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. If for instance, the state attacked does not possess the willpower, resources or support from other states, then what happens to the state? CONCLUSION Terrorism is one of the most complex cases in the international world today. It is carried out by a minority group trying to make their beliefs known to the government with the main aim of getting rid of the government to start a new regime; so it can be argued that it is a means to an end, it is using tactics (laid out plans) to ensure that the strategy (which implies taking over a government and starting a new regime). It is not all states that possess the willpower and ability to get back up after they have been attacked by terrorist.
To me, terrorism is the use of violent actions to provoke fear or terror in a population for the purpose of spreading a message. I agree with Moeller in that terrorism is distinguished from other forms of violence in that “The victims and the intended audience of a terrorist act are not the same,”1 and “the psychological impact of a terrorist act is intended to be greater than the physical damage caused. The goal of terrorism is to send a message, not defeat the enemy.”2 Additionally, in regards to Moeller’s questions of whether terrorism is a tactic or ideology, terrorism is purely a tactic among many others, not an ideology at all. I do not believe that actions can be crimes or acts of war. Those are purely interpretations of those reacting to events.
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. The negative effects stated by Schaf in my view strengthen the argument even more. It gives terrorist organization legitimacy in the eyes of the state and this is precisely what most terrorist organizations are aiming for. Furthermore it forces terrorist organizations themselves to finally follow a criteria that would that would deem them important and legitimate with certain right while simultaneously distancing them from attacking civilians. Schaf made a big point about how any military personnel or installation would become fair game.
My proposal is that the United States should take minor precautionary measures in order to prepare for future terrorist attacks and gather research in order to learn more about the enemy and dangers they will face. However, taking away civil liberties of various immigrants or citizens, as well as bypassing previously established laws and procedures should not be enacted except in the most dire circumstances. Works Cited Glasser, Susan B. "U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise in Terrorism."
Bobbio offers the observation that politics is contradictory and paradoxical, since it often includes unavoidable broken promises. Postmodern political thinkers like Foucault put forth the idea that power among the hands of the state is both suspicious and dangerous. In discursive political theory, there must be an open communication of ideas and reason between citizens, but many critics, like Schumpeter and Sheldon Wolin, argue that open dialogue in modern democratic practices is vulnerable to fears and concerns of citizens. Inclusionary democracy prevents the tyranny of a few to withhold political rights to citizens and calls for acceptance of rights for various social and racial groups in order for equal representation in the political process. However, various groups have challenged the success of democracy to fully represent citizens’ rights because of its divisive nature.
Nevertheless does democracy actually decrease the opportunity and scope of terrorism as well as do democracies and republics become a minor target of the existence of terrorists as compared to non-democratic states and elaborates that what occurs to a democratic regime or a state next it is targeted by terrorists? The one more basic question which arise that do the core and basic values of democracy tend to be greater and little necessary in these types of consequences as well as how to overcome and face with these all stuff. These are certain stimulating and applicable questions, as democracy is at the core of the values of the Western domain. It is therefore vital to get much nearly the role of democracy as well as terrorism. The objective is to gain an understandable concept and model about terrorism and role of democracy, or to appeal consideration to the wider political significances of terrorism.
In exchange for better protection of the citizens, the citizens must be willing to also give up or abridge certain rights, the problem being the United States founded on freedom. Another issue is h... ... middle of paper ... ...made to others that oppose the United States. It is certain that changes need to be made in the areas of domestic policy, foreign policy, and the military. However, the answer to terrorism is not an easy one. The United States has already created a catch 22 situation with the middle east by its obsessive intrusion into the affairs of the middle east which is the main reason that terrorism has rose to what it has today.
Although these reasons may seem convincing, Sardar has attempted to establish a false causal connection between the actions of the ordinary people and the prevailing problems being faced. In fact, ordinary people are not really terrorists as the author claims in his article. The Oxford Dictionary defines terrorist as a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims (Oxford English minidictionary, 2006, p. 576). Sardar points out that terrorists often have a legitimate grievance for their actions. Comparing this with the ordinary people, he argues that people are motivated by avarice and dominance in our right to control the World; however, this is a hasty generalization.