The United States faced several challenges that had varied impacts on the national security and at the international level, but the crisis of terrorism was and still is the major dilemma that beset the United States at all. That is because Its contents included all kinds of crises related to human rights and the crisis of relations between the United States and the rising competing powers. However, the war on terrorism has made the united states to get involved in all aspects of human rights like the restrictions on civil liberties and the simplest example of this is what is happening in prison without trials such as what occurs in Guanta´namo, on the other hand some of the rising powers get involved in supporting terrorism activities as a part of the competition with the United States . In response to this type of crisis that there is no agreement even on its concept which is traded in all media and various individual categories and official countries, I will address in these few pages this subject talking about the concept in terms of the differences and divergent views around, highlighting the importance and the sensitivity of this subject to the U.S. National Security financial issues and international commerce . Likewise, I will discuss the types and causes of terrorism trying to reach the most important implications of this case and its development on both international and domestic levels. Thus, I will try to review the liberalism and realism perspectives regarding this phenomenon trying to link the reasons to its causes in the practice of successive American Governments toward the crimes that involve terrorism. As well as emphasizing how effectively the instruments of power: Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, and Economy (DIME) were applied to deal with such phenomenon. Concluding my recitative with a statement that answer the question why Terrorism is the most security challenge to the united states ?
A very large amount of terrorism definitions have been made by deferent organizations in the world. But the debate on the meaning of terrorism increased after 9/11 where the attack on the Twin Tower and the Pentagon took place by a group which is well known to most people nowadays as Al Qaeda. Therefore, statements were issued by the management and the concerned officials in the United States to declare a war on terrorism, at that point the need for a definition to terrorism appeared, then academics and specialists in this science were raced to find a definition to this phenomenon. And it is worth mentioning here that so far there is no uniform concept of terrorism has been agreed to inside the United States itself With all its institutions or in the international level . However, the definition of terrorism in oxford dictionary now is: " the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" . So it doesn't give a clear and explicit meaning to the concept, however it ignored by whom this use of violence has to be carried out, by individuals, groups or countries. Also a lot of attempts have addressed Terrorism were carried out by deferent organizations in the world trying to define the exact concept through the view and perspectives of their own stand points. And due to the huge amount and diversity of these definitions I will take one example from the United States itself which is the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) definition for Terrorism, and the other definition for the United Nation. Thus, the FBI definition is: "International terrorism means activities with the following three characteristics: •Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; •Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and •Occur...
...Is Terrorism Ever Morally Defensible?
The term terrorism has many different definitions. The most accurate definition of terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation, especially for political purposes.1 Terrorism is based on an act of violence. It kills, hurts or injures many people who are innocent for the reason of making a point or for political objectives. Most of the acts of violence caused fromterrorism is either manipulated by another person or leader or is intended to make a strong point from the act of violence. The term ethnocentrism can also influence terrorists because they may feel that their views or culture should over rule or power of everybody else. For example, the Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist group that was formed originally from six confederate Caucasian men who manipulate their group into violent acts costing lives of innocent people ("Spartacus Educational: Ku Klux Klan" 10/20/2011). The act of terrorism causes violence, deaths, conflicts or wars, devastation, mourning of the deaths of innocent people, loss for families, damage to our environment and society etc. There are not many arguments that conclude to why terrorism is understandable or justifiable in our society. The violent act of terrorism is not and will not ever be morally defensible. Terrorism evidently proves how it affects innocent...
Ryan M. Faught
Arkansas Tech University
Terrorism has been a major topic of research for many years. We’ve learned a lot about terrorism and terrorist groups, but there are still major questions to be answered. What exactly is a terrorist? What causes ordinary people to become terrorists? What attracts people to terrorism? How do terrorist groups in the Middle East recruit and radicalize people from all over the world? In this paper I will discuss these questions and more according to the knowledge I’ve gained from reading these five research papers.
Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause (De Zulueta, 2006). This or any definition of terrorism is still subjective depending on the “terrorist” and the situation. For instance, most Americans don’t consider the founding fathers as terrorists, but freedom fighters. In the same way, radical Muslims may look at al Qaeda as freedom fighters, although most of the world would view them as terrorists. The deciding factor that separates freedom fighters from terrorists appears to be the intentional murder of innocent people. Terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda are well known for such murders. Rather than merely fighting for freedom, they wish to create a...
...Is Terrorism Justified ?
Is terrorism ever justifiable ? The answer is no, terrorism is never justifiable. I will argue that terrorism is not justifiable because it does not contribute to a goal of a more peaceful society. Terrorism contributes to conflict, no matter what reason is used to legitimize it. But in order to argue that terrorism is unjustifiable I must first decide on a definition ofterrorism. This definition encompasses all the acts that we would determine as terrorism. This includes acts that one side would label as “freedom fighting” and another would label as terrorism. Terrorism is violence set against non-combatants in order to intimidate a side to submit to a particular goal. For something to be justifiable, it needs to be morally right and it can never be morally right to intimidate people with violence whose sole purpose is to shock, intimidate and/or cause fear.
What is terrorism ? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy presents several definitions from different thinkers:
The performance of violent acts, directed against one or more persons, intended by the performing agent to intimidate one or more persons and thereby to bring about one or more of the agent's political goals (Bauhn 1989: 28).
The tactic of intentionally targeting non-combatants [or non-combatant property, when...
...Terrorism: A Globlal Problem
Hundreds of people die each year to terrorist attacks. Terrorism is present in nearly every country of the world. Political Implications are often to blame for many terrorist attacks. Countries that are troubled by these horrific acts have pondered an answer to the problem of terrorism for centuries but there is no universal agreement for a solution. A definition ofterrorism has yet to be finalized, but Cindy C. Combs' book "Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century," she tries to define terrorism as: "a synthesis of war and theater, a dramatization of the most proscribed kind of violence-that which is perpetrated on innocent victims-played before an audience in the hope of creating a mood of fear, for political purposes."(Combs, pg 8) Through this webpage we will discuss U.N. views on terrorism and what terrorism holds in its future.
Questions And Comments
With terrorism growing as a world problem, people may wonder where it is headed. For now, the answer seems to be pointing in the direction of nuclear terrorism. With this being a likely course, what exactly constitutes an act of nuclear terrorism? How likely is nuclear terrorism? What...
...“Is The War On Terrorism A War?”
The Global War on Terrorism is a military campaign that began shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. First used by George W. Bush, the phrase ‘war on terror’ has become to be conceptualized as a term used to signify ‘global military, political, lawful, and conceptual struggle targeting both organizations designated as terrorists and regimes accused of supporting them.” The war on terror main focus has been with Islamist militants and Al-Qaeda. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq are both considered to be part of the war on terrorism. There is much speculation on whether the war on terror is actually a war. This essay will argue that both points of view are valid. There are reasons which validate the war on terrorism as being considered an actual war such as the fact that an actual decelaration of war was waged by both the US and Al-Qaeda, it can be considered a new way of war, and that ultimately like war, terrorism is a mean to a political end. On the other side of the spectrum, it may not be considered a war because it does not have a clear end or possible victory, it does not have a confined battle space as regular wars, and it is a ‘war’ against an immaterial concept such as the wars on poverty, drugs, and crime.
There is an extensive amount of literature on the subject of terrorism and especially the war on terror. Mia Bloom...
...Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Perhaps, it is less oppressive in itself than through the effects of the precautions taken to protect its likely victims.
Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism of terrorism can leverage human fear to help achieve these goals. ...
Justifiable Terrorism in Total Wars
The word ‘terrorism’ instantly makes people shudder; the negative connotations and controversies surrounding terrorism in modern society are enough to spark a discussion of whether it is justifiable or not. In order to determine whether or not terrorism can be justified, a clear definition must be decided upon. Decades before the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, the definition of the word terrorism was hard to define. Political figures around the globe argued and disagreed on what they thought should have determined the act of terrorism.1 Now, there are multiple different definitions originating from distinct cultures and societies, suggesting that terrorism is in the eye of the victim. One definition of terrorism is “any violent or criminal act planned for a political or ideological purpose2”; while another claims that terrorism is understood to be a direct attack on innocents3. Since both of these definitions have important components to them, it can be assumed that both traits are essential to defining terrorism. For the purpose of this paper, the definition of terrorism will be understood as ‘a violent attack on innocents for the purpose of political change’. It can be hard for most people to...
April 16, 2012
Violence, Terrorism, and War
The world we reside in today is full of animosity, anger, and misconception which is what brings out the violence in people. Different elements formulate together to influence violence. One of the reasons is why it is necessary to commit the act. The top two worst kinds of violence are terrorism and war. They bring out the worst in everyone and are harmful to society. Both inflict anguish to not only the civilians and soldiers experiencing it first had, but also on the following generations to follow them. The novel Violence, Terrorism, and Justice states “Consequentialists, then, will doubtless stand out as much against contractarian views here as they do against natural law or Kantian ones” (Frey & Morris, 11). Does this reason justify the atrocities that have occurred and currently occur in the world should happen? We were taught as children to play nicely and be understanding of others, why should that idea be excluded from our mindset as adults? It shouldn’t be. It’s farfetched to say, but I believe that eventually the world can learn to live without hatred towards one another. People need to start to realize that or we will be the downfall to the end of all humanity on Earth rather than the end of the world 2012 epidemic. People need to come to the realization that regardless if they are fighting or in the country that is...