The great 20th century “war on fascism,” as World War Two was termed by some at the time, did nothing to defeat fascism itself, and although it destroyed two fascist dictators – Hitler and Mussolini – it enabled the future rise of others like Tito and Mao. Similarly, the much ballyhooed “war on terrorism” has yet done little to defeat terrorists, terrorism or its underpinnings, though one could argue that it has brought under at least two governments, those in Afghanistan and Spain, and is threatening Pakistan’s as well. Indeed, during the current duration of the “war on terrorism”, terrorist acts have increased in frequency and severity, even being undertaken in major European capitals that had been relatively free of such violence for much of the preceding decade. It is typical of that peculiar American myopia that unless such vicious acts are undertaken within the boundaries of the Lower Forty-Eight, they simply do not exist. Terrorism? Where? While hundreds were blown to bits in Bali, Madrid, London, American political backers of the current administration asserted that the “war on terrorism” was working because “we” had not suffered an attack since September 11, 2001. How conveniently they forget the anthrax mail bombings, but that’s another matter entirely.

Any purported “war on terrorism” is in effect a war on the poor, for it is the poor who largely comprise the ranks from which revolutionaries and would-be martyrs – whether Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, Communist, &c. – are recruited and drawn into the fray. According to the King, those pesky colonists refusing to pay their tariffs under the Stamp Act were little more than terrorists themselves. That those tariffs and taxes were so burdensome as to preclude solvency was a significant motivating factor in the decision to sever ties with England. To King George III, those who took up arms against the Crown to secure their independence weren’t freedom fighters, they were terrorists and traitors who deserved nothing less than the death penalty. We cannot seriously investigate matters of terror, terrorism and terrorist motivations without comprehending how such tactics and tools effected our own establishment as a nation.

Today, any mention of terrorism or terrorists is automatically assumed to mean Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and its practitioners. This adds another level of complexity to the issue, for not only do we have the usual socioeconomic imperatives as factors in the rise of terrorism since 1970, but must face the religious implications as well. In nation states where the official religion is also the underpinning of law, there is no means by which to separate the sectarian from the secular. By virtue of combating such “terrorist philosophy” – as if there was an homogenous mission statement applied to each and every terrorist cell – one must also combat that religion, leading to a theocratic war that will defy containment.

Somewhere in there you might find some building blocks for your opening sentence. Good luck.

Is your paper comparing and contrasting these two ideas? If so, “War on terrorism is often a war on poverty”

If it is the categories by themselves…

“Through out history, many countries have fought against [poverty/terrorism].”