Brett Daniel defines these two in a simpler way; strategy is often called the ‘what we want to accomplish’ while tactics is referred to as the ‘how we are going to accomplish it.’ From the above definition, terrorism is a tactic used by a group of individuals to advance their beliefs and gain more power within a state (strategy). CONCEPT OF TERRORISM Since the 9/11 event, terrorism has been becoming more rampant and violent in nations of the world. Getting to the bottom and providing a solution has also been increasingly difficult and one of the main reasons is the lack of a confound definition. “Terrorism in the most widely accepted contemporary usage of term, is fundamentally and inherently political. It is also unavoidably about pow... ... middle of paper ... ...errorist attack known as 9/11, as a state, they came out stronger nation with strategies in how to not only defeat terrorism but help other states overcome and stand against attacks.
Now that Sinn Fein has the ability to achieve objectives through political means, it is no longer part of the IRA; although, some still view them to be the political wing of the IRA. (2) This strategy can easily change once again, should the objectives become more di... ... middle of paper ... ...otherwise be extraordinary acts of desperation becomes a religious duty in the mind of the religiously motivated terrorist. This helps explain the high level of commitment and willingness to risk death among religious extremist groups. The Hezbollah view the West as “the Great Satan” and the foremost corrupting influence on the Islamic world today. This militant group does not view the suicide bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut as an insane act,(5) but as martyrdom against the evil ways of the West.
The book, The Lesser Evil, is a chilling realization focused at the policy makers that respond to terrorism. The ultimate question Michael Ignatieff attempts to ask is whether democracies are strong enough to handle the dangers that threaten these institutions and whether or not they are absolutely committed to defend them. Ignatieff begins his book by telling the readers that democracy’s answer to defeating terrorism not only requires violence, but may also require coercion, deception, secrecy, and violation of rights. He then asks how can democracies resort to these conclusions without destroying those values, which that nation stands for. The first section of this book attempts to draw a line between a wholesome libertarian position maintaining that the abuses of human rights can never be justified and a solely pragmatic perspective that judges antiterrorist measures by their efficiency.
This is due to limited membership and a lack of resources. This makes terrorism morally distinct from war, because of its implicit and deliberate use of fear towards a group(Scheffler,2006,p15). Terrorists aim to spread fear amongst a broader population in order to gain a political advantage(Goodin,2006,p49). This suggests that global attention and publ... ... middle of paper ... ...on-democratic regimes around the world. Pogge(p13) reinforces this by pointing out unjustified moral appeals and assertions on both sides, such as Bush claiming that “America must defend freedom against the enemies of freedom”.
Lastly it makes it harder to successfully pursue, prosecute and convict accused terrorist. A legally binding definition will thus give a clear understanding of what is being targeted. It is hard to come up with a legally binding definition because terrorism is a very subjective issue. The United Nation has found it difficult to achieve such feat precisely because each state has a different opinion in what they believe constitute terrorism. As George Bruce states in his article Definition of Terrorism: Social and Political effect, “Social structure and order, governance of society and politics are dependent on good communication, and good communication requires agreement on definit... ... middle of paper ... ...ot only gives states the ability to prosecute the terrorist under war crime laws but it also regulated the tactics a state can use in combating terrorism.
This is a dialogue between Andrew who opposes terrorism ideation and Fayed who supports terrorism ideation. This paper argues that the subjective stereotyping performed by various governments makes it appear as if terrorist factions are always on the wrong while these governments go on killing mercilessly in the name of democracy and maintaining national integrity. The Terrorists Tacit Message Argument Fayed, it is clear that prior to September 11, 2001, terrorism was just but a flawed ideation that could only operate in limited capacities. They had little funding and their capabilities were limited to the funds they could get. This made it hard for these factions to cause global mayhem, especially in countries like the United States (Saleem and Thomas 15).
As a result, they are now being stigmatized and portrayed as the enemies of democracy, and of the United States in particular. To make matter worse, it has driven western countries to implement many extreme security measures that undermine the democratic principles they are attempting to spread over the world. The war on terrorism has had many negative consequences on modern society, which include a legitimization crisis of democracy, mainly in the U.S, and the manufacturing of moral panics over security risks that have led to the criminalization and stigmatization of the Arab world. Chomsky and the Heritage Society take opposing views on the issue of the war on terror. Noam Chomsky argues in the article ““Looking Back on 9/11: Was there an Alternative” that by rushing into this war, the U.S just fell into bin-Laden’s trap of forcing them to engage in many expensive wars that would drive them to bankruptcy (Chomsky).
Every consideration of terrorism begins by discussing its definition and apologizing for doing so. The discussion arises from the commendable urge to know what we are talking about, the apology from the reasonable expectation that the complexity of the subject will defeat our efforts. Discouraged from defining terrorism by its complexity, we are urged by its monstrous character to get on with the job of combating it, whether we understand it fully or not, leaving the niceties of definition for a quieter time. This may particularly be the prejudice of so-called men of action. But we cannot take their advice, for, as we have just noted, how we define terrorism will determine how we combat it.
This problem is a direct result of the “gray areas” that make it difficult to tell the difference between a common crime and a political crime. It combines the two acts into one, blurring the line of distinction (Anderson). The government being attacked sees it as a common criminal attack on its sovereignty, while the terrorist sees it as a legitimate means to an end. The government behind which the terrorist is trying to... ... middle of paper ... ...d for. Bibliography Anderson, James H. “International Terrorism and Crime: Trends and Linkages.” James Madison University.
Thinking on Some of the Links between Terrorism and Criminality." Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 30.12 (2007): 1095-107. Medina-Mora, Eduardo. "Organized Crime: The Dark Side of Globalization." (n.d.): 1-3 Rothe, Dawn, and Stephen L. Muzzatti.