The political landscape has been undeniably altered since the attacks in New York on September the 11th, and to some degree the 7th of July bombings in London. Aside from the IRA attacks in the UK (conveniently forgotten in modern rhetoric) the western world had not seen anything like what happened in 2001, at least that's what we say to ourselves. I for one wonder just how true, or at least relevant, that is.

The reason we talk like this is of course because of the death count, because of the method. IRA attacks in the UK sustained trepidation rather than terror through their methods, with a relatively small number of people ever getting injured in the total sum of their acts. Timothy McVeigh's attack that killed almost 200 people in the US in 1995 pales in to insignificance in its scope when weighed against 9/11's close to 3,000 fatalities.

This act changed modern popular vernacular, from a simmering pot of inter-racial disdain and religious differences sprung a “threat of terrorism" that has persisted to date and looks to continue. My question is really whether or not we are right to live under fear of this terrorism, whether it is something somewhat natural to human behaviour and relations, and just how helpful it is to generalise with terrorism in the way we do.

Let's get this straight right away, terrorism has existed for as long as there has been conflict and difference of opinion, only the methods have changed. Terrorism exists because people feel so disenfranchised with an idea that is holding an effect over them, perceived or real, that they turn to aggressive and violent means to protest against and hurt those that are “against" them. They may be crazy or sane, they may attack innocent civilians or explicitly those complicit in their situation, but ultimately the purpose of the action is the same.

Timothy McVeigh was seemingly angered at what the US stood for compared to his belief in what the US should stand for, the IRA felt that Ireland was being occupied by Britain, Lockerbie is supposedly a result of military territorial dispute. Before this we know that Guy Fawkes failed in his attempt to blow up parliament through his religious beliefs, medieval period monarchies used Christianity to their own means to coerce taxes from the populace, and as far back as ancient Roman times parallels with terrorism can be found in acts of rebellion by individuals such as Boudicca.

Terrorism, barbarism, authoritarianism and even that which could by modern standards be regarded as righteous and just conflict all share the same basic traits throughout the ages, they are all born out of a personal injustice that may or may not be felt by a wider community in unit and they manifest themselves in actions that target the weak, the unknowledgeable and the most newsworthy victims. Whether it is a misguided disagreement with what is patriotic, a difference of religious opinion, or, in the case of the American Revolution, a fundamental belief in a set of rights and liberties owed.

Let's just look at that last example, the American Revolution in the 18th Century. Tarring and feathering wasn't uncommon as a tactic used against those simply trying to uphold the law, and vigilantism leading to destruction of property in the aim of undermining the rule of law. Essentially, it is clear that tactics were employed by colonists in America to try and scare away those that they felt stood in the way of their independence. This of course led to war that was ultimately won by the now indigenous population against their own nation. Some argue this wasn't terrorism, and by today's yard stick they'd no doubt have a strong case…but the fact is there that these people felt persecuted, they lashed out in a way that they felt would gain them the win they desired to the detriment of “innocent" people. Ultimately it is all about perspective as to just how terrifying such acts are.

So why is 9/11 worse than a sustained strategy of humiliating, with at least mild physical assault, and destroying the property of a government trying to establish control over its colonies abroad? Why is 9/11 worse than Timothy McVeigh's attack on his own country? In the former it can easily be argued that the sustained attacks of the “Sons of Liberty" were more an act of terrorism than Osama Bin Ladens 9/11 plot, thankfully the more recent event, though tragic in consequence, was at least a one off that has yet to be sustained on US home soil. For the latter we get down to the semantics of emotion. Focusing on the attacks in New York, whether 0 people died or 6000, the loss of life is (with all respect) irrelevant to the level of attack. The attack itself was a set of planes intended to be flown in to a set of buildings, and this in itself is no different from what McVeigh did. If he had succeeded in killing 3000 people rather than 200 would America have only recently ended a war on disenfranchised ex-US soldiers, or perhaps less facetiously would there have been as much of an outcry about a continued “threat" of terror from such well connected, potentially psychologically affected, and naturally violent individuals educated in arms and the way of war?

The truth is that there is always a continued threat of terrorism from all walks of life where you can find people that will feel persecuted, that feel like they are not being listened to, and that feel making a massive violent statement is the only way to change the status quo. Should we not ask, however, where the balance lies on the severity of these threats? Apparently we have the most terrorists operating in the UK than ever before, even when compared to the height of IRA activity, but this level of activity simply doesn't add up. The IRA managed to sustain a wave of terror throughout the years over two decades, yet to date since 9/11 we have only had three attacks manage to get past security forces, two of which failed.

It's a conundrum, either we are living under the greatest threat we've ever known and the security services are doing an amazing job…in which case why exactly do they need even more policy made for them against our civil rights given such success, or the threat isn't as high as the government and intelligence services would wish us to believe and is being used to invoke change in the law to suit their own nefarious purposes. I personally prefer to believe the former for my own sanity. Either way using a threat of terror as a way of reducing people's liberties in the way suggested by Jacqui Smith and the Labour Government by, for example, extending detention before charge is not what those afraid of terrorism should be supporting.

The way to defeat terrorism isn't to become a slave to it, this was the key reassuring message from all politicians at the time of the 9/11 attacks, yet they have gone back on their word. They have made our western nations a slave to terrorism by sustaining it. The UK, US and others that follow in our footsteps need to realise that the best way to stop this threat of terrorism is now to let the issue go. At least one expert agrees, congratulating a successful strategy by the west to “decapitate" the power structures that could perpetuate the radicalisation of young Muslims and suggesting the best way forward is now to just let the movement of these Muslims to burn themselves out.

Meanwhile we should be asking ourselves properly how we got in to the mess of the last decade in the first place. We cannot stop terrorism and we cannot stop a threat of terrorism, to some degree both will exist in any society that harbours deep and opposing views, but we can stop making the mistake that the threat we face is nothing of our own doing and start to really look inwardly at why terrorists feel that they have to make the statements they do in the manner they do. This is why I say we need to drop terrorism from the phrase book, eliminate the ability to simultaneously stifle debate and perpetuate violence by no longer allowing ourselves to base new policy on the threat of terrorism as if it has never existed and is somehow more dangerous now than before. The sooner we as a people learn to recognise that there are two sides to every reprehensible act, and two perspectives from which to view the outcome, the sooner we will manage to resolve our differences with those that only manage to communicate with us through bombs and pre-recorded video messages.

Further Reading:

• Open Democracy – Terrorism in historical perspective
• Sons of America – Terrorists or Patriots?
• New Scientist – The changing face of terrorism