When President Bush called Americans to enlist in his "war on terror," very few citizens could have grasped the all-encompassing consequences of the proposition. The terrifying events of 9/11 were like a blinding flash, benumbing the country with a sudden knowledge of unimagined dangers. Strong action was recommended, skeptics were silenced and a shallow sense of unity emerged from the shared vulnerabilities. Nearly three years later, the enormity of Bush's summons to open-ended "war" is more obvious. It overwhelmed the country, in fact deranged society's normal processes and purposes with a brilliantly seductive political message: Terror pre-empts everything else.
Consequentially, this means that all humans have this element in our ... ... middle of paper ... ...ay lead to our ultimate undoing. Humans have an innate propensity for our own annihilation; however it is an element of mankind that will never change. Despite this, we can only do our best to minimize the impact this has on our world. Avoiding a Nuclear Holocaust should be priority number one; it would not only lead to mass destruction but also the destruction of our environment. As brutal as this may sound, anyone who survives this will most likely regret doing so.
The terroism on September 11th is a scare similar to many throughout history - the scare known as moral panic. Moral panics begin when events occur that distrupt the lives of many Americans and cause a great amount of people to feel threatened by an internal enemy; an secret enemy or group hidden deep down in their society. Foreign terrorists that kill innocent people without feeling the slightest bit of guilt fit this description perfectly. In a short time, moral panics can easily lead to government abuse of power. According to the article we were asked to read, "How an Elite-Engineered Moral Panic Led to the U.S. War on Iraq," An examination of presidential... ... middle of paper ... ...hing to do with terrorism and in my own opinion is a huge waste of time and resorces - but we won't even get started on that.
By comparing Andreas's and Hertsgaard's piece to President Bush's speech, the criticisms against Bush become very accurate and clear. Acting out of arrogance and anger is not always best, going to war to show off is definitely wrong and hurting innocent people by using of violence and intimidation with weapons can definitely be classified as terrorism.
The Qur’an says that Muslims cannot kill themselves because they will not go to paradise. However, fighting and dying for one’s country makes them a hero. Suicide bombers of that time, and still today justify their actions using the excuse that they are fighting for their country (MacEoin 15-24). One may wonder how you become a suicide bomber. Many people think that these men ... ... middle of paper ... ...culture is completely unhealthy for anyone, and will only breed future problems.
On the local level, each of us has the obligation to refrain from provocative remarks that embolden and reinforce the bigots' view that we are engaging in a war against a particular culture or religion. Whatever contributions economic or political injustice may have on the support for terrorist regimes, those organizations ultimately thrive on a zealotry borne of group thought. This is evident in the terrorists' calls for all people of a certain group to take up a jihad against the 'infidels' who cannot claim the same group membership. In contrast, the battle that the United States is now waging is not directed at any group except for the people who commit mass murder under the influence of group identity. Americans are individualists at heart.
Pakistan, is not like us. They’re communities are ridden with terrorist operations, their idealism threatens the very foundations of security we are built off of and their very culture is so heterogeneous from our own that the differences lead to justification. Justification of what the U.N. is now considering a potential war crime, the drone strike. The U.S. middle eastern foreign policy has been a fan of drone strikes for a long time, no risk of losses on our own side, no risks of pilots tiring, just smooth calculated killing of the gravest threats to national security. However the drone strike is not a perfect weapon, it is said that for every one terrorist killed, fifty civilians are killed by accident.
No more killing! Peace on earth!” Who doesn’t want these things? Do they think that the soldiers fighting for our country want to experience the horrors of war? Of course not, but if we do learn anything from history, it is that the human race will never stop waging wars on each other. People will inevitably die at the hands of war and the best that we can do is protect our troops at all costs, destroy the enemy, and spare as many civilian casualties as possible.
Many of the American people, as well as Congressman, had the same questions that Bush had addressed, and they were clinging to Bush’s every word in hopes of shedding light upon what occurred during this tragic event. The questions were very well sought out, as it allowed President Bush to control the speech in a way that would imply immediate action be taken, as opposed to a more cautious approach. Bush implicated Bin Laden and his associates of Al Qaeda, and gave some information about the victims of the act of terrorism. This plan of action would have a double purpose. The first and most obvious was the simple distribution of the information to the American people.
The appalling attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001 were without doubt the trigger of dramatic changes. The global spread of insecurity upon public perception tended to restructure those existing mechanisms intended for providing national security. The US, as a prime targeted nation by that kind of terrorism, recognised the porosity of its borders and subsequently detected existing loopholes in terms of migration policies. In fact, the investigative results from 9/11 terrorist acts put in evidence significant weaknesses in terms of border security and migration. Precisely, the aim of the current paper is to evaluate the most notable effects that the 9/11 terrorist attacks generated in terms of border security and migration policies in the US.