“A terrorist is one who sows terror,” says Elshtain. She means that the victims of terrorist attacks are subjected to terror, or great fear. The purpose of subjecting a group of people to such fear varies but usually aims to destroy the morale of a people in its attempt at some religious, political, or ideological goal. Crucial features of inducing terror are its randomness and its attack on civilians as opposed to combatants. This elicits fear in every person because they are afraid for their personal safety in their day to day lives, as opposed to fearing only for our soldiers. To determine who is a terrorist, we must ask who they are attacking. Do they mainly target combatants in the field or bases, do they try to destroy military equipment and are they open to negotiations? If so, we should not label them terrorists for simply being enemy combatants. However, if they are deliberately targeting noncombatants with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible, they are clearly terrorists.…
Given the growing global threats of terrorism, it is significant that an understanding of the history, nature and mechanism-premises under which terror operates is obtained. This is significant as it would shape the perspective of policy makers when addressing issues of this nature. Terrorism, as it is understood is the action of none-state weak actors, individual or groups, who for some reasons feels suppressed, marginalized and, or denied what they may view as the basic human right. All terrorism has political objectives, even though the perpetrators may use religious relics to appeal to a wider existing audience, and invoke a response through violent act to prove or propagate their point. Yoram Schweitzer in "Suicide Terrorism Development &ump; Characteristics," Mark Sedgwick in "Al-Qaeda and the "Nature of Religious Terrorism," and Dr. James Armstrong, all demonstrates that suicide terror attacks are politically motivated even though the perpetrator may use religious symbolism to justifies their acts.…
Terrorism beams into our homes through television screens, it assaults us in newspapers and magazines, and it sometimes touches our lives in more direct manners. People do not seem to worry about the definition of terrorism at such times. They simply feel terror when they see the violence. Sometimes it seems as though the event itself defines terrorism. For example, when a plane is destroyed by a bomb, it is frequently called terrorism, but when military forces shoot down a civilian aircraft, it can be deemed an unfortunate mistake. The United States may launch missiles at a suspected terrorist base and claim it is defending national interests. Yet, it may condemn another country for doing the same thing in another part of the world. Dual standards and contradictions lead to confusion any time the term terrorism is employed.…
Presently, one of the argumentation for drones are its cause and effect, and one being how many civilians actually end up becoming terrorists after an attack (Drones-procon.org). Jeremy Scahill, an author, states, “ The vast majority of militants operating in Yemen today is "people who are aggrieved by attacks on their homes that forced them to go out and fight". As can be seen, our drone intrusions are destroying people's homes and families, that their hatred towards the U.S. is completely justifiable. Ordinarily speaking the United States are killing fewer terrorists than they are fabricating, and only producing motivation for multiple bombings as well as killings in response…
In recent headlines a drone strike in North Waziristan (near the afghan border) killed sixteen Taliban militants. In a report later published by “Dawn” an English language newspaper in Pakistan the drone launched a second strike on the camp while rescuers were trying to save any survivors. While it is not known whether the rescuers were hostile or not the CIA launched the second missile and killed three of the search team members. This apparent collateral damage happened in the wake of CNN publishing an article on the recent decrease in civilian casualties during drone strikes. After hearing about this I researched the percentage of deaths (militant and civilian) in Pakistan, the number was eye opening a staggering sixteen percent of people killed during drone strikes in Pakistan were non-combatants. To me this means that the US and NATO have “murdered” hundreds of civilians for the “greater…
However, the idea that the drones would annihilate the terrorists without harming anyone else is not as simple as it sounds. The operators who fire missiles onto the other side of the world are making an imperfect guess because most drone strike targets are very difficult to access to outside observers (Speri, 2014). Furthermore, although some drones have targeted Al Qaeda leaders, many of them have been strikes against individuals with unknown identity whose behavior model apparently connected them to terrorist groups (Shane, 2012). Regarding these points at least 1,100 civilians have been killed during the war and more than 200 of them were children (The Bureau, January 2015). The death of civilians may result in negative backlash effects, creating strain and anomie, and reducing the legitimacy of those fighting terrorism. Strain theory suggests when people of a society treated unfairly or they suppose that they have been treated unfairly, they violent crime results. In this case, more terrorism may be a response (LaFree and Ackerman, 2009). The terrorist propagandas against the U.S. and the government of Pakistan that cooperate with the U.S. in conducting strikes makes less these administration less legitimate. Consequently, people who were law-abiding would be more likely to obey social controls stimulating them to retaliate the attacks. This means although the drones apparently are killing terrorists, they are simultaneously creating more extremists and…
In late 2009, the United States military was given the authority to initiate drone oriented airstrikes in Yemen by President Obama. The airstrike left 14 women and 21 children dead, in which only one of the dozens killed had strong connections with terrorist militant groups. The military’s use of…
How does this world cope with terrorism? Terrorism is an unfortunate evil that can affect many people, but in the end, it can also unify this world by bringing people together as a whole. We have all seen the affects of how terrorism is full of destruction. Our world is overwhelmed with problems that need to be dealt with in many different ways. There are many places that are consumed with darkness, and terrorism is part of the hate-filled darkness we have experienced in today’s world. The Middle East is a place where acts of evil are continuing to evolve and are strengthening in places like Iran and Syria. Terrorism has crept into innocent parts of our world. Terrorist acts are problems we are facing in our modern day, and it affects our…
Some claim that drone strikes killing innocent civilians is leading to more people joining terrorist organizations to fight western powers. While this may be true the terrorists will always have a battle cry against western and foreign powers. The terrorists claim that those who uses drones are "cowards" and it is shameful we do not send our soldiers to fight them. However if you look back to a decade ago in Iraq when we did have Marines doing night raids in villages searching for IED's and those that make them , we did not have the best public image either. During these raids the doors would be kicked in and soldiers would pile inside and line up and separate the women and men to search and interrogate the men of the homes about terrorist activates. This happened late at night and could cause terror to innocent civilians in the sanctuary of their own home. A man being yelled at by an American Marine in front of his wives and family is shameful and demoralizing in their culture and these men could still be detained even for having too much wire around the house making him a possible bomb maker. The main objective of these raids were in hopes to have terrorists take fire at U.S soldiers on the ground in order to allow U.S personnel to engage under their proper rules of engagement. Also in Iraq there we videos leaked of U.S marines unloading rounds into a mosque after being frustrated and a famous video, released by WikiLeaks, of an Apache Helicopter attacks that allow you to hear U.S soldiers begging for permission to engage individuals that had ,what appeared to be, a RPG and other men with AK-47's. After sending ground soldiers in to secure the area shortly after a child was found injured and sent to a hospital by the Iraqi Army. Reports later found out these men were journalists for Reuters and that what they had slung over their…
What is the price of freedom? To the United States, it is protecting its borders from threats foreign and domestic with as little casualties as possible. The United States military has been using a method that reduces threats and minimizes American casualties to virtually zero. Since 2004, American forces have been using new technology in drone warfare to eliminate believed terrorists with unmanned aircrafts in Pakistan. It seems like there can only be positives for the world with terrorists dying and no human cost. Drone use does have its negatives and one major downfall is the human cost. The use of drones has taken a toll on the people of Pakistan physically and mentally. Many innocent people have been affected, hurt, and even killed from U.S. drones. The United States believes it is protecting their people but in turn can be creating more hatred and future terrorism by the prominent use of drone warfare.…
Since 2004 the United States CIA has been using Pakistani military base for drone attacks. From the articles and some of my own research it appears to be an underlying critical question in the analysis of drone attacks. Has the United States really violated Pakistan’s sovereignty? I believe that technically at least by book definition the United States has in fact violated Pakistan and Yemen’s sovereignty. The United States is now involved with the multiple attacks in Pakistan and Yemen and is looking for other military bases to hold more drones. It appears as though there is some scrutiny concerning the fact that there are multiple accusations from both sides. The CIA is imposing on sovereign Pakistani lands and yet we hear that Pakistan has allowed much less invited for the United States to interfere on the War on Terror. In my opinion the situation sounds like a battle for land and weapons. The CIA does not want to give up their drones to the Pakistani because they suspect militants will take it over. Yet Pakistan not only wants hold of drones but want also the return of their military base. The drone war should be called the “who wants power war”. I believe that the CIA has violated the sovereignty of both Yemen and Pakistan and it has more than extended its welcome in their military bases. The United States should for once stand behind enemy lines; act as an accomplice to Pakistan and Yemen.…
Although the United States foreign policy concerning terrorism has changed and results can be seen, it is often agreed upon by politicians and citizens alike that terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism, is still a major threat to the United States. However, after the most successful terrorist attack on American soil was carried out on September 11th, 2001 the United States strayed away from the ideals of our founding fathers and has become much more of an aggressor. I believe that many of the flaws with our current policy to fight and win the war on terror lies with moving away from the United States of America’s traditionally isolationist policies. Our current policy is in stark contrast to President George Washington’s belief which he stated in his farewell address in 1796: “The great rule of conduct for [The United States of America] in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible” (Avalon Project). To defeat terrorism, the United States must move back to ideals that kept us safe and free for so long by reestablishing moral authority and the ideological appeal of the American way rather than by force with our military.…
What causes a Terrorist to be labeled a Revolutionist or a Revolutionist labeled a Terrorist. Today’s society usually uses the terms interchangeably; when one begins to talk of revolution, they are normally labeled as a terrorist. A terrorist is normally labeled a terrorist by their enemy, but a hero by the people they fight for. Is it possible that a person who has been labeled as a Terrorist to actually have good intentions for those he fights for? Is it possible they are labeled a Terrorist only due to the fact they are fighting a revolution? A Terrorist corresponds with a Revolutionist, because a Revolutionist is someone who fights for a belief and in war terror is always there.…
Extremist groups around the world have perpetrated terrorism as a means for religious or political goals. These acts of violence are targeted at densely populated cities. This is done to leverage human fear to achieve the main goal of the group. One of the most infamous terrorist attacks was the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001. Since then, U.S. policies have changed and have also contributed to the propagation of terrorism.…
I was quite saddened by the event that took place on September 11, 2001. An unfortunate tragedy occurred in New York that will go down in history. Two airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center, causing them to collapse, injuring and killing thousands of people.…