We in social networks


Events Calendar


International Terrorism - Who Stands to Gain from It?

10.11.2011 14:59

Dmitry Zavodin

Terrorism is becoming an increasingly important issue - daily news reports about new terrorist attacks, and it is civilians that have increasingly become victims thereof. In these circumstances a wave of terror is sweeping over not individual countries but entire regions. The concept of terrorism has become a supra-national, went beyond individual countries and became an integral part of the international situation.

The Russian law defines terrorism as ?an ideology of violence and the practice of impact on decision-making by public authorities relating to the intimidation of the population and (or) other forms of illegal violence.? That is, the goal of any terrorist act is to get governments to act by a specific scenario, with a deterrent of population serving as means towards this end.

Many researchers trying to explain reasons for worldwide activation of terrorist activities in recent decades are exploring the contemporary society and studying the psychology of terrorists. And they come to the conclusion that the increased social stress, the social stratification, low living standards, the lack of education are those reasons that push people to commit terrorist acts. In fact, these scientists use the method of analysis from private to general ? i.e. they consider a great number of attacks, identify common features and make appropriate conclusions about the social roots of terrorism. It is difficult to argue with such conclusions, because, if we trace the life of a single terrorist, it is likely that all these elements are present in his life.

However, such investigations do not explain the most important thing - the reasons why terrorists from year to year increase their activity level and create new terrorist organizations all over the world. Because you know, poverty, social tension and class system - all this has existed throughout human history and international terrorism has appeared relatively recently - in the late 60s. Its culmination was the events 10 years ago in the USA, when the World Trade Center towers in New York were destroyed, and America entered the era of ?war against terrorism?.

In circumstances where an explanation from private to general does not create a coherent picture, let us try to go in the opposite direction.

What is needed that a terrorist organization such as al-Qaeda ?successfully? conducts its activities? First of all, money, big money. Relations with different political forces and the loyalty of individual countries would not be superfluous to make it possible to locate training camps for fighters on their territory or simply hide in the right moment. Who can routinely spend millions of dollars (and in the case of al-Qaeda a few billion) to support the activities of terrorist groups? It is obvious that only states or transnational corporations can defray such expenses, which also can not be publicized. Naturally, the finances will go to the organization through a third hand - in the form of donations, from accounts of short-lived companies, or in cash ? there are a lot of ways

It is the fact of financing of international terrorists by states and transnational corporations that determines the goals pursued by terrorist organizations. It is necessary to tell the declared goals from the actual. For example, al-Qaeda is fighting to overthrow the secular regimes in Muslim countries and to create a Great Islamic Caliphate. However, the attacks in the USA and European countries and the provoked by them sequence of events make it clear that the true goals of al-Qaeda are quite different.

Terrorist organizations pursue a policy of those countries that finance them, and in point of fact are the same weapon as tanks and aircraft standing on the arms. But tanks and planes can not be used without declaration of war, whereas terrorists can fight in time of peace. In this respect, any act of terrorism can be compared to a diversion of one state against another. But it must be taken into account that the purpose of such diversions are usually not the material loss (as a rule, for a country they are small), but an impact on public opinion and social consciousness, and thus terrorism became part of the information-psychological war.

A big part in the case of terrorist attack is also assigned to mass media, which should tell of the terrorist attack in the right perspective, so the effect thereof is ?maximum?. Control over much of the mass media able to spread the right point of view, is only possible with significant financial cost as well.

The creation in the 20 century of international institutions prohibiting the open aggression (the United Nations) and regional international alliances (NATO, CSTO), has forced the countries leading an aggressive policy, to look for other ways to realize their interests in the international arena. This was the impetus for the worldwide expansion of terrorist organizations and the emergence of international terrorism as a weapon of war beyond international institutions (the technology of ?orange revolutions? are of the same series). Therefore, modern terrorism should be viewed not as a social phenomenon, but as a political one, and, on the basis of this point of view, it is necessary to seek solutions to the problem.

?The war against terrorism? declared by Washington, has affected the whole world. The victims of this war were hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, among them are tens of thousands of officially recognized civilian casualties. The ?terrorist number 1? was killed ? an organizer of the terrorist act that served as the trigger for the start of the war. Ten years have passed, but what do we have as a result? The two countries have been occupied by NATO troops, the place of Osama bin Laden was taken by another ?terrorist number 1?, al-Qaeda only strengthened its position and even is taking a direct part in the Arab revolutions, the number of terrorist attacks around the world continues to grow, and the main supporters of this war are so carried away that stopped complying with international law (violation of UN resolution on Libya). All the events that followed 9/11 suggest that the true purposes of the ?war on terrorism? differ from the declared.

And the official version of the events of September 9, 2001 gives rise to more and more doubts among the international community. The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declares expressly that as an engineer he does not believe in the possibility of fall of the towers of the World Trade Center because airliners crashed into them (according to the official report, in the two towers the piles melted from the combustion temperature of kerosene of around 800 degrees, while the temperature of their melting point is 1450-1500°C). For skyscrapers fall, according to the Iranian leader, it would have been necessary to lay a large quantity of explosives in the building, which only the American intelligence services can afford. ?The main purpose of fraud was the justification of the so-called ?war against terrorism? unleashed by the United States. The Americans thereby just needed a reason to invade Afghanistan and Iraq,? said Ahmadinejad.

As they say, feel the difference: to present the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as the implementation of the US strategic interests, then they will have to do it alone; however to present the war as a campaign to destroy terrorists, then one can build a coalition. Should we believe the Iranian president or consider his words as a farce and propaganda? Decide for yourself. But hardly anyone would argue with the fact that his arguments are logical and reasonable in many instances.

P.S. And those who have moral doubts, whether the governments of superpowers can sponsor terrorists who kill women and children, should remember the speech by Madeleine Albright in 1996 in the CBS television program ?60 Minutes?. The anchorwoman Lesley Stal inquired about consequences of the sanctions against Iraq: ?We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that?s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?? Albright replied: ?This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.? In 1997, Madeleine Albright was appointed to the post of US Secretary of State.