Terrorism seen as a monolithic ideological block earlier?

Today's War on Terror is focused on anti-American (and often, anti-West/Russian/Indian) Islamist terrorism. Ironically, I'm pretty sure the '70s and '80s saw a lot of terrorism as well, but it took a backseat to the big worry, Soviet nukes. That and there was never an operation that was as deadly as 9/11. Ever since 2001, much foreign policy has been viewing terrorism as predominantly Muslim in nature, connected to familiar groups such as al-Qaeda.

So, what could have been a similar perception on terrorism in previous decades? Was there ever a fear of Palestinian nationalist terrorism in the '70s? Or could Irish nationalist violence had crossed over to the U.S.? Or maybe all of these groups- the IRA, the ETA, the FLNC, the PLO, have made good on their various ideological alliances and loose ties with each other, and actually tried to form an international network of convenience?
 
Their most active period was before 1900, but would Anarchists fit the bill?

Anarchists or Communists would be the easiest to unify (respectively, having them together is impossible). They both have easily identifiable goals and a coherent ideology which stresses cooperation. In fact, Communist terrorists accomplished what you seek to a degree, I'm thinking in reference to the Red Army Faction being linked to the PFLP and cooperating in kidnappings.

Nationalist groups are inevitably a dead end. Even Marxist leaning ones like the IRA would push their nationalist sentiments ahead of Communist ideals.

The easiest approach to making these groups live longer is to have them convert their activities to illicit actions such as drug trafficking or extortion. They may still carry a few acts to demonstrate their ideological "commitments" but the majority of the actions they'd have to take would be getting involved with money making.

This would be the unifying aspect, an international crime ring that would cooperate loosely on trade. If I'm not mistaken, opium trade is how al-Qaeda still carries on.
 
Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists commit terrorism for many different reasons. To try and see Terrorism as a monolithic ideologic bloc' would be to ignore the very different ideologies and reasons why Terrorists commit Terrorism. Indeed, that is one of the major failings of the US Government's anti-Terrorism thinking in the first few years of "The Long War"(tm) or the "War Against Terror(ism)"(tm). By declaring that if "yer aren't wit' us, yer ag'in us," is simplistic and foolish.
 

Typo

Banned
Yes, Terrorism is not an ideology, terrorism is a method and a tool, it's like declaring war on AK-47s or declaring AK-47 usage is an ideology
 
I'm well aware of that. However, if you see enough groups with a similar enemy and ideology, working together, then you have foreign governments treating them as one monolithic wave. We are living in such times when "radical Islamism" is the main terrorist threat.

What about the 80s? Perhaps the IRA, ETA, FLNC, PLO, and similar separatist/nationalist movements, with some leftist sympathies, and connections to states such as Libya, actually pull off greater attacks in the West?
 
Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists commit terrorism for many different reasons. To try and see Terrorism as a monolithic ideologic bloc' would be to ignore the very different ideologies and reasons why Terrorists commit Terrorism. Indeed, that is one of the major failings of the US Government's anti-Terrorism thinking in the first few years of "The Long War"(tm) or the "War Against Terror(ism)"(tm). By declaring that if "yer aren't wit' us, yer ag'in us," is simplistic and foolish.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the OP realizes that, he's just talking about the perception. The example he gives is how modern Americans see "terrorists" as synonymous with "shadowy Islamic fundamentalist organization." They ignore the internal disagreements within Islamic terrorist groups, the ETA, Israel, the IRA, etc.

Yes, Terrorism is not an ideology, terrorism is a method and a tool, it's like declaring war on AK-47s or declaring AK-47 usage is an ideology

I agree the latter is silly, but why couldn't you declare war on AK-47s? The "war on terror" is a set of ideas and policy, more similar to the war on drugs than an actual ground war. Declaring a "war" on a piece of military tactics or equipment in an attempt to remove it (as best you can) as a viable tactic/equipment is acceptable. It's like if the US noticed that the AK-47 worked very well at killing Americans, so they made efforts to ban it and put harsh sentences on those breaking the ban; that is a somewhat analogous "War on AK-47s" situation. Of course, your analogy is false anyway, since there are many (similar) alternatives to AK-47s. The same is not true of terrorism.
 
I'm also talking about a bit more cohesion between such groups. Perhaps some theorist in the early 80s goes "separatists of the world, collaborate!" and spurred on by regimes such as Libya, Cuba, Iran, and the Soviet Union behind many different fronts, these nationalist groups engage in more arms trade and co-training programs with each other. I mean, this sort of thing did happen historically. Then, all it takes is one high-profile attack to stir the public fear, and then you have a new wave of terrorism amidst the Cold War. Perhaps the USSR needs to be hit as well through blowback for the two powers to realize that terrorism is an unchained force. This seems a bit Watchmen like, I suppose.

Weren't there a lot of plane hijackings and random bombings in the 70s and 80s? What was that all about? Who were behind them?
 

Sachyriel

Banned
This is going to shock you, but the anarchists did work together. They even held international conventions.

We still do, and today we have various libraries set up in major cities to recruit and inform members of the current events with the bias of the established media stripped away.
 
One Struggle

I remember driving through Republican areas in Northern Ireland and seeing murals with the caption IRA -ETA - PLO - One Struggle. Who says Nationalist terrorists cant work together?
 
They did work together, but on a purely opportunistic basis, not out of a monolithic ideology. You can't take, say, a ETA terrorist and declare he's the ideological brother of a terrorist affiliated to Hezbollah/Hamas.

As has been pointed out, terrorism is not an ideology but a method pursued to achieve some (usually political) goal.
 
Today's War on Terror is focused on anti-American (and often, anti-West/Russian/Indian) Islamist terrorism.

Serious question: ignoring all those Western anti-terrorist budgets, ignoring the more regular Western military presence in Afghanistan, is there really still such as thing as a distinctive post-9/11 'Global War On Terror'?

Beyond all the domestic precautionary work, isn't the international anti-terror strategy now all really back at the level of the nineties responses to terrorist actions in East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula?

And I get the distinct feeling the developed world liberal democracies are now a bit leary about allowing Russia and India to claim all their anti-insurgency campaigns are as much our 'battles' as theirs. Pakistan is another matter, what with the Afghan connection and all.

Weren't there a lot of plane hijackings and random bombings in the 70s and 80s? What was that all about? Who were behind them?

I hope this is a rhetorical question, otherwise: F@#king research, how does it work.
 
Top