More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the definition of terrorism
Describe the nature of terrorism
Essays on the definition of terrorism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Throughout the 21st century, various politicians have attempted to define terrorism. Yet, terrorism is a broad topic and having searched for the true meaning of terrorism, the universal definition of terrorism does not exist. The UN Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004) gives a definition of terrorism as “criminal acts…against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons..” Also, the United States have defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code, Title 18. It defines and lists the crimes associate with terrorism . Section 2331 of Chapter 113(B), defines terrorism as, “activities …show more content…
ISIS is mainly made of Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria. Sunni and Shiites Muslims are the two major denominations of Islam. The U.S. president Barack Obama says: “Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group” (Contorno, 2015). The rhetorical analysis of Obama message is that he imposed airstrikes on ISIS, which some people agree with. However, others would argue that good speech and no action is meaningless and a waste of time and resources. Until now, the debate rages on. Obama’s approaches to fighting terrorism are only partially effective against ISIS, but there are possible solutions to it: Intensifying Air Strikes, Sending ground forces and Getting rid of the mastermind. Obama’s approach of limited airstrikes has not effectively worked. On September 10, 2014 President Obama claims:
These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory (White House press).
The president came out last year blowing his own horn on national television about the success of his foreign policy, which he knows that it is not true. The president knows that bombing one place of an enemy does not grantee total success. According to Defense analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “those American airstrikes amount to what he calls an ‘unfocused mess’ in both countries”
...ous statements it can be inferred that in some ways the Obama administration was like the Bush Administration in terms of foreign national policies. Obama also made poor choices by expanding on Bush policies that were already a dangerous jaunt from constitutional practices. Another thing Obama did was increase our expenditures by the billions, which can cause harm in his domestic reform agendas, and might lead to divisive and expensive foreign wars.
Byman’s first argument is that US drone strikes are extremely efficient in their purpose: eliminating high value targets in foreign countries that pose a threat to national security. He cities a study done by the New America Foundation, which found that “U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen” (Byman 1). Of these 3,300 militants, over 50 were senior leaders of either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Additionally, drone strikes indirectly hinder communication between terrorist leaders and their operatives. In an effort to avoid detection, many foreign militants have stopped using cell phones and other electronic forms of communication. Although the elimination of technology makes it harder to find high value targets, it also significantly impacts their ability to communicate, which reduces the amount of organized attacks. Without considering the cost of civilian casualties or other negative impacts associated with the drone strikes, it is clear that UAV drones have been effective in eliminating foreign threats.
Wesley Clark, a former United States Army General and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, states in his book Winning Modern Wars that “Defeating terrorism is more difficult and far-reaching than we have assumed....We may be advancing the ball down the field at will, running over our opponent's defenses, but winning the game is another matter altogether.” He also stated in the preface of the book “that the Bush administration had rushed us, pushed us, mislead, and manipulated us into war with Iraq with at the expense of the real war against Al- Qaeda.” Clark in writing stating this is essentially telling us we (The United States) have somehow overstepped our boundaries by acting in this “War on Terror,” and while he might have made a gutsy statement, he is correct. One would have to agree with Clark’s theory, our president, George W. Bush, who initiated the “War On Terror” essentially went into this war believing that armed forces were going to step into the terrorists backyard mow the lawn and come back home in one piece. Well, he was wrong, our troops have yet to come home and those who have did not come back in one piece; they came back with psychological bruises and others without their lives. Nevertheless, the impetus of this war was the lack of presidential checking that our Congress neglected to do. What caused it was that our former president, George W. Bush, unofficially expanded his powers as president, and acted impulsively rather than logically, which should have never and should never happen again. By discussing the original powers of the president as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as well as discussing how these powers have been changed, amplified, and taken advantage of during the “modern presidency” and ...
Categorical terrorism, according to Jeff Goodwin, is defined as “the strategic use of violence and threats of violence, usually intended to influence several audiences, by oppositional political groups against civilian or noncombatants who belong to a specific entity, religious or national group, social class or some other collectivity, without regard to their individual identities or roles.” More so, in terms of definition, according to a study done by Jeffrey Record in 2003, there was a count of over 109 definitions of terrorism, covering 22 different categorical elements. During the 70s and 80s, the United Nations struggled to define the term, finally coming up with the following definition: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
President Barack Obama delivered an address to the nation on the U.S. Counterterrorism strategy to combat ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) on September 10, 2014. The recent issue, which became the basis for this speech, has been President Obama’s response to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against diverse civilians. He delivered this speech to prove to the nation that he has an elaborate strategy along with several tactics to destroy the terrorist group. Obama described the ISIL in his speech by stating, “in a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they
In May 2003, President George W. Bush addressed the nation and announced an end to major combat operations in Iraq which resulted in the death of Saddam Hussein. His message touched on many issues in the ongoing war on terrorism but most importantly, it conveyed the fact that the United States would not tolerate the killing of innocent people. The President began by expressing gratitude to the men and women who have sacrificed for their country. He then proceeded to inform the American people of the work that had been accomplished in Iraq, Afghanistan, and neighboring countries since the declaration of war, all while substantiating the need for ongoing military presence in the Middle East. In addition to informing the nation, he attempted to ensure the safety of the American people and warn those with intentions to harm Americans or their allies.
The intended audience that this article is directed towards is the public. DeBrabander begins the article with him explaining how Barack Obama is ready to lead direct attacks on ISIS. Barack Obama has said we will put “no boots on the ground” in Syria. This immediately establishes the article as informal and personal. It is a great way to capture the reader's interest. DeBrabander is right away informing the readers the main concerns about this article. At the end of the first paragraph DeBrander states, "If any group deserves drone strikes, it may as well be ISIS."
It’s astounding how easy it is to forget that we are at war. Just recently, the Obama administration has declared war against ISIS. During his ISIS war speech, he refers to the enemy as “barbarians, terrorists and monsters”. He also promised to defeat ISIS, without the use of ground troops (Winsor). We do not like to watch our fellow Americans deployed to dangerous oversea locations. The President bashes ISIS and promises not to get completely involved with the conflict in order to gain support for the war. Unfortunately, his tactics are ineffective. A survey conducted by CNN shows that about 57% of Americans disapprove of how Obama is conducting his war on ISIS (CNN). Additionally, about 40% of Americans don’t believe we should fight ISIS
Unilateral use of force was one point described by President Bush as a means to combat terrorism threats. His message, straightforward and stern reassured the commitment of the United States to remove these threats. The uncertainty and apprehension of additional attacks on American soil resonated for some time after 9/11, Bush made it known that America would not tolerate anyone planning to conduct terrorist acts ...
On the daybreak of September 2011, 19 members of the Al Qaeda terrorist’s organization hijacked four commercial jets. Two planes collided into the infamous World Trade Center’s twin towers in lower Manhattan, and another crashed into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C (pg. 301). Al Qaeda, a terrorist was blamed for the attacks with verification from Osama bin Laden. During the attack Former President Bush was visiting my elementary school to support adolescents about their high performing test scores when America was assaulted. He immediately left to report back to his association to plan what to do about the incursion. Following the attack, Bush declared a global war against the assailment of Iraq. The Bush administration asserted that the operation was set in order to find and destroy Saddam Hussein and his allies (guardian.co.uk). System analysts proposed that any system, in reference to the Bush Administration had the responsibility to execute any suitable task for the situation at hand following the procedures mandated by Congress. This system is...
Within the world today, there are many organizations with varying opinions about specific ideals. But some of the organizations will take things to the extreme, and will do almost anything to prove that their view is the right one. This extreme act to further an objective is known as terrorism, but what exactly is a formal definition of terrorism? Frank Schmalleger defines it as “[a] violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state, that is committed to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (Criminal Justice Today, 2013 p.560). The American way of life and other aspects such as policy and the criminal justice system have been impacted by terrorism in many ways over the course of the twenty first century.
The night before the anniversary of 9/11 in 2013, Barack Obama delivered a speech to the United States of America on the subject of Syria’s inhumane use of chemical weapons on its own citizens. The United States’ intelligence analysts estimated that more than 1,400 civilians were killed due to the chemical warheads that were launched on the area right outside of Damascus. In President Barack Obama’s address to the nation on Syria, he attempts to persuade the American people to support his plan of a targeted air strike on Syria. By describing the victims of Syria, giving reasons for the inhumanity of the Syrian government, and reinforcing his credibility,
Plots have been disrupted. Terrorists like Osama bin Laden have been taken off the battlefield. We’ve drawn down from nearly 180,000 troops in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan to just 15,000. With a coalition of more than 70 nations and a relentless campaign of more than 16,000 airstrikes so far, we are breaking the back of ISIL and taking away its safe havens, and we’ve accomplished this at a cost of $10 billion over two years – the same amount that we spent in one month at the height of the Iraq
This situation Obama states the things we have to do in order to destroy Isil and be safe. He is keeping our military out to hunt down terrorists, providing training and equipment, and working with