Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Terrorism in international relations
Terrorism in international relations
terrorism in the pursuit of political aims
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Terrorism in international relations
Is it Terrorism to Attack Terrorists?
Terrorism is politically motivated violence intended to intimidate and terrify.
When U.S. embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania, Washington decided to
retaliate. On Aug. 20, 1998, the U.S. launched military strikes at what they believed were
terrorist-related bases in Afghanistan and Sudan. They believed these groups played a key
role in the embassy bombings. Some believe that retaliation and a show of force are acts
of self-defence that will eventually result in the destruction of terrorism. Others believe
that this attack was merely a demonstration of power and brute force against the Afghan
people.
The U.S. has formulated many points to justify the reprisal attacks in Afghanistan
and Sudan. They claim that terrorist acts, such as the bombing of the U.S. embassies,
should not go unpunished. The mounting threat of terrorist attacks on American targets
must be controlled. These murderous factions have untenable goals and unlimited bombs,
and they must be stopped before terrorism gets out of hand. U.S. allies supported the
bombings and described them as part of a global effort to combat terrorism. 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. These bombings are not self-defence as the U.S. claims because the attacks
on the embassies did not pose an immediate danger to the country itself. Some even
claim that these U.S. hostile policies are an act of war against a sovereign country.
If the U.S. principles of retaliation were to be applied to other situations, then all
around the world there are countries that have a perfect right to bomb Washington. For
instance, there were reports that a Miami-based organization was involved in bombings
in Cuba that claimed civilian lives. According to U.S. justification, Cuba would have the
right to drop bombs in Washington. But these principles of retaliation only apply to the
strong, and it states that the strong are allowed to attack the weak and defenseless any
time they want.
In response to terrorism, further terrorism is not authorized. According to the UN
Charter, it is clear that this use of violence is blatantly illegal.
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.
The 1996 fatwa issuance was followed up with a 1998 issuance of a 2nd fatwa which was a restatement of the original. During this same year two US Embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania. The death toll of these two attacks was 301 people with over 5,000 injured (Hellman.)In response to this President Clinton authorized the use of cruise missiles to strike terrorist targets including training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan. An ...
that the CIA were the masterminds behind the whole deal. They had the motive and power to do
...t civil liberties. The Executive Order 9066 in 1942 and the passing of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 both prompted claims of civil liberties violations. Overall, when the country is invaded, National Security trumps civil liberties.
Terrorist attacks are a major crisis for a state, the attacks can’t only damage the state physically but they can also have an impact on the state’s economy. Nevertheless, state leaders must act accordingly and do their best to defend and protect their state. After experiencing the attack on the American embassies the President of the United States proposed a plan to have military intervention in both Iraq and Syria. The plan requires both Congressional and public approval along with the requirements brought by Just War Theory. As Crawford noted on “Just War Theory and the US Counterterror War,” no matter how bad war might be, it is necessary for there to be rules that can help prevent more harm. Thankfully, the proposed plan to go to war against ISIS can be justified on these moral grounds.
with ideas they oppose. In this kind of situation, the protection guaranteed to American citizens
I found two other ideas, which the “Gentleman” propagated, interesting. Firstly, the idea of self-defense is evil that is based on the philosophical justification that life is most precious and that if one were to kill, it would be hypocrisy. The “Gentleman” essentially argues that any nation cannot defend itself without killing, and thus is unable to j...
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
... another state with the mindset of hopefully improving the overall atmosphere. Although intervention will always be in question, whether or not intervention is just an excuse to invade, with the creation of this resolution and the topic in discussion, most likely intervention will result it positive outcomes. One of the biggest contribution to successful interventions is the intention the state has going in. If the intention is to hopefully resolve conflicts and to intervene peacefully, meaning an unlikely possibility of military enforcement, intervention will be successful.
The treatment of Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor was unjust and created by prejudice. When President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, and when it was decided that Japanese people were a threat, the basic human rights of Japanese Americans were taken away. In the future, every human being must never face imprisonment for their race, religion, or heritage. The basic rights of all Americans must be protected in the future to prevent internment camps from becoming a reality
Response to terrorism. FreeRepublic, LLC, 10 Febuary 2001. Web. 5 Apr. 2014. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/537799/posts.
Unilateral use of force was one point described by President Bush as a means to combat terrorism threats. His message, straightforward and stern reassured the commitment of the United States to remove these threats. The uncertainty and apprehension of additional attacks on American soil resonated for some time after 9/11, Bush made it known that America would not tolerate anyone planning to conduct terrorist acts ...
After the withdraw of Egypt and Britain, Sudan has been run by a number rickety / unstable government groups and milit...
· Authorizing more than $1 billion over five years for federal, state, and local government programs designed to prevent or deal with terrorists.
For instance, UN representatives from the Sixth Committee had collectively advocated for a legally binding definition of terrorism; however, the majority of countries had insinuated that terror acts are carried out by individuals or non-state groups – not the state (United Nations, General Assembly: GA/L/3276, 2005). The assembly had representatives from Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Algeria, Sri Lanka, China, United Arab Emirates, San Marino, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burkina Faso, Belarus, Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey, Brazil, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Sierra Leone and Japan. Within the assembly only two countries, Sudan and Libya, had spoken against all actors of terrorism, including state-terrorism; both of which had recently experienced state led