Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Discouraging is not the same as stopping, and this initiative has little stopping power.
3)
According to the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism published in February of 2003, the first major objective in the nation's antiterrorism strategy is simply to defeat the terrorists and their organizations. This seems almost laughably simple, but victory against terrorism is difficult to define; the report itself acknowledges this and includes in its strategy efforts to "compress the scope and capability of terrorist organizations, isolate them regionally, and destroy them within state borders." Even defining when these disparate features have been met is difficult, and thus the strategy itself is somewhat ill-defined in many places. There are two primary objectives that carry more concrete meaning -- and more in-depth explanation -- in the report, but these are grand projects that themselves have ill-defined boundaries and murky understandings of true possibilities. Attempts to deny support to terrorists, through financial and material means as well as through the provision of sanctuary or even simple encouragement, are certainly warranted, but defining which organizations are terrorists is something that cannot be accomplished unilaterally if it is to have any meaning, yet multilateral...
The same can be said of the objective to diminish the conditions that terrorists exploit -- at some point, the level of control needed for this (regardless of the practical difficulties) becomes tyrannical and dictatorial, removed from terrorism only for its level of organization and official sanction.
4)
Especially in the beginning of this report, notably in the first figure presented, the increasing need for homeland security looks suspiciously like the increasing militarization of United States' society. This does indeed seem to be the almost overt stance of the authors of this report at times, though it is never explicitly stated as such. The level of civilian "support" it has been deemed necessary for the Department of Defense to involve itself in, however, is disconcerting. That being said, it is also clear that national security awareness needs to be raised, and that certain situations can increase the risk of a terrorist attack, and thus some extra military involvement in at least an informational manner is definitely warranted. A balance needs to be found between the provision of security and the presence of the military, however, and this report seems highly reactionary and extreme in its conclusions and recommendations.
According to the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism published in February of 2003, the first major objective in the nation's antiterrorism strategy is simply to defeat the terrorists and their organizations. This seems almost laughably simple, but victory against terrorism is difficult to define; the report itself acknowledges this and includes in its strategy efforts to "compress the scope and capability of terrorist organizations, isolate them regionally, and destroy them within state borders." Even defining when these disparate features have been met is difficult, and thus the strategy itself is somewhat ill-defined in many places. There are two primary objectives that carry more concrete meaning -- and more in-depth explanation -- in the report, but these are grand projects that themselves have ill-defined boundaries and murky understandings of true possibilities. Attempts to deny support to terrorists, through financial and material means as well as through the provision of sanctuary or even simple encouragement, are certainly warranted, but defining which organizations are terrorists is something that cannot be accomplished unilaterally if it is to have any meaning, yet multilateral agreement is often highly difficult to reach. The same can be said of the objective to diminish the conditions that terrorists exploit -- at some point, the level of control needed for this (regardless of the practical difficulties) becomes tyrannical and dictatorial, removed from terrorism only for its level of organization and official sanction.
4)
Especially in the beginning of this report, notably in the first figure presented, the increasing need for homeland security looks suspiciously like the increasing militarization of United States' society. This does indeed seem to be the almost overt stance of the authors of this report at times, though it is never explicitly stated as such. The level of civilian "support" it has been deemed necessary for the Department of Defense to involve itself in, however, is disconcerting. That being said, it is also clear that national security awareness needs to be raised, and that certain situations can increase the risk of a terrorist attack, and thus some extra military involvement in at least an informational manner is definitely warranted. A balance needs to be found between the provision of security and the presence of the military, however, and this report seems highly reactionary and extreme in its conclusions and recommendations.
This is to note that "Trinidad and Tobago alone account for 80% (1st quarter 2004) of all U.S. LNG imports, up from 68% in 2002. Therefore, any incident involving an LNG tanker along the Caribbean routes could harm not only U.S. energy security but also the economies of the Caribbean islands, affecting tourism and other industries." (Kelshell, 1) Such a trajectory has all the markings of an Al-Qaeda styled
Causes of Domestic Terrorism Advocates for political change and social concern are at the forefront of domestic terrorism in the United States. Domestic terrorism references groups and individuals based in and operate within the United States. Terrorism is noted as the oldest form of solving human conflict and was historically to declare war. The Federal Code of Regulations defines terrorism, a relevant term, as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against
The Kurdish Conflict: Originally, the PKK was established in the relative absence of any other peaceful alternatives to preventing anti-Kurdish brutality perpetrated by the Turkish government (Evans, 2007). In principle, the Kurds have a legitimate complaint for human rights abuses and political suppression by the Turkish government, but the tactics resorted to by the PKK have undermined the credibility of their demands notwithstanding their grounding in recognized concepts of human rights and political
Pictures on the news of American flags being burned seem to appear more often than they used to. Perhaps my generation just isn't used to having our nation criticized to the extent that it has been since our response to September 11; we all know there have been anti-American protests in the past, that flags have been burned and protests against certain American military endeavors waged. Anti-Americanism has many definitions
Attacks on Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center had similar historical events surrounding each attack. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and George W. Bush used similar policies to combat further attacks and unite the nation The paper highlights the entwined American reactions to the September 11 attacks and the Pearl Harbor attacks. The paper illustrates the similarities in which the over-prevailing backgrounds of each event created reactions to the devastating measures that
Richard Reid Richard Reid, better known as the "shoe bomber" has nearly eight charges held against him. He was arrested as a result of his efforts to demolish a commercial flight using bombs concealed in his shoes. Richard was born in London in 1973. He had a Jamaican father who was in prison for a majority of his childhood. The early separation of his parents reflects family dysfunctionality. Even though he