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
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
The analysis over Crawford’s definition for Just War Theory can reinforces the statement above. Crawford’s argument talks about the prevention of greater harm as long as “moral judgments about right action [are] rooted” toward each particular component of the definition. However, it was noted that Crawford’s conclusion about terrorist wasn’t completely true and excluding them from the Just War Theory was more complicated. Byford uses different arguments to explain the difficulty of excluding terrorists as states. Within his comparison there are different war times when states acted as radical as terrorist but we never labeled them as
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 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.
In Module one, I learned that terrorism is a result of physical harm or deadly acts of force with the intent of a political outcome by the use of terror for coercion. There are various types of terrorism such as international terrorism and domestic terrorism. International terrorism occurs outside of the United States with a purpose to influence the policy of a government by intimidation. International and Domestic terrorism both involve violent acts dangerous to human life that violate federal and state laws. Domestic terrorism occurs within the United States with the intention of coercion or intimidation by way of mass destruction, etc. Some forms of terrorism include Improvised explosive devices (IED), kidnappings, suicide bombings and
Rational choice is based on the belief criminals act in a rational way. Rational choice could be related to terrorism when you understand how terrorist acts, their beliefs, and their actions. Terrorism happens when there are suitable targets, motivated offenders, especially without strong ties to the community, such as those who are unemployed, and absence of guardians such as the police, which would be explained by rational choice theory (Anderton & Carter, 2005). Like other forms of violent crime terrorist attacks are usually carried out by young males (Silke, A. 2003). This is important fact to know for law enforcement to know who to target. A Rational choice view of terrorism has certain factors to consider such as timing, international
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.
The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as
Yet, in addition to these shocking transnational attacks, domestic terrorism seems to be underemphasized although it causes more casualties and greater damage than transnational terrorism in the long term. Democracies are among the countries suffering from both domestic or transnational terrorism and their long term consequences. In particular, Turkey, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Italy suffered from domestic terrorism for many years and still struggle with the damaging consequences. Yet, while some democracies are targets of terrorism, it is not a problem for all democracies. This phenomenon raises the research question for this paper: Why are some democracies targets of terrorism and others are not?
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.
Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks, but instead the result of partisan advancement. Acts of terrorism have been around throughout the evolution of mankind. Terror attacks have even been traced back as far as the religious roots of an ancient middle east (Ross, Will Terrorism End?, 2006). However as man evolved, so did terrorism. Today’s extremism involves some of the main characteristics of ancient terrorism, but much more developed. Political advancement is no longer the root cause of terrorism acts. Instead influxes of “holy” wars have been appended the prior definition of terrorism. Mistakably modern terrorism has been confused for Political violence with political objectives, but research will establish that the nature of terrorism is fundamentally different from other forms of political violence.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
In this world there are many different topics of controversy. With every controversial topic comes different views and arguments explaining why people believe what they do. There are problems that can be just within one country or throughout the entire world. Terrorism affects everyone in the world, specifically us as Americans, which is why it is one of the biggest controversial topics. Of course with a topic as big as terrorism, there are emic and etic perspectives involved. With past history, there are specific countries and religions that we think of when we hear the word terrorism, specifically Afghanistan, located in the Middle East and the Muslim religion in that general area. Being part of the American