Many of the persons having followed up political sociology are aware of the fact that the I-II World Wars were wars of sharing. The super powers of that time have started a process of sharing “with the motive of state”. The power shall determine the discharges after the end of big wars and then the main actors shall either become eve more powerful or they will be defeated, worn out and they will withdraw (just like the example of Russia).
In this manner, we observe that in time, the geographical borders change. During the end of 80’s and the beginning of 90’s, we all witnessed the collapse of one of the biggest actors of the old era. It is not possible to talk about a bipolar world anymore. The competition has ended with the victory of liberal democracy. The collapse and division of Russia caught the interest of businessmen in the developed countries of the world. They directed their attention to the Central Asian Republics (the brother republics). The world then started to have a more peaceful vision for the future with the hope of revival. The US forgot about while global peace while it spent all its energy to prevent global war. In the opinion of Pentagon strategists, to the extent that they were related with the matters, the status of America, having the only super power army of the world was not something to be operated; rather it was something to be preserved and hence the future was something unknown, they presumed that they had to be protected against all possible futures and all possibilities. When they presumed that certain big enemies could have emerged in the long run, they decided that the best policy for America would be to wait and see what would happen.

This was better than consuming valuable resources for controlling the world. The big strategy was to avoid big strategies. I know it could seem unbelievable but many people were presuming that various “big plans” were pursued by US. However, what is amazing is that, we run after a vision to replace what America had fought for so many years to stand against the Soviet Power. Until 9/11, the concepts adopted by Pentagon for the perception of the world in a detailed manner were “anarchy” and “uncertainty” pursuing the impossibility to have a perspective opinion about the world in the potential future. Until 9/11, we had at least an enemy to whom we could connect all this “anarchy” and “uncertainty”. This was at least no somebody created in absolute meaning, it was an enemy that still permitted us to define and assume terrible futures that had to be prevented.(1)

After the tragedy of 9/11, which took the lives of more than 2,800 people, the signals for the beginning of World War II were observed. The bandit countries were determined and a new concept against “Terrorism” was constituted (2). You can now find the enemy at your home! And this enemy is not a country, it’s a way of thinking – way of life! This was briefly named as the Islamic terror or the Islamist Terror. Yes, this is a conflict of new value systems in a way. Let’s read how Samuel P. Huntington expresses this conflict:

The basic problem for the west is not Islamic fundamentalism. This problem is Islam itself, in other words, it is a different civilization in which its population is persuaded about the superiority of their culture and has transformed their lack of power into an obsession. The problem of Islam on the other hand is not CIA or the US Ministry of Defense, but it’s the West itself; they believe in the universality of their culture, which is true and they believe that their superior power, Which has become somewhat weaker in time, imposes on the obligation to spread this culture to the World. These are the basic factors lying behind the conflict of Islam and the West (3 ).

Terrorism has gained a new global dimension. The states on the other hand are trying to prevent mass destruction weapons and threats of global terrorism in a more careful manner and with more serious budgets. The biggest indicator of this is the mission assumed by the military coalition of NATO to respond and prevent the threats of mass destruction weapons (4). Well!

Will all these measures taken be able to prevent the terror that is much likely to be seen? I don’t think so. This is because of the fact that the source and focus of point of terrorism are civil persons. In other words, those that make terrorist attacks are comprised of civil persons (and specifically persons that have been trained in the West. The main question that should be asked is: which factors push these well educated people into the network of international terrorism? Before copying the answer provided by Samuel P. Huntington let us review the reasons that lie behind that change of methods of attacks? For instance, why were the same or similar methods not adopted during the Cold War Era if the problem lay with Islam? For instance, I cannot understand by Bin Ladin, fighting against the Russians in Afghanistan did not attack Kremilin by airplanes! Islam represents a religious value system and just like other religions, it shall incorporate in itself its self protection mechanisms such as (holy war in case of danger). What is it that transforms this mechanism into a global threat? Or is this a type of “Ladinism”?

Yes, at least the first thing that comes to one’s mind when people say airplane attacks shall be Bin – Ladin. Well! What kinds of measures should be taken against the concepts that I address as “Ladinizm”? It shall be possible to answer this question by developing human rights while taking cultural diversity into consideration the, determining the boundaries of freedom of dialogue and cooperation between People-Security forces. Finally, Islam and Ladinismm should be separated from each other We should not forget that Ladinism is a perverted perception nourishing itself from Islamic religious resources.

*Dedicated in the memory of all those having lost their lives in terrorist attacks an especially to the victims of 9/11.

1. Thomas P.M.BARNETT, The Pentagon’s New Map, War and Pease ın The twenty – fırst century.2004.Putnam. page : 1-2
2. Ahmet Emin DAĞ, Dictionary of International Relations Diplomacy, Anka press, 2004, page 395.
3. Samuel P. Huntington, translated by Mehmet Turhan, Y.Z. Cem Soydemir, Clash of Civilizations and the establishment of a new world order,3rd edition, Okyanus press,2004,page.322.
4. See: NATO in the 21st century, NATO Office Of Information and Pres/ Bruxelles. page 18