Fanon’s approach

On the other hand, Fanon’s approach is based on the belief that through violence the oppressed peoples of Algeria and other nations can rid themselves of their “inferiority complex and from [their] despair and inaction; it makes [the oppressed] fearless and restores self-respect. ” Fanon views violence not only as a liberating force but also as a means to make, “it possible for the masses to understand social truths and gives the key to them” (Dobson & Payne, 1982, p. 19). This was similar to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida’s approach.

Bin Laden has used his ties with al-Qaida to conduct a worldwide campaign of terrorism. The primary goal of Bin Laden and his supporters is to liberate Palestine, with secondary goals of removing the Saudi ruling family from power and driving Western military forces and their corrupt, Western-oriented governments from predominantly Muslim countries. Most Islamic fighters have no interest in strategies of authentication or existential realization and no interest in Marxist theories of emancipation.

But, in one respect, their actions echo Fanon’s ideas – the act of terror not only had an expressive meaning for the hijackers, but an existential meaning as well. To wit, even suicide can be life affirming (Coker, 2003, p. 291). 3. In your opinion, are terror groups more dangerous than so-called `loners and crazies`, or is it the other way around? Thoroughly explain and justify your answer with data from the texts and other sources if you chose. Most terror groups are more dangerous than “loners” and “crazies” because they are not crazed by hate but they believe that to spark terrorism is a right thing to do.

One goal of terrorists is to force the government to respond to their violence in a harsh manner, in the hope that such repression will lead to discontent among the people and ultimately to revolution. In this case, terrorists believe that they could use their tactics to forward their goals — to destabilize colonial governments and occupation forces. Such terrorism is directed at a specific goal that is easy to articulate and understand, such as overthrow of the current political regime.

On the other hand, radical Islamic believers’ frequently state goal of terrorist groups is to promote a certain religious system or protect a set of beliefs within a religion. This kind of terrorism is called religious terrorism. A good example of this type of terrorism is the use of jihad, or holy war, by Islamic fundamentalists who wish to protect their religion from “creeping secularism and cultural imperialism posed by Western countries such as the United States” (Ali and Bowe, 1988).

Dealing with “loners” or “crazies” is simplified somewhat by the fact that they usually work alone and do not have accomplices, as political terrorists do. However, “crazies” could also cause major terrorist actions, like when an unbalanced hijacker could endanger the lives of people in the airplane. The problems caused by hijackers who are mentally unbalanced touch on both unpredictability and illogicality. The mentally-ill only wish to attract public attention and generally tend not to count the cost, leading them to take unnecessary and often dangerous risks. As a result, conventional deterrents frequently will not work against them.

For example, a mentally-unbalanced hijacker often reacts violently to what he reads in books or newspapers, and the media have paid a lot of attention to hijacking. Furthermore, it is very difficult to judge, from outward appearances, whether or not a passenger is mentally ill. There is no guarantee that an unbalanced hijacker will give himself away by foaming at the mouth, and frequently his demands are the same as those of a rational hijacker (Clyne 1973, p. 125). Negotiating with a person who is mentally in is a psychiatric problem that may depend on several factors.