However, governments and agencies are really dealing with symptoms rather than causes. Their remedies do not get to the root cause for a disease that goes deep into modern society​—a disease based on hatred and selfishness. Injustices and inequalities abound and multiply​—whatever the prevailing ideology may be.

Religion has not prevented right-wing Catholics in Spain from forming their own terrorist group, known as the Guerrilleros del Cristo Rey, or Guerrillas of Christ the King. According to the writers of The Terrorists, the Guerrilleros “owe their existence to religion as much as to politics.”

Should religion’s failure to stem terrorism surprise us? Professor C. E. Zoppo, of the University of California’s political science department, writes: “Organized religions in the West, when confronted with the uses of violence for political purposes, denied their religious enemies those moral rights that they promoted among their followers . . . and even permitted terrorism against the ‘infidels.’” He continues by citing the Holy Crusade in the time of Pope Urban II. He states: “The Crusade was expected to subdue Islam permanently and was considered a ‘war to end wars.’ Islam was regarded as the incarnation of all the forces of evil, so whereas killing an enemy Christian soldier would earn a Christian soldier forty days’ penance, killing Muslims became the ‘epitome of all penance.’”​—The Rationalization of Terrorism.

Other religions also attribute merit to the killing of an unbeliever, or infidel. They believe it is a passport to their heavenly paradise. Therefore, a terrorist’s religious faith can actually strengthen his motivation to murder and even to carry out suicide bombing.

Is There a Political Solution?

Political and military experts in the West have their answers for terrorism, even though not always united in their application of them. The policy of victim nations right now is to fight fire with fire. William Casey, director of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) states: “We cannot and will not abstain from forcible action to prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist acts where conditions merit the use of force. Many countries, including the United States, have the specific forces and capabilities we need to carry out operations against terrorist groups.”​—Hydra of Carnage.

The United States raid on Libya in April 1986, in retaliation for a terrorist bomb explosion at a Berlin nightclub, illustrates that philosophy. But it also exacts an immediate price​—civilian casualties in Libya, viewed as unavoidable by U.S. authorities, and the loss of a U.S. plane with its crew. Terrorism and counterterrorism also have their hidden price​—prestige and credibility.

The politicians and militarists view these as normal sacrifices in this form of covert warfare. As Benjamin Netanyahu writes: “All citizens in a democracy threatened by terrorism must see themselves, in a certain sense, as soldiers in a common battle. They must not pressure their government to capitulate or to surrender to terrorism. . . . If we seriously want to win the war against terrorism, people must be prepared to endure sacrifice and even, should there be the loss of loved ones, immeasurable pain.”​—Terrorism—​How the West Can Win.

Then could the underlying causes of terrorism be removed by politics? Could injustices be righted and the situation defused? Not according to political commentators. Why not? Because, as we have seen in our previous article, they say that much of terrorism is just another tool in the clash between the two great political systems. Therefore, politics breeds terrorism.

As an example, French writer and journalist Jean-François Revel wrote: “In their manifestos and books, the terrorists describe their attacks on democracies as the ‘strategy of tension.’ The idea is that it is much easier to go from fascism to communism than from democracy to communism. The ‘revolutionaries’ must therefore first push the democratic governments toward a fascist pattern of behavior so as to build, in the second phase, socialism on the ashes of fascism.” Thus, in some countries terrorists will deliberately murder military officers in order to provoke a right-wing military coup.

Can the UN Stem the Tide?

Political scientist C. E. Zoppo explained the quandary that the UN finds itself in: “It is not surprising . . . that the United Nations has not been able to reach any agreement on what constitutes international terrorism or on what would be appropriate responses by the member states.” It should not be surprising to anyone when we realize that the UN is an international arena in which the major powers, like fighting elks, lock their horns in battle and become immobilized by semantics.

Another factor is that in the UN the democratic victim-nations of terrorism find themselves in a minority. As Zoppo illustrated: “A U.N. General Assembly resolution on international terrorism . . . while ‘deeply perturbed over acts of international terrorism,’ reaffirmed ‘the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination.’” This same resolution condemned “the continuation of repressive and terrorist acts by colonial, racist, and alien regimes in denying peoples their legitimate right to self-determination and independence.”

Thus, according to Zoppo, the UN has approved a double standard on terrorism. He continues: “Implicitly, terrorism is condoned when it is a means to national self-determination and condemned when it is state terror to prevent independence. Newly established nations, having used terrorism themselves as a tool for liberation, find condemning it in others awkward.” (The Rationalization of Terrorism) Therefore, as an effective instrument against terrorism, the UN is stymied. Morality does not prevail because, as Zoppo concludes, “politics basically defines what is moral.” In the meantime, the innocent victims of terrorism suffer and die.

A Brotherhood Without Terror

Jan Schreiber explains the dilemma the nations face: “The disconcerting fact is that those countries wishing to eliminate terrorism from the world​—and they do not appear to be in a majority—​are forced to content themselves with halfway measures. Either the standard punishments do not impress terrorists dedicated to making sacrifices for the sake of an ideology, or they call forth a violent response from those still able to fight.”​—The Ultimate Weapon—​Terrorists and World Order.