixes right in with the curriculum :D

In what class? It's probably a hell of a lot more interesting than most of the stuff I'm doing.

That's why you hide 'em at OSU. Mixes right in with the curriculum :D

Redefines 'Final Exam'. :p

Aye, what I'm thinking with the Ottomans is how the Muslim world has lost prestige relative to the Great Powers since WWI.


You could possibly talk about the impact of the abolition of the Caliphate on Muslims. In that sense you can explore whether the end of an political-religious institution meant to represent all Sunni Muslims meant further identity loss (though I think the Turks did create a purely religious replacement - but that doesn't really have the same resonance as a Caliph, yeah?).
The issue of the Caliphate's existence was enough to lead to the creation of the Khilafat movement in India, although it died out after British repression and Ataturk's abolition. I'm not sure if there are any equivalents in the Arab world; it's just an interesting point.

Have you compared Muslim terrorists to non-Muslim terrorists? I mean, do non-Muslim terrorists also tend to come from countries with weak nations with little power in the world?

Terrorism as identity crisis
-Individuals identity comes from two sources, internal and external
-Important source of external identity is the concept of the nation
-Weak identities lead to universalism of self: bullies in middle school
-Weak national identity leads to desire to make others like you
-national universalism
-Nazi Germany
-Strong national identity leads to stability and self confidence, but no desire to “convert” others
-Modern Italy
I've never taken a social science course, so maybe my confusion isn't relevant, but you might want to define "internal" and "external" identities, since the words are very general and don't mean mmuch on their own. ditto "universalism of self". Also, you may want to supply theoretical background (and references) about your claims that weak identity leads to wanting others to be like you. You're a priori taking this premis as true, though maybe your reader has never heard of it before, or can think of obvious counterexamples (countries with civil wars and no expansionist or outward violence, for example).
Failure of the state for national identity
-When faced with a state incapable of providing national identity people search for other sources
-Ottoman empire collapse after World War One
-Failure of Arab Nationalism to:
-Improve life of common people
-Unify a pan-Arab state
-Successfully confront Israel
-Provide itself as a voice for the peopleThis is decent. Though I personally am not remotely convinced that stong national identity results in stability, or secularism (as you next imply). On the contrary - countries with rahter strong national identities (arguably the U.S., the British Empire, etc.) do pursue expansionism, and are even highly religious. One is not a replacement for the other.
Seizing religion as identity
-Religion has proven to be the traditional fallback for those faced with national identity problems
-Medieval Europe
-Fundamentalist Christians in US (explore American identity issues?)
-Ill defined status of Islam: No central authority
-Religious universalism: Establish central authority that is just like you for the Umma
-Lack of strength and power to do this: Hindered by states and other sects
-States may be weak, but more powerful than individual
-Terrorism is the “Weapon of the weak.”This would imply internal terrorism. That is, attacks from religious universalists against other competeing religious sects, or against a secular central government. It doesn't imply external targets, unless you talk about racism and scapegoating of the west. Not sure if fundamentalist christians are a good example of what you'e trying to illustrate.

Defining the targets of Islamic Terrorists
-Focus on those hindering their goal: The Arab States that keep the “Umma” divided as well as Israel.
-And those perceived as supporting those states: US & Western Why then, are the US, and the west (at least percievedly) bearing the brunt of terorism, while by this reasoning, governments like egypt's and jordan's (still fairly secular) should be? Adressing the islamic scriptural base for war on outsiders would be helpful. Basically, is the terrorism religiously driven, or driven by a political agenda to unify their nations - or both? You haven't clearly established the relationship between nationalism and religion.
Europe
-Use “Terror as Theater” to sway populace of Arab States against their government, show their weaknesses, your strengths, you ability to do stuff.
-Do same with Israel, show selves as weak, as someone Israel cannot beat. Increase perception that groups are more powerful than Arab states, did what the Arab states could not do.
-Hiz’bo’allah: Summer of ‘06
-Attempt the same with the US: September 11, 2001 attacks, coordinated attacks against images of American strength.
-Monoliths such as WTC, Capitol Building, Pentagon etc.
-Iraq: Grinding assault on US Military “We can fight the Americans, and they can’t destroy us!”
-Project image of strength that Arab States cannot portray.
-Focus on how weakening these targets could make strides towards unification of the Umma.This part is solid. The only thing you have to keep in mind is that with this premise, the strong identity and unification of arab states is still the ultimate goal, and ourward attacks are only tools. You may want to conrtast this to the argument that the destruction of the west and its values are the primary goal.

Have you compared Muslim terrorists to non-Muslim terrorists? I mean, do non-Muslim terrorists also tend to come from countries with weak nations with little power in the world?

Similarly, he could make a comparison to non-Arab Muslim terrorists. Such terrorists exist in the Indian subcontinent and southeast Asia.
Though since the thesis does say 'Modern Islamist terrorism', should probably make it clearer the limits of the areas under study. I don't think all modern Islamist terrorism is rooted in problems in the Arab world.

You might want to mention the added factor of having a history of greatness and a fierce belief in a religion that is supposed to bring power and glory, contrasting with the reality of stagnation and incompetent rule.

Sounds good.

I would defend the idea that the fall of the Ottoman empire (specifically the destruction of the position of Caliph) played an important role. Without that central authority, a final court of appeal as to what constituted Islamic behaviour, radicals were much more able to pervert Islamic teaching to support terrorism.

It would be interesting to see what the world would have been like if the Saudi kings had accepted the inheritance of the Caliphate. With a central holy figure to keep the faith centralised perhaps the Iranian revolution or 9/11 wouldn't have happened... Perhaps...