Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Terrorism in international relations
Terrorism in international relations
terrorism in the pursuit of political aims
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Terrorism in international relations
Is it Terrorism to Attack Terrorists?
Terrorism is politically motivated violence intended to intimidate and terrify.
When U.S. embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania, Washington decided to
retaliate. On Aug. 20, 1998, the U.S. launched military strikes at what they believed were
terrorist-related bases in Afghanistan and Sudan. They believed these groups played a key
role in the embassy bombings. Some believe that retaliation and a show of force are acts
of self-defence that will eventually result in the destruction of terrorism. Others believe
that this attack was merely a demonstration of power and brute force against the Afghan
people.
The U.S. has formulated many points to justify the reprisal attacks in Afghanistan
and Sudan. They claim that terrorist acts, such as the bombing of the U.S. embassies,
should not go unpunished. The mounting threat of terrorist attacks on American targets
must be controlled. These murderous factions have untenable goals and unlimited bombs,
and they must be stopped before terrorism gets out of hand. U.S. allies supported the
bombings and described them as part of a global effort to combat terrorism. This act
shows terrorists that democratic governments will act decisively to prevent their evil
crimes. The bombings were necessary to send a message that terrorist attacks would not
be tolerated and to try to prevent further violence.
Conversely, some argue that the U.S. is committing international terrorism
themselves. The United States regularly uses violence for political motives, to intimidate
and terrify, which is the exact definition of terrorism. The bombings in Afghanistan and
Sudan were called anti-terrorist raids, but they were actually acts of terrorism by the U.S.
themselves. These bombings are not self-defence as the U.S. claims because the attacks
on the embassies did not pose an immediate danger to the country itself. Some even
claim that these U.S. hostile policies are an act of war against a sovereign country.
If the U.S. principles of retaliation were to be applied to other situations, then all
around the world there are countries that have a perfect right to bomb Washington. For
instance, there were reports that a Miami-based organization was involved in bombings
in Cuba that claimed civilian lives. According to U.S. justification, Cuba would have the
right to drop bombs in Washington. But these principles of retaliation only apply to the
strong, and it states that the strong are allowed to attack the weak and defenseless any
time they want.
In response to terrorism, further terrorism is not authorized. According to the UN
Charter, it is clear that this use of violence is blatantly illegal.
...artments from surrounding townships came to help out. Terrorism only coordinates the United States with its citizens.
Terrorist attacks are a major crisis for a state, the attacks can’t only damage the state physically but they can also have an impact on the state’s economy. Nevertheless, state leaders must act accordingly and do their best to defend and protect their state. After experiencing the attack on the American embassies the President of the United States proposed a plan to have military intervention in both Iraq and Syria. The plan requires both Congressional and public approval along with the requirements brought by Just War Theory. As Crawford noted on “Just War Theory and the US Counterterror War,” no matter how bad war might be, it is necessary for there to be rules that can help prevent more harm. Thankfully, the proposed plan to go to war against ISIS can be justified on these moral grounds.
The Darfur-Sudan genocide and the Holocaust are just two of the many mass killings of certain groups of people that have taken place all over the world. The Holocaust was the persecution and extermination of Jews, Gypsies, handicapped people and homosexuals (Holocaust). The leader of the Holocaust and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (the Nazis) was Adolf Hitler (Holocaust). He rose to power in Germany in 1933 (Holocaust). Ghettos and concentration camps were set up to isolate all who the Nazis did not qualify as “pure” (Holocaust). The Holocaust took place between1939 to 1945 (“Introduction”). The Darfur-Sudan Genocide began in 2003 and is still going on today (“Darfur Genocide”). A militia of government-supported people called the Janjaweed has been killing and destroying villages of non-Arab people (“Darfur Genocide”). Al-Bashir general of the National Islamic Front has been leading the persecution (“Darfur: A History” 18). The Holocaust and the Darfur-Sudan genocide are similar in that both their countries and leaders had the same economic status and mind set, however they are different in how the United States and other countries’ were involved and the type of war that was going on during them.
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
... another state with the mindset of hopefully improving the overall atmosphere. Although intervention will always be in question, whether or not intervention is just an excuse to invade, with the creation of this resolution and the topic in discussion, most likely intervention will result it positive outcomes. One of the biggest contribution to successful interventions is the intention the state has going in. If the intention is to hopefully resolve conflicts and to intervene peacefully, meaning an unlikely possibility of military enforcement, intervention will be successful.
As a response to these September 11 attacks, many countries, including Middle Eastern countries (with the exception of Iraq), criticized the attacks offering support and unity to the United States. The United Nations Security Council also criticized these attacks and claimed that it is necessary to take all the steps which are needed to response and fight against all types of terrorism in accordance with the United Nations Security Council’s Charter. (US News Center) The United States’ response to these attacks was expressed in a form of the Presidential foreign policy doctrine; the Bush Doctrine.
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 ...
· Authorizing more than $1 billion over five years for federal, state, and local government programs designed to prevent or deal with terrorists.
The U.S. may use the principle of international law known as the "doctrine of belligerent reprisals," which overrides any security assurances to wh...
A discrepancy exists given that although this is regarded as unlawful, the use of veto power exempts them from being held accountable. Western states hold these actions to be morally legitimate, however, it violates their state sovereignty. This is evident in the case of the United States invasion of Iraq and Syria. Consequently, Bellamy acknowledges that the responsibility to protect has been abused. Adam Branch discusses American perspective of morality over International law using the events of Kosovo. The military intervention was deemed to be morally justified by the American government, while other states believe it violated state sovereignty. It seems as a Western cultural arrogance to engage in humanitarian intervention as there always has been this notion of ‘white’s man burden.’ Branch argues that at the end of the Cold War and the Gulf War marked the beginning of two important trends that were to define UN military intervention. First, the “legitimacy of military intervention through moral claims were privileged” and second, the role of the Security Council (104). Branch notes the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect has no legal standing and does not hold states accountable. I agree with Branch’s overall argument that the responsibility to protect is limited by existing
Throughout Northern and Central Africa ethnic fighting and mass genocide has run rampant. Clashes between, diverse ethnic and cultural people has caused instability, these mass humanitarian disasters that can no longer be ignored. With the help of other nations South Sudan can go from another mass genocide waiting to happen, to a region supplier of much needed resources, with the help of other nations. In the 1990’s Rwanda genocide was basically ignored by the United States government and because of this hundreds of thousands were either killed or injured in the area. In the early 2000’s the war in Darfur, created a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Darfur's non-Arabs. Again thousands of Africans were killed and the United States government and the American people ignored genocide.
In Western Sudan, there is a current mass slaughter and rape of Darfuri men, women, and children. As of today, over 2.8 million people are displaced and 480,000 people have been killed. This act of genocide is being carried out by the Janjaweed; government-armed and funded Arab militias. And although the systematic murder, rape, torture, looting, polluting water
September 11, 2001 had fashioned a substitute doctrine to the cold war when President George Bush declared “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”1 Ever since that declaration was made 9 days after Al-Qaeda attacked New York, the United States acted unilaterally on many occasions2. It flew tens of armed drones into Afghanistan, Pakistan & Yemen. The U.S. Special Forces killed and captured scores of terrorist inside sovereign countries. American agents snatched suspects off the streets of harboring capitals and brought them to face justice in the U.S. The most spectacular of these operations was operation Neptune Spear, conducted by the
They decided to go against the Arab government. The government, in retaliation did not directly attack these rebellious groups but instead targeted the non-arab tribes in their region, no matter if they were civilians or rebel forces. This is where things go far left. The government then released Arab militias known as the Janjaweed to carry out attacks on villages and communities. The Janjaweed attacks were extremely brutal and violent. These people would kill or severely injure people, burn down homes and villages, steal or burn any food plus livestock and poison water wells. Not only were the Janjaweed attacking these innocent people from the ground, the government would attack civilians from the sky. They would attack these people with aerial bombs causing havoc in villages. (Darfur Genocide) This ongoing conflict going on in Sudan was declared a genocide by the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on September 9, 2004. Following the on February 18, 2006 President George W. Bush demanded more Darfur international troops. On September 17, 2006 the British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote a letter to the European Union members calling for a response to the
They were aided by hired Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, and targeted the “non-Arab black Africans”—minorities of Sudan’s Darfur region. Labeling the Sudanese government’s actions as genocide has been controversial, but the ruthless, one sided killing portrays these human rights violations as a genocide. “Eyewitness accounts describe how Sudanese government forces and Janjaweed militias swept villages on horse or camel back, wielding automatic weapons and firing indiscriminately at civilians. Homes, grain stores, and crops were destroyed, while women, children, and the elderly were whipped, raped, tortured, and, in some cases, ultimately murdered” (ABC Clio). The needless violence of the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias shows how this massacre was not just an action of self-defense or fear, but hatred. Not only were the victims killed ruthlessly, but they were also “whipped, raped, and tortured.” The overexertion of violence and the destruction of personal valuables shows how the slaughter of the non-Arabs was deeply rooted and personal. The hatred of minorities in the Darfur region caused the mass slaughter and destruction of the Arab culture. “In the late 1980s, a coalition of Arab nomads initiated attacks against Fur (a tribe) sedentary farmers after the latter began fencing in land” (ABC Clio). When the Fur tribe began to become prosperous from farming their land,