U.S. officials criticized the broadcasts and asked American networks not to air them unedited. Yet the tapes continue to air in many Arab and Muslim countries, where experts say bin Laden has been particularly effective at playing upon anger over Palestinian grievances in their battle with Israel, a major U.S. ally, for land and statehood. At the same time, the U.S. message--that the war against terrorism is a justified response to the September 11 attacks, and isn't targeting Muslims or Arabs--is getting buried beneath videos showing civilian casualties from the bombing campaign in Afghanistan, and the back-and-forth attacks by Israeli troops and Palestinian gunmen. When National Security Adviser Condeleeza Rice spoke on Al Jazeera, the report was followed by pictures of Israeli tanks rumbling through a Palestinian village. But the U.S. is trying to improve its record in the information war.
They all fall within the definition we outlined in class, for example; the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh falls within the second component we outlined as terrorism against civilian targets. I really had to read this section two or three times especially with the destroying of the abortion clinics by Rev. Michael Bray, and on some level I was understanding why he had committed the criminal act but as I thought about it, the destroying of the abortion clinics was more of a political objective then all religious which Bray tried to come
In the article The Gaza Crisis, by Phyllis Bennis, she makes the claim that Israel violated international law when attacking Gaza since Israel knew that scores of the civilian inhabitants within Gaza would be injured or killed. Bennis also makes the argument that the United States was complicit towards the Israeli attacks. The author states that everyone reading this piece of writing ought to get in touch with their congressmen, their local and state governments, start petitions, and to criticize the brute force in which the Israelites have used against Gaza, illegally. The author anticipated this paper appealing to a large audience of citizens sympathetic to the Palestinians. Bennis is making an appeal to the world, and it does sound like
“The Detention Scandal” is an editorial taken from the America magazine. In this article, the authors show how national security is used as an excuse to keep the prisoners on the Guantanamo Bay. The authors try to prove how the fear of terrorism has blinded the U.S. government that it has made them deny the basic human rights. Everyone sees the wrong doings in Guantanamo Bay and knows it needs to be shut down but the fear of government to lose their “suspected” enemy combatants make it impossible. The authors use the different components of persuasion throughout the article.
No matter what one’s ideology is, some will blame a chamber of Congress, the other will blame the White House. It is clear that both used the proletariat masses as hostages to make the other side to capitulate because of their unnecessary suffering because of their willingness to throw a wrench in the cogs of the federal Government. In this day and age, partisan politics is just as much as a societal scourge as racism, sexism and other types of prejudicial strife. It is seemingly that the Founding Fathers intended to use a form of conflict theory that would keep American society in check. What has been called, “Checks and Balances” is indeed a form of conflict theory.
For the left it seems all quite paradoxical, and hypocritical: the Administration denounces Salvadoran guerrillas for blowing up power stations and attacking villages, while at the same time it supports Nicaraguan guerrillas who are doing the same thing only a few miles away. But the idea that intellectual honesty requires one to be for or against all revolution is absurd. You judge a revolution, as you do any other political phenomenon, by what it stands for. Suppose you believe that justice was on the side of the central government in the American Civil War. Does that commit you to oppose the Paris Commune of 1870 or the Hungarian revolution of 1956?
For the progress and prosperity to prevail, the foremost requirement is peace in the country. Several militant groups still putting resistance and cause many incidences of violence, murders, killings and destruction of property in the country. All this required to be stopped, so that the humanitarian aid agencies, can resume the process of rehabilitation. It was the time when new constitution was taking place, every faction in Afghanistan must realize that any attempt by any of the factions and militant groups would again put the country in turmoil and all the sacrifices and hardships faced by the country will result in civil war. The elections due in June 2004, had given a chance to each group to assertion if through democratic process.
In his view, when is it justified? Che Guevara responded by saying that violence is justified because those who hold power unjustly respond only to violence as a tool for change. They will not willingly relinquish power unless shown that the people will overwhelm and destroy them. I disagreed vociferously, citing Peru and Guatemala as places where violence had been used and failed, only further impoverishing the nations. Che Guevara explained these failures as the inevitable outcome of the revolutionaries losing sight of their original moral goals.
Humanitarian intervention and the spread of human rights can be recognised as progressively challenging the nation based order of the order and adjusting it to embrace universal values and individual human rights. The international realm has persisted to stress the significance of non-intervention, however, it is arguable that military involvement must be legalised in disregarding the sovereignty rule in cases where states have succumbed to civil disorder or when a regime massively infringes its citizen’s rights. As the United Nations prohibits war, excluding self-defence and united action with the approval of the United Nations Security Council, humanitarian intervention produces major dilemmas for the international realm which is established on nation rights such as sovereignty, self rule and the rights to non use of force. Presumably, sovereign nations behave as defenders of their civilian’s protection, however, many human rights activists assert that nations are allowed to act aggressively towards their own population, regarding sovereignty as their authorisation for abuse. Spurring vigorous debate among theorists is the issue as to whether totalitarian nations should be acknowledged as genuine member of the international community and provided with the protection of the non intervention standard, or whether they have forfeited their sovereign rights and ought to be exposed to legitimate intervention.
Our government should be able to temporarily restrict our liberties for the well being and safety of all its citizens. The liberties that we have give us power such as freedom of speech this right I and of itself is a powerful authority. Freedom of speech can reveal government secrets and possible weaknesses that can be used to destabilize the government. We as humans know that surviving is a priority and that to survive we will do anything like reveal secrets to gain sanctuary from another country to survive the wrath of other countries. This can be true with Snowden revealing secrets.