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.
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.
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.
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."
The U.S. would maintain public hatred on the Middle East and terrorism, and by keeping the public in fear they could control the public that way. The government created an enemy, also known as terrorists, to unite the American people against that enemy, and they will become people that the U.S. will control at will. This is part of the reason why the government was able to pass an act called the Patriot Act. This act allows the government to deny your Bill of Rights if there is any suspicion of you being a terrorist. The government does not have any guidelines on what they consider to be a terrorist; therefore everyone could potentially be called a terrorist.
Cases like the 1999 apartment building bombings in Russia (or other cases like the attacks of September 11 or terrorist attacks during the first and second Intifada), show that countries derive the policy objectives of the terrorist groups responsible for such acts from the consequences of these attacks and not from their stated goals. Target countries will consider the death of their citizens as proof that the terrorists want to hurt the society and the public even though there might have been further underlying reasons and are thus disinclined to enter into cooperation or make any concessions.
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.
This paper looks at how America has changed its stance on the privacy debate. The target of the hijackers September eleventh was not the World Trade Center nor was it the Pentagon or the White House. The intent of the attacks was more than murdering innocent Americans and destroying billions in property. Instead, it was an attack on symbolic monuments of American culture: pride, security, stability, democracy and prosperity. When the terrorists struck September eleventh, their aims were to change American society from one that prided itself on its continued fight for civil liberties to one where the populace is willing to sacrifice those very ideals and liberties to create a faint veil of security and, in this regard, the terrorists were successful.
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.
One intention of a terrorist organization may be to provoke a counter reaction from the government, to increase publicity for the terrorists’ cause, and to demonstrate that criticism of the regime is well founded. The terrorists mean to force the state to show its true repressive face, thereby driving the people into the arms of the challengers. September 11, 2001 was an excellent example of this. After the attacks, Americans were outraged and emotional. Action had to be taken to revenge the lives lost and to ensure our national security.