Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
how to reduce terrorism
social and political changes after 9/11
social and political changes after 9/11
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: how to reduce terrorism
Terrorism in today’s society has shaped the way Americans live. Post 9/11 actions and policy decisions as a result of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as it pertains to securing the nation have been the focus modern American politics. From the creation of the Department of Homeland Security to the Patriot Act, terrorism has made its way into every American home. In an article written by Giorgio Amgaben, he claims that this overbearing sense of security in fact acts as a catalyst for the modern state to become a terrorist itself. In addition, that a modern state’s reactionary policies to terrorism have taken place over policies to prevent terrorism through diplomacy. In this paper I will describe a claim made in Agamben’s …show more content…
From this claim the author believes that a nation whose number one priority is security, may in fact, create policies that make the state a terrorist itself. Through this idea, Amgaben believes that nations should no longer look to the creation of reactionary policies, but rather preventative measures to stop terrorism before it happens. These claims shed light on the fact that many countries don’t prepare for terrorism. They merely react as a result of terrorist acts being carried out by organizations whose policies and ideologies misalign with that of the state. Furthermore, because of this misalignment, reactionary policies put into effect by nation states in fact make the state a terrorist. Instead of solving the problem, Amgaben believes these policies merely make the problem …show more content…
The problem of terrorism doesn’t lie in the failure to stop it diplomatically, but rather in a fight against ideology. In the case of America post-9/11, the American government faced a new enemy. That enemy was a radical ideology that waged war on the ideals and values of the American nation. Amgaben’s claim misperceives terrorism as a democratic political body in that these terrorist organizations will “sit at the table” to discuss their issues. When in reality, the modern day terrorist doesn’t care about diplomacy, but merely the destruction of the American ideals. As a result, the creation of protectionist policies in the United States isn’t creating a “terrorist-like” state, but rather a state preserved to the protection of its
Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
Kash, Douglas A. “An International Legislative Approach to 21st-Century Terrorism.” The Future of Terrorism: Violence in the New Millennium. Ed. Harvey W. Kushner. London: Sage Publications, 1998.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 led to a lot of pressure from the public to find those responsible and bring them to “justice”. In order to do so, President Bush declared a war on terrorism just a few days after the attacks, but little did he know that this very decision would also bring devastating consequences to many countries. Over time, people have been losing faith in the war and in its purpose. Consequently, countries whose economies have fallen under the Military Industrial Complex have manufactured a societal fear against Muslims and jihadists. 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.
The topic of my paper is types of terrorism. There are several types of terrorism for which to choose for my paper, state, dissident, religious, left-wing v. right-wing, and international. In this paper I have chosen state terrorism, religious terrorism, and international terrorism as the types of terrorism that I am going to discuss. I will discuss what they are in my own words and give examples of two different groups for each type that represent that type of terrorism. Then I will compare and contrast the three types of terrorism that I chose.
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
During the 21st Century acts of domestic and international terrorism have significantly increased. Thus the international community of nations has the challenge to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime. The challenge at present is for the international community of nations to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime (Lawless, 2008). In fact, terrorism is an international crime it requires the international community to act in the prevention of terrorism and the sanction of individuals perpetrating acts of terrorism(Lawless, 2008). The September 2011 attack on the United States has presented an opportunity for the internationalist forces to come to the forefront of the global political agenda. ...
Terrorism is a troublesome theme. Its clarification might be one-sided by political suspicions and social preferences. Strategy producers and specialists differ about their hypothetical points of view. At the very least, there are three techniques to deal with terrorism: large scale sociological, mental, and psychosocial. Since the first two methodologies have gotten more attention in the past decades, this paper will examine the third approach, which has increased increasingly devotees in the course of recent years. Those specialists who subscribe to a full scale sociological methodology view terrorism as an impression of different social dysfunctions or conflictive patterns in the societal framework. In general, terrorism has been linked
"Revolutionary terrorists use violence as a tool to invoke fear in those in power and their supporters."(2) The goal for these terrorists is to implicate a government that would be more compliant to their needs. By using methods such as kidnapping, assassination, and bombing, revolutionary terrorists hope to provoke in...
Dershowitz, Allen. Why Terrorism works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Inc.: USA, 2002. Print.
Terrorism Definition: Shedding tears at the rural Shanksville, Pennsylvania 9/11 memorial while listening to the heart wrenching air phone calls from heroic passengers on Flight 93 to the answering machines of their loved ones, not only provides a deep emotional understanding of the tragedy of terrorism, but also provides renewed appreciation of the importance of international cooperation required to combat terrorism. Fundamental to creating and sustaining an international coalition to fight terrorism is an understanding of what constitutes terrorism (Ganor, 2002). The United Nations and other international organizations have struggled to develop an accepted definition of the term “terrorism” because one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter (Ganor, 2002).
The coordinated attack September 11th 2001 on the United States resulted in a prolonged war on terror; that is still active today. Many people are asking how this could happen. Others want to know how to prevent it from happing again. Some wonder if world peace will ever be possible. The United States does not think peace can be possible until the threat of terrorism becomes obsolete. There is no clear answer to the questions and concerns over terrorism although there are several schools of thought on how to respond to terrorism. This paper will discuss; realism, liberalism, and structuralism in an attempt to find a solution. I will offer Foreign Policy recommendations based on these theories; an examination regarding the application of these theories will show advantages and disadvantages of each, as well as how the United States applies them to combat and eliminate the threats of terrorism today.
Since the end of the Cold War, dramatic emerging shifts in the focus of international relations, from the world superpowers, have veered to that of terrorism and counterterrorism. Terrorism and in/direct threats to the order of international stability of sovereign states did not come to the forefront of significance and study until the 20th century with the events occurring on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and the U.S. Pentagon. Immediately following these traumas, there “began a reorientation in foreign policy towards weak and failing states” (Skuldt, n.d., p. 1). The world of academia has traditionally focused on international relations as a discipline, with a sub-categorization on foreign policy. Historically, terrorism was not study specific. Focus on foreign policy allows for further exploration of policy analysis, theory and prescripts; however, the study of terrorism has been dotted through these areas disallowing the formulation of a concise framework for analysis. Because of these factors, building theories that focus on the connections between the two subjects has been difficult; and yet, in our current global society, they are critical. “Terrorism has [in fact] become a mode of doing politics” (Skuldt, n.d., p. 2) and can no longer merely be a subset to other areas of research and analysis.
...must abandon his policy of real politik and must initiate cooperation and interdependence as new policy in order to overcome the new global threat called terrorism instead of staying isolated. Second, people in the United States see “Jihad “as the possible factor of violence.In fact, many think that “Jihad” can lead to violence because of the perception that smaller States (Muslim) have to fight in order to remain culturally independent of bigger and developing States that impose norms. Also, people in the United States believe that “Jihad” as an extreme nationalism, may bring or enhance terrorism and may contribute to the destruction of traditional values and morals.
On September 11, 2001, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the mindset and the opinion of nearly every American on the one of the most vital issues in the 21st century: terrorism (Hoffman 2). Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a perverse method of political change, one must first begin to understand what terrorism is, where it is derived from, and why there is terrorism. These issues are essential in America’s analysis of this phenomenon that has revolutionized its foreign policy and changed America’s stance in the world.