Terrorism

Terrorists and revolutionaries are on two sides of a wide, prominent schism. While both a terrorist and a revolutionary wish to create pivotal change, terrorists use violence nondescriptly to influence those around them, whereas revolutionaries value the process of achieving their goal as well as the goal itself. Terrorism is a word that seems to permeate modern media. Not a day goes by that the average American hears of the activities of a terrorist group halfway around the world. It’s easily observed that we dislike terrorists.

In the context of American politics, we don’t dislike them so strongly just for their push for religious conservatism, but rather for their violent and random attacks against innocent civilians. They are radically hateful toward their ideological enemies. Which is not a relatively uncommon concept – however, terrorism has the word ‘terror’ at its core for a reason. A terrorist like Osama bin Laden, for whatever motive, wishes to affect the world politically by terrifying people into some sort of action.

In the field of political science, this is the definition, and historically it has been used the same way. Terrorists don’t care how many people are injured by their actions. If anything, they encourage it, because that will attract more attention to their cause. And change does occur, too. For example, in pre-9/11 days, there was little security in airports. Now citizens have to submit to government agencies like the TSA searching them for harmful non-regulation items – everything from guns to medium-sized bottles of shampoo.

Unlike revolutionaries, there are even different sub-groups of terrorism. Eco-terrorism, a new term come to light, describes someone with environmentalist motives using violent actions to urge the government to be environmentally friendly. Such instances include threats to blow up bridges or dams that cause damage to nearby ecosystems. Environmentalist and eco-friendly views are not out of the ordinary – but threatening to explode a bridge certainly is. Terrorists are otherwise referred to as extremists, because their methods of inciting change are very extreme indeed.

News stories of terrorists usually involve attempted harm to civilians through bombs and explosives, whether through the mail, or underneath cars, or within an airplane thousands of feet into the atmosphere. If anyone else wanted to change politics in the US, a responsible citizen might pass around a petition – but not a terrorist. The only want to change the world in ways that harm others and cause needless violence. Revolutionaries, on the other hand, do not believe that the ends justify the means.

Thinking of revolutionary figures, people like Isaac Newton, or Ralph W.Emerson come to mind. These are people who desired to change their world and did so – creating pivotal alterations and thereby becoming immortal in their various fields. They aren’t called terrorists because they didn’t behave like terrorists. Their effect on the world was done peaceably and with no violent intent whatsoever. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. is seen as a potent revolutionary in civil rights. In an effort to dispel the injustice he saw toward his people in America, he held famous demonstrations throughout the south.

These demonstrations are mot famous because they were violent or destructive; on the contrary, King put an emphasis on non-violent civil protest. He was a revolutionary anti-segregation figure, and not a terrorist, because he did not use extreme and violent methods to get his views across. In conclusion, although both revolutionary figures and terrorist have high ambition to change current policy and perception; however, terrorists use violent and injurious ways to get attention whereas revolutionaries have peaceful means to acquire a goal.

Caless (2012) defines terrorism as ” the threat or use of violence to further a political agenda for change by inducing widespread fear”. However, experts have been debating over a clear definition of terrorism for over 100 years. Although the word was first used over 200 years ago when discussing the Reign of Terror (Whitaker, 2001). Consequently, there have been over 100 definitions offered for terrorism (Laqueur, 1977, cited in Martin, 2013). Alex Schmid’s (2004) research also illustrates the lack of clarity surrounding the definition.

And most experts believe that an impartial and universal recognized definition will never be agreed upon (Ganor, 2002). With the lack of clarity surrounding the definition, a further question arises; who is classed as a terrorist? This is reflected in the well-known phrase “one man’s freedom fighter, is another man’s terrorist. ” (Gerald Seymour, 1975, cited in Ganor, 2002). Overall, it is agreed, that this depends on the subjective viewpoint of the individual (Ganor, 2002; Jackson, 2008; Corte, 2007).

The Just War doctrine is an “ideal and moralistic philosophy” (Martin, 2013). It asks questions such as “what types of force are morally acceptable? ” and “who can morally be defined as an enemy? ” This notion is usually used by ideological and religious extremists, in order to justify their own acts of extreme violence. A prime example of religious extremists is the ‘jihadi Islamic fundamentalists’, the term jihad means a sacred “struggle” but is manifested by some radical Muslim clerics as a holy war and therefore perceived that their war is a “just war” (Martin, 2013).

This paper will endeavor to answer the question; Did University College London (UCL) further radicalize Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? There have been many debates, theories and investigations surrounding this question, many of which will be analyzed throughout. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (born 22 December 1986) is a Nigerian Islamist who attempted to detonate plastic explosives in his underwear whilst traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit, on Christmas Day 2009, on the Northwest Airlines Flight 253. In January 2005 Abdulmutallab joined an Islamic forum under the pseudonym “Farouk1986” (Now Public, 2009).

He frequently contributed to the forum. His postings normally gave advice to other forum members, although on occasion he expressed more personal views. These included his “jihad fantasies”, describing how “Muslims will win and rule the world” and prays to Allah to “unite us all Muslims and give us victory over those who do not believe”. The majority of his postings illustrate his loneliness and his struggle to contain his “sexual drive”, and he goes on to urge fellow forum users to limit their activities to “Islamically good” and to only “hang around with good Muslims who enjoy studying”.

Throughout his postings in the forum, he maintains that he is memorizing the Quran (Islamic Forum, 2005). These postings illustrate that Abdulmutallab’s views on the Islamic religion, are very similar to Salafism or Olivier Roy’s neo-fundamentalism (see: Social Science Research Council). This is shown with his fixation on personal faith and is also portrayed when he praises Shaykhs Saud as-Shuraim and Abdul Rahman as Sudais (Islamic Forum, 2005). Another radical Muslim he mentions is Abdullah el-Faisal, who is currently in prison in the UK for influencing his supporters to murder Jews, Hindus and Americans (Forest, 2012).

Some of the media (Gardham, 2009) focused on Abdulmutallab’s love for football and this is clearly seen within his postings online. However, by November 15th, 2005, he had turned against it stating “Let’s save our honor and religion and try to stay away from football and do sporting activities that are more Islamically beneficial… running, paintball, archery (or any other sport of the like that teaches [how to] target and aim). ” (Islamic Forum, 2005). There are many different theories as to where Abdulmutallab was further radicalized, the one that will be discussed in this paper is the possibility hat University College London (UCL) and it’s Islamic Society were the perpetrators. During the investigation of the attempted attack of Flight 253, the University College of London (UCL) had held their own investigation of their Islamic Society and although the evidence holds strongly against them, as will be seen throughout this paper, they came to their own conclusion that there was “no evidence to suggest either that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was radicalized while a student at UCL, or that conditions at UCL during that time or subsequently were conducive to the radicalization of students. (UCL, 2010). Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab began university, in September 2005, during a peak of Islamist activity in the UK, there were events organized by Ikhwan (Ikhwan Web, 2005) and Jamaat-e-Islami inspired groups that were being held weekly and their influence over British Islam was steadily increasing (Hitchens, 2010). This year is an important one, as the emergence of the first Islamic militant groups in Bangladesh (Kabir, 2005) was seen and Islam became the official religion of Iraq (Islamopedia Online).

British Islamists were exploiting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and implicating the Western governments with the “war on Islam and Muslims,” (Hitchens, 2010). According to Islamists, Western Muslims, had a duty to stand up for their religion and fight back using peaceful methods (O’Connor, 2012). The “Stop Police Terror” lecture was given by Awlaki at the East London Mosque in 2003 (YouTube, 2011). The listed supporters of this group could be found on the Stop Political Terror website, and interestingly UCL was among this list (Stop Political Terror, 2003-2005).

The aims of this campaign were to urge Muslims to fight against the “anti-terrorist police” and to alert them of “the deteriorating situation in the UK and the scale of arrests, raids and abuse meted out [against Muslims] by Anti-Terrorist Police. ” The campaign statement also included a clear warning: “Britain’s Muslims, as a community, will refuse to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities if this abuse continues. ” (Stop Political Terror, 2003-2005). During this time, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) ran another campaign alongside “Stop Political Terror. , issuing further explicit statements -“previously, it was Muslims themselves under attack, now the agenda [is] to attack Islam, its principles … New laws making it an offense… aim to divide and weaken the Muslim community. ” And “The relative concept of ‘extremism’ is being used to condemn Muslims from very diverse political viewpoints. ” (Hitchens, 2010). The perception of a Western “war on Islam” is one of the key recruitment tools of global jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (Home Office, 2011).

Therefore, it is clear that Abdulmutallab was absorbed in a protesting setting, and this appeared to him to give value and objective, to his already pre-existing neo-fundamentalist attitude and personal discontent (loneliness). It is also apparent from his previous online statements, that he was vulnerable to the indoctrination; “I hope to get over my loneliness when I go to university… where there are usually Islamic groups [and] clubs with good Muslims” (Islamic Forum, 2005).

His obsession with Islam is clearly illustrated with the amount of time he devoted to the group, and after a year of starting university, he was already president of UCL’s Islamic Society (Irvine, 2009). Terrorist groups are also known to use the media to their advantage. As terrorism is “not limited to specific locales or regions” and the media has allowed everybody to witness some form of terror. Knowing these terrorist groups can therefore understand the power of the images and manipulate them to their advantage (Martin, 2013).

Gus Martin (2013) explains the media frenzy surrounding terrorism, and describes the 21st century as being “an era of globalized terrorism”. Another key recruitment tool that jihad groups use is the internet (US Department of Defense, 2007). Sites such as Facebook, (Torok, 2011) and the creation of websites that can be regionalized. Although governments monitor the websites and, if necessary shut them down, another website can be made and the process can start again (McNeal, 2008). It is clear that Abdulmutallab was a fan of internet use, with his frequent postings on the Islamic Forum.

Awlaki could also be a key element in the “jihad internet recruitment” process. The media present him as the “Bin Laden of the internet” (Madhani 2010; CNN, 2011). He was a Muslim lecturer and spiritual leader who had been accused of being a senior al-Qaeda “effective global recruiter” (Telegraph, 2012) and motivator. He is thought to have given a series of video link lectures at the East London Mosque (Gilligan, 2010). They, however, categorically deny this ever took place, and deny that Abdulmutallab even attended the Mosque (East London Mosque, 2010). The University of Westminster Islamic Society are alleged to have ties with Awlaki.

Another Islamic Forum announced him as a guest at the University of Westminster Islamic Society Annual Dinner in 2006 (Ummah Forum, 2006). Along with these connections Awlaki is also suspected to have had “recruited” Abdulmutallab before the attack. According to Fox News, an FBI bulletin states that Awlaki showed Abdulmutallab “how to detonate the bomb” (Catherine Herridge, 2011). Research carried out by the University of Cambridge suggests that “the majority of young British Muslims are opposed to political Islam, and are more likely to join Amnesty International” (Cambridge University, 2008).

This was criticized, when Anthony Glees accused Cambridge of trying to prove that British universities are not “hotbeds of Islamic radicalism” and called the research “flimsy and uncompelling” (Lipsett, 2008). Their research was argued against by the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), who stated that “Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was radicalized at University College London”, and goes on to describe British universities as the “breeding grounds of Islamic extremism”(Centre for Social Cohesion, 2010).

They describe themselves as the “Centre [that] has been at the forefront of the debate on what role Universities should play in ensuring that British students do not fall victim to the ideology of violent Islamism. ” (Centre for Social Cohesion, 2010). They went on to completely contradict the Cambridge University report, and suggested within the report that Islamic extremism will “flourish”. This statement was further supported when Abdulmutallab became the fifth president of a UK Islamic society to face terrorist charges (Weiss, 2011).

The vulnerability of Abdulmutallab along with the recruitment tools of jihadist groups illustrates how easily individuals can slip beyond this porous boundary rapidly and very often unnoticed. Since the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center, it has become apparent that Al-Qaeda are focusing on mobilizing Western Muslims to commit “lone-wolf” terror (RUSI, 2012). This evidence is supported by the ICSR (2011) who describes Awlaki’s role as “ideological rather than operational” and explains that the greatest threat he poses is the mobilization of Western Muslims through his sermons and therefore expanding the jihadi movement.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s extremist views are apparent very early on. Although, as his loneliness grew, so did his radical views. It appears that he was trying to fight his urges to act upon these views time after time. Abdulmutallab was quite clearly an “extremist” turned “terrorist”, as it is clearly defined by Martin (2013); “extremists” who violently act out their extremist beliefs are “terrorists”. It is clear that his time at UCL and within the Islamic Society unquestionably played a part in Abdulmutallab’s further radicalization when examining the evidence discussed.

It is also remarkable to see that UCL was among the list of supporters of the Stop Police Terror campaigns, almost condemning themselves of the radicalization. They contradicted themselves when they released their findings that “no evidence to suggest … that conditions at UCL … [are] conducive to the radicalization of students. ” (UCL, 2010). It is noted that Cambridge University’s ‘flimsy’ research could support the UCL’s outcome, but then could this research, with their ‘bad press’, also diminish their findings.

Overall, there are many factors that led to the radicalization of Abdulmutallab, his state of mind, his vulnerability, and the people that he was associated with within the Islamic Society. Therefore, the UCL was not completely at fault, it was also the fundamentalists, that infiltrated the system and took advantage of a vulnerable, young Muslim.

Almost a decade has gone by since our involvement in the US-led war on terror and today we are more vulnerable to acts of terrorism and violence than we ever were. In recent years the trend of growing terrorism has shifted from previously hard hit areas such as KPK and FATA to urban centers where it was previously least expected. Now major cities and sensitive locations are under greatest threat. Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define.

Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Pakistan has suffered greatly at the hand of these terrorists. These unfaithful elements have shown no mercy to the people of Pakistan and don’t intend to. It is the root cause of every mishappening. Pakistan is the only country that has sacrificed more than any other country in the war against terror. These factors include social injustice, economic gap, political instability, religious intolerance and global conspiracies.

Terrorist acts like suicide bombings have become a custom of the day. Terrorists have not spared a place. Markets, mosques, educational institutions, offices, all have been targeted.

Root Causes of Terrorism in Pakistan

There can be two major root causes of terrorism in Pakistan;

Due to the ongoing war against terror, some people say that this terrorism menace in Pakistan is the just reaction of people living in tribal areas who have been the most affected ones. Now the question is, why do they show such reaction?

It is because of the deadly US. The United States of America works like a boss here. Ongoing drone attacks have made it worse to counter produce the terrorism. The concerned authorities have shown complete negligence in this regard and they seem to be in cahoots with the Allied Forces.

Poverty is one of the root causes of terrorism as it is said that “a hungry man is an angry man”. A large number of people in Pakistan are living under poverty stroke. Unemployment has made the matters awful.

In these unpleasant conditions, some people go to intense levels and join terrorist groups.

Social Injustice is a leading factor that raises terrorism. When the rights of the people are not given, they route to violent measures. And this is happening in Pakistan. Youngsters are joining political parties so that they would save them from critical situations.

We as Muslims are also not contributing to our best to curb this violence. Religious intolerance is another factor which is adding fuel to the fire in terrorism.

Psychopath or not? Are suicide bombers crazy? Do you think their way of thinking is rational? At first, the answer anyone would give seems obvious: they must be crazy and have irrational thoughts to blow themselves up and kill innocent people in the process. However, terrorism experts have proposed several rational motives for their actions. Some political scientists believe that terrorists make a tactical choice to use suicide bombings against a stronger enemy. Other experts argue that suicide terrorism is part of a “cycle of humiliation” fueled by a suicide bombers’ desire to strike back at those who have mistreated or shamed them.

Some psychologists have concluded that suicide bombers are ordinary, everyday people who are unlikely to commit violent acts until they identify with and join a terrorist group which manipulates and pressures them to commit these violent acts. Suicide bombing attacks have become a weapon of choice among terrorist groups because of their lethality and ability to cause mayhem and fear. Though depressing, the almost daily news reports of deaths caused by suicide attacks rarely explain what motivates the attackers.

Between 1981 and 2006, 1200 suicide attacks constituted 4 percent of all terrorist attacks in the world and killed 14,599 people or 32 percent of all terrorism related deaths. The question is why? Between 1981 and 2006, 1200 suicide attacks constituted 4 percent of all terrorist attacks in the world and killed 14,599 people or 32 percent of all terrorism related deaths. (figure 1) Despite everyone’s stereotype belief that suicide bombers “are both sociopathic and irrational people, many political scientists believe that most terrorists are rational people with tactical goals.

Evans (a political scientist), for example, argues that terrorism is a strategy. Those who use it want to expose their cause, draw the enemy into a costly conflict, and provoke an overreaction that will make the enemy look foolish or evil, recruit supporters, and prevent finding the middle ground. Robert Pape also believes that suicide terrorism has an essential strategic logic. It is politics more than religious passion that has led terrorists to blow themselves up.

In Roberts view, “Suicide-terrorist attacks are not encouraged by religion but more as a clear strategic objective: to force modern democracies to remove military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. ” While terrorism can be seen as a rational strategy, feelings of shame and embarrassment may make suicide the weapon of choice because they can get their revenge as well as just end their miserable life, Interviews of failed bombers or bombers-in-training reveal that they are striking back at those who humiliated or injured them.

On October 4, 2003, 29 year old Palestinian lawyer Hanadi Jaradat exploded her suicide belt in the Maxim restaurant in Haifa killing 20 people and wounding many more. According to her family, her suicide mission was in revenge for the killing of her brother and her fiance by the Israeli security forces and in revenge for all the crimes Israel had perpetrated in the West Bank by killing Palestinians and confiscating their lands. The main motive for many suicide bombings in Israel is revenge for acts committed by Israelis. The bombers want to send a message: their enemies are responsible for their humiliation and ultimately for their death.

In September 2007 when American forces raided an Iraqi insurgent camp in the desert town of Singar near the Syrian border they discovered biographies of more than seven hundred foreign fighters. The Americans were surprised to find that 137 were Libyans and 52 of them were from a small Libyan town of Darnah. The reason why so many of Darnah’s young men had gone to Iraq for suicide missions was not the global jihadi ideology, but an explosive mix of desperation, pride, anger, sense of powerlessness, local tradition of resistance and religious fervor.

A similar mix of factors is now motivating young Pashtuns to volunteer for suicide missions in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Further evidence that suicide bombers are responding to humiliation is found in the 430 recorded biographies of suicide bombers which were carefully analyzed by terrorist experts Haqqani and Kimmage. Professor Riaz Hassan, author of a forthcoming book on suicide bombing, tells us. For one, the conventional wisdom that bombers are insane or religious fanatics is wrong.

Typically, most suicide bombers are psychologically normal and are deeply integrated into social networks and emotionally attached to their national communities. Individual bombers show no personality disorders and the attacks themselves are often politically motivated, aimed at achieving specific strategic goals such as forcing concessions or generating greater support. Moreover, the motivations are complex: “humiliation, revenge, and altruism” all drive the individual to engage in, and the community to overlook, suicide bombing. Indeed, as Hassan notes, articipating in suicide bombing can fulfill a range of meanings from the “personal to communal. ” Without understanding these motivations and addressing them, it would appear the governments or organizations that seek to end suicide bombings are likely to be disappointed. Humiliation, revenge and altruism play a key role at the organizational and individual levels in shaping the sub-culture that promotes suicide bombings. Humiliation is an emotional process that seeks to discipline the target party’s behavior by attacking and lowering their own and others’ opinions of whether they deserve respect.

Revenge is also a response to the continuous suffering of an aggrieved community. At the heart of the whole process are perceptions of personal harm, unfairness and injustice, and the anger, indignation, and hatred associated with such perceptions. The motivation for jihad is almost always . . . the dilemma of the humiliated Muslim nation, victimized by the joint evil forces of kufr (unbelief, embodied by the United States as the enemy bent on the destruction of Islam) and tawaghit (tyrants who have set themselves up, or are propped up, as gods on earth).

Although Americans tend to think of suicide bombers as “individual people taking individual decisions to kill people” says Timothy Spengler, they usually operate as members of highly structured terrorist groups. For bombers-in-training, feelings of shame and humiliation—even their individual identities—are replaced by identification with the group, as psychiatrist Vamik Volkan explains: “In normal life, a person who wants to kill themself has low self-esteem. For the suicide bombers it was the opposite—by killing yourself, you gain self-esteem.

These were people with cracks in their personality that could be filled up, as if with cement, with the large group identity. So their individuality was erased. ” Once recruits have identified with a terrorist group, they are willing to do anything asked by the group and take extreme risks because they feel invincible. Their individual motives and values are replaced by the motives and values of the terrorist group, and disagreement or questioning of the group’s norms is not encouraged.

Men attach more value to vengeance than women; and young people are more prepared to act in a vengeful manner than older individuals. It is not surprising, then, to find that most suicide bombers are both young and male. The key to understanding suicide bombers, then, is to understand the organizations and groups that recruit and train them to be the people you know them as. Understanding the terrorist organization’s logic is more important than understanding individual motivations in explaining suicide attacks.

Suicide bombings have high symbolic value because the willingness of the committers to die signals high resolve and dedication to their cause. They serve as symbols of a just struggle, stimulate popular support, generate financial support for the organization and become a source of new recruits for future suicide missions. As Cronin concludes, “Although . . . individual suicide attackers . . . are not technically ‘crazy,’ . . . they are often manipulated by the pressures and belief structures of the group”. The causes of suicide bombings lie not in individual psychopathology but in broader social conditions.

Understanding and knowledge of these conditions is vital for developing appropriate public policies and responses to protect the public. Suicide bombings are carried out by motivated individuals associated with community based organizations. Strategies aimed at finding ways to induce communities to abandon such support would curtail support for terrorist organizations. Strategies for eliminating or at least addressing collective grievances in concrete and effective ways would have a significant, and, in many cases, immediate impact on easing the conditions that nurture the subcultures of suicide bombings.

Support for suicide bombing attacks is unlikely to diminish without tangible progress in achieving at least some of the fundamental goals that suicide bombers and those sponsoring and supporting them share. The most important choice a suicide attacker makes is not when to press the trigger, but whether or not to join a terrorist group. (figure 2) Figure1 [pic] Figure 2 References Altman, N. (2005, March/April). On the psychology of suicide bombing. Tikkun, 20(2). Retrieved November 20 2012, from Academic Search Elite database. Atran, S. (2004, Summer).

Mishandling suicide terrorism. The Washington Quarterly, 27(3), 67–90. Retrieved November 20 from the Center for Strategic and International Studies Web site: www. twq. com/04summer/docs/04summer_atran. pdf Cronin, A. K. (2003, August 28). Terrorists and suicide attacks. CRS Report RL32058. Washington, D. C. : Congressional Research Service. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from Federation of American Scientists Web site: www. fas. org/irp/crs/RL32058. pdf Evans, E. (2005, Spring). The mind of a terrorist: How terrorists see strategy and morality.

World Affairs, 167(4), 175–179. Haqqani, H. , & Kimmage, D. (2005, October 3). Suicidology: The online bios of Iraq’s “martyrs. ” New Republic, 233(14), 14–16. Retrieved November 21 2012, from Academic Search Elite database. Hudson, R. A. (1999, September) The sociology and psychology of terrorism: Who becomes a terrorist and why? Retrieved November 22 2012, from Library of Congress Web site: http://www. loc. gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Soc_Psych_of_Terrorism. pdf McConnell, S. (2005, July 18). The logic of suicide terrorism [interview with Robert Pape]. The American Conservative.

Retrieved November 22 2012, from http://amconmag. com/2005_07_18/article. html Solow, B. (2004, May 26). The “patient is regressing”: A distinguished psychiatrist visits the Triangle to lecture on the mindset of the U. S. war on terror. Independent Weekly. Retrieved November 22 2012, from http://www. indyweek. com/durham/2004-05-26/election. html Volkan, V. D. (n. d. ) Suicide bombers. Retrieved November 22 2012, from http://www. healthsystem. virginia. edu/internet/csmhi/suicide-bomber-psychology. pdf ———————– Anthony Leach 11/22/12 D’Amato College writing

Tahirih Osborne 11. 16. 11 HHIS 101 Jeff Bibbee Tutankhamen: Anatomy of an Excavation. Howard Carter’s diaries. The first excavation season in the tomb of Tutankhamen. Part 1: October 28 to December 31, 1922 © Griffith Institute, Oxford OX1 2LG Otter Box This document provides an in-depth description of Howard Carter’s initial discovery of the ante-chamber to King Tutankhamen’s tomb. November 26th describes the discovery of an unidentified room filled with artifacts, while November 27th describes the initial excavation of this room and identifying it as Tutankhamen’s tomb.

Howard Carter’s passion for Egypt and archeology is prominent in his careful description of the excavation of this tomb. While written in a diary format, it is obvious that he intends to later share his findings with his academic community (which was indeed later published. ) His use of exacting language and in-depth description of what he experiences, down to a laundry list of items the ante-chamber contains, is included for those scholastically inclined, but his personal awe still shows through. Howard Carter was a dedicated egyptologist, and this excavation became the hallmark of his career.

Discovering Tutankhamen’s tomb was an explosion to the Egyptology community. With only two minor robberies to its name (thought to have happened shortly after the paraoh’s death), the tomb stood as a virtual time capsule. No other tomb is thought to be as complete. This gives a very good insight into the climate of the period. Having such a number and range of artifacts from the same time period allows scholars to draw conclusions about everything from the religious practices of the period, to the way furniture was made, and to make guesses about the wealth of the pharaoh and of Egypt itself.

These artifacts went on to be some of the most-exhibited and well known works of art from the period, and are now synonymous with one’s mental image of Egypt. What is perhaps most overlooked and most interesting about Howard Carter’s recordings is his care during excavation. Each detail of each piece was put down to paper. Carter’s meticulous record keeping and care of individual pieces meant that the tomb took nearly ten years to fully excavate, document, and transfer. Despite onstant media coverage of the excavation, Carter only permitted a single reporter to visit the site. Carter was obsessed with keeping the excavation complete, and unharmed, and the exacting nature of his proceedings made it so. Though Egyptomania had already begun spreading with the discovery of Queen Nefertiti’s bust in 1912, it was largely Tutankhamen’s tomb that was responsible for the obsession’s peak in the 1920s. During and after full excavation and documentation, Howard Carter published his diary into three volumes, in 1923-1933.

They quickly became best-sellers, and, along with the artifacts being put on exhibition, started to influence pop culture. Egyptian art influenced jewelry, clothing, architecture, and was a big part of the art deco movement. Women became obsessed with dressing and looking like Cleopatra, and hotels, restaurants, and theaters all decorated their buildings with pyramids and hieroglyphs. Even literature took a page out of Egypt’s book, with tales of African adventure becoming best-sellers, and most memorably, Agatha Christie writing her seminal mystery A Death on the Nile.

Egyptomania still has currency. For instance, look at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which 1978 began to resurrect the Temple of Dendur. See also the Louvre, which in 1989 built its own glass pyramid. And in 1993, Luxor Las Vegas opened, a multi-million dollar casino built thirty stories high in black glass to resemble the pyramids of Giza, with its own replica tomb of Tutankhamen. Songs like the Bangles’ “Walk Like an Egyptian” play through the heads of the masses, and Liz Taylor’s Cleopatra has become a cult favorite.

Egyptomania has even descended to such depths as to remake Boris Karloff’s The Mummy, with parts one, two, and three. Few other events have infiltrated the public conscious the way the discovery of King Tut’s tomb has. One clear example in my life has been the events of September 11th, 2001. If the side effects of Tutankhamen’s discovery has infected us for one hundred years, 9/11 will surely do the same. The consequences of that attack are part of my daily life, and it is difficult for me to think of a time when it wasn’t.

Instead of Egyptomania, there is now terrorist-mania. Since the plane crash at the World Trade Center, our public and private image has changed completely. A whole new department was created by excutive authority- the Department of Homeland Security. Instead of going from check-in to boarding the plane in thirty minutes, airport security takes hours because of high intensity screening. People are no longer free to enter and exit public buildings, most especially governmental buildings.

The attacks spurred a rise in hyperpatriotism and a social climate that is dependent on “being an American. ” Immigration has been tightened down until it is almost impossible for some people to enter the US. Arabs especially are discriminated against because of the percieved terrorist threat by the Muslim fringe. Strangers no longer smile at each other on the streets. The American obsession with terrorism has even led to acts such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the passing of the Patriot Act, which allows warrant free wire-tapping of suspected terrorists.

Americans have been giving up their civil liberties to feel safe, arguably without any increase in safety at all. Instead of opening the paper and reading fantastic stories about the discovery of ancient tombs and grand exhibitions, we open the paper and read yet another story about a dictator being ousted or a terrorist being taken down. While Egyptomania was a postive cultural phenomenon, we are now living in an entirely different world of war and strife caused by an attack that our country can never let go of.

The movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” was released in the year 2004 in which the award winning director “Michael Moore” had directed this film that receives various positive feedback from the movie critics. The motion film “Fahrenheit 9/11” is movie, which examines the Bush administration’s and its financial connection to Saudi Arabia and the family of the most notorious terrorist “Osama Bin laden”.

This movie is considered to be as one of the most critical and controversial movie that had been produced in the modern time of movie industry. Nevertheless, the controversial movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” was well appreciated and awarded by the award giving body “Cannes Festival” for the prestigious “Palme d’Or” award. As a talented director “Michael Moore” had detailed the considered controversial political event in the United States under the administration of President George W. Bush for both before and after the tragic terror attacks on the New York City, World Trade Center way back September 11, 2001. (IGN Entertainment; Inc.)

Moreover, the award winning movie Fahrenheit 9/11 reveals the true story on how the United States government had helped the family of the leader of a notorious terrorist group “Osama Bin Laden” to go back right away in Saudi Arabia after the horrible September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States World Trade Center. This movie serves as the tool to reveal the conspiracy of the “Bush Administration”, which had committed unethical action during the most difficult moment in the United States.

Furthermore, the documentary movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” also examines the true story on the process of the “Bush Administration” on military recruitment for the planned war in Iraq. The movie Fahrenheit 9/11 had reveals as well the true purpose president George W. Bush and his Administration on the war in Iraq. In the end this movie had revealed critical information and the conspiracies of President George W. Bush and his administration. (IGN Entertainment; Inc.)

On the other hand, fear or previous terror experience is considered has the ability to trigger military offence and sacrifice the democratic values. It fair enough to say that safety of the specific country or person is always the concern of the government in which it is justifiable to sacrifice the democratic values to ensure the safety of its people and its country. Due the fact that act of terror is a big threat in the – society, people and the economy government will definitely take the necessary of actions even if it means to sacrifice their democratic values as well as the essence of the democratic to protect their interests from any threats of terrorism.

Reference

IGN Entertainment; Inc. (2008), Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004): Retrieved April 30, 2008 from http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fahrenheit_911/#synopsis

Stan Mihaylov Dr. Reichert ENGL 1102 2/15/2011 The War against Terrorism Military actions are the greatest folly which mankind has ever created. Since the creation of the human race, there is a trend that the stronger nations impose their power and will over the weaker nations. If in ancient times wars were happening primarily to take on new territories and resources, it was sufficiently clear and justifiable for a whole nation to stand behind that idea. However, wars nowadays are provoked by vague and unjustifiable reasons.

The modern world as I see it is against fighting in wars, but at the same time it spends huge amounts of money for the creation of weapons and military supplies. Today every nation imposes peace, but with a big army behind its back. The scars of the past few wars have not been erased yet – wars which have been called World Wars for their scale. World War I broke out in consequence of the poverty of one otherwise strong nation – Serbia, World War II happened because of the ambition of one otherwise “normal” man who believed that the people with blonde hair and blue eyes are the dominant race.

Unfortunately, these two are the most significant events for the whole 20th century. The century in which we live right now, the 21st century, will not remain bloodless either. The war of our century is only one, and it is called “The War against Terrorism. ” What is actually terrorism? Terrorism is hatred to man and to mankind. Terrorism is a violent war against the civilians and its goal is to cause fear in the society and to attract the media’s attention. There is international terrorism as well as domestic terrorism.

Domestic terrorism is when a single person or a group of people go out and kill random civilians. A good example of domestic terrorism is the Anthrax attacks in 2001 and the Texas cyanide bomb attack. Terrorists have changed the means by which they achieve their goals. Until 9/11 even the best specialists on terrorism couldn’t have guessed that the terrorists will use planes full of civilian passengers as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers. I will always remember that day 10 years ago when the terrorists killed more than 3000 people.

I was back in Bulgaria, a year before me and my family moved to the United States. It was a beautiful afternoon around 5pm and I was watching TV when all of the sudden the show stopped and the World Trade Centers appeared on the screen. I was wondering what was going on and why they started showing the news, but soon enough I saw a plane hit a building. At first I thought it was an action movie but when the news journalist started talking about terrorist attacks on the United States, I understood what was happening.

I will also never forget the thumping sound of people jumping off the buildings and hitting the ground. This was the clearest and also the scariest thing I remember from that sad day. The most natural reaction after the impact on the World Trade Centers is the declaration of war. War against what, against who? Terrorism is not a single person or a nation. The U. S. Millitary attacked a remote and poor country like Afghanistan, but very soon it appeared that the capture of the perpetrators of the attack is impossible. The United States, however, saw an opportunity to capture their oil reserves.

Such a powerful country as the United States soon brought in the whole world into its own war but it calls it under a different name – “The War against Terrorism. ” This put the start of a massive production of weapons and supplies. Just the United States alone spend more than $1. 8 billion a week against the fight with terrorism (Msnbc. com). Just a month after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, President George Bush created the first institution against terrorism called the Office of Homeland Security whose main objective is to prevent terrorist attacks.

Can the war on terrorism ever be won? I think there is no way because “violence brings more violence. ” This cliche is true, and it also uncovers the truth about the war against terrorism. It’s like trying to extinguish a fire using gasoline. The more violent the attacks against the terrorists, the more violent their revenge will be. The terrorists have many followers around the world. In the developing countries of the Middle East, the children learn to shoot a gun from a very young age, learn about the various explosives, as well as the electronic mechanisms used to make detonators.

These abilities combined with the hatred for the west, and more specifically the United States, are a very dangerous combination for the making of a huge army of terrorists. They are willing to die for their cause. There are people who don’t appreciate their life. The death during a fight is their way to happiness. One of the many reasons for which terrorism exists is because the democratic, richer countries in the world try to push their views on the poorer Middle Eastern ones.

The people in those countries don’t really have a point in life because no matter what they do, they will still be poor and that’s why they decide to take revenge and join the terrorist groups. They think that it’s some other country’s fault that they are in this situation which is not necessarily true. And because they have been told from young age that when they die they will go to a happier place, they don’t even hesitate about doing it. Children on both sides of the world are brainwashed from very young age.

In the United States, children are told that the Middle Eastern countries are a bad and dangerous, whereas the children in the Middle East are told that the United States are the bad guys. The war against terrorism is a very harsh one because there are also countries which openly support the terrorist actions – Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. They supply the terrorists with shelter, weapons, and financial aid. Another incident that shaped the way I see this war is when I saw a video how an U. S. Army helicopter attacked civilians in Iraq.

The video caused a lot of chaos around the United States’ government because they wanted the world to think they were the good guys. The video basically showed how an American helicopter attacks civilians in Iraq, not terrorists. It was very graphic and when I watched it, I thought about how unforgiving war was. The terrorists killed a lot more civilians on 9/11 but is it right for the U. S. Army, which is supposedly on the “good side” to go and kill random people? I think this is where the mythic reality comes into play.

The United States wants the world to think they are the good guys, and because of the attacks on 9/11 they accomplished that position. This gives the United States a reason to do whatever it wants with the civilians from the countries of the Middle East. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that what the United States does is bad or wrong. If somebody attacks, and there is no way to solve things peacefully, war comes into play, but it wouldn’t it be a lot better if the U. S. Army was to seek the ones who arranged the attacks on 9/11, not some random civilians who have no idea what is going on?

Terrorism is not just going on in the United States, it is a global thing in which involves almost every nation. After the attacks on 9/11, most of the airports around the world created stricter security rules. The recent attack on the airport in Moscow, Russia also killed more than 30 innocent people. It is not for sure if it was one of the Middle Eastern terrorist groups, but it was a terrorist act nonetheless. Schoen, John W. “How Much Is the War in Iraq Costing Us? ” Msnbc. com. Web. 15 Feb. 2011. <http://www. msnbc. msn. com/id/15377059/ns/business-answer_desk/>.