http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/default/file /Global%20Terrorism%20Index%20Report%202014_0.pdf
The Global Terrorism Index is an annual report by the Institute for Economics and Peace on terrorist trends. A major pattern in global terrorism since 2000 is the rise of religious-extremist violence and the fall of nationalist-separatist violence. This report is in line with Schinkel's conception of deterritorialization and differentiation. In terms of deterritorialization, extremist groups are now less likely to use violence for tangible gains like territory for nationalist separatists. Rather, extremist violence is done for strictly ideological motives. This is a reflection of the unpopularity of religious extremism in affected countries, relative to nation separatists whom often wish to inspire revolution among a population. Religious extremists simply lack the manpower to make physical gains. In terms of differentiation, Schinkel mentions "identity politics" as deteriorating national identities. Extremist groups such as the Caucus Emirate have become increasingly concerned with their religious identity and not their national identity. This trend would support the sharp increase in religious violence in the last 15 years as more disgruntled people turn to religious movements as a means of change and away from nationalist groups.
It is possible that instead of religious violence replacing nationalist violence, there is actually a synthesis of the two. Groups like ISIS push religious rhetoric to the forefront and justify themselves through their interpretation of Islam, but the backbone of their organization is their territory. Their oil fields fund the entire Islamic State operation, and ISIS's push into Kurdistan and northern Iraq is what made the group famous. ISIS is identified as an extremist religious group, but religion is simply the most visible part of their identity. They are actually more complex than "religious extremist", this is supported by their insistence on creating a functioning government in the territories they occupy. Similar terrorist groups may also have similar religious identities that do not fully explain what their organization is or does. Its is possible that terrorist violence has not changed as much as the GTI indicate; instead, we are simply labeling it differently.
Noah, you make a great point in your last statement "It is possible that terrorist violence has not changed as much as the GTI indicate; instead,we are simply labeling it differently." Groups such as ISIS are a clear depiction at how current terrorist groups will use religion as a driving force to push their political agenda forward.
ReplyDeleteNoah,
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good point. I wonder is Al Qaeda has not turned into a series of more locally based groups that are a hybrid of these two types. It would make the distinctions made in the Global Terrorism Index much less useful.
Or maybe even useless. Terrorism is currently evolving rapidly as extremist groups focus more of their energies on social media and the internet. Cyber-terrorism is the terrorism of the future. As people (in the developed world) becoming increasingly dependent on internet connectivity and more resources are used to prevent physical terrorism, terrorist will focus on affecting our digital lives. Accordingly, classifications of terrorist activities will become less and less relevant until they are obsolete.
DeleteNoah, the way you address the hybrid situation of groups such as ISIS is really thought provoking. I agree with your statement, and think that in an era in which the globalism of religious extremist notions can be tied to the expansion of territory which these groups control, we need to be willing to expand our traditional classification methods of terrorist groups.
ReplyDeleteAnother way of thinking about classification would be to lose the traditional classifications, or at least the classifications that no longer rooted in contemporary international politics. The GTI, for example, still uses resources to study communist-terrorist groups which are not politically relevant anymore. Maybe doing away with these types of classifications could shift the focus to newer types of terrorists groups like ISIL.
DeleteNoah, I think you did a great job of breaking down ISIS and I never thought of them as this way. Now looking at ISIS in this light I feel that they are almost a more dangerous threat in some ways than Al Qaeda was at the height of their power because of their increased economic resources even though they have painted a larger target on their own back since they openly announce where there territory is.
ReplyDeleteI think that everyone has already said what I was thinking while reading this.I especially liked your point Noah about how the distinction between different types of terrorism is eroding and will become useless sooner or later. I believe that that is how terrorism should have been viewed in the first place, as one whole entity with no particular type being worse or evoking stronger reaction than the other.
ReplyDeleteI think that everyone has already said what I was thinking while reading this.I especially liked your point Noah about how the distinction between different types of terrorism is eroding and will become useless sooner or later. I believe that that is how terrorism should have been viewed in the first place, as one whole entity with no particular type being worse or evoking stronger reaction than the other.
ReplyDelete