The distinction is more than merely rhetorical. For all our necessary emphasis on what we're fighting -- Islamic terrorists bent on the destruction of the West and the establishment of a new caliphate -- we cannot forget what we're fighting for. In March of 2003, the president and a bipartisan congress insisted we needed to invade Iraq in order to thwart Saddam's plans to develop WMD and outsource it to Jihadi surrogates. The nuclear WMD risk was, and remains, a perilous impending threat, though significantly reduced with the removal of Saddam's regime. But seasoned intelligence and national security analysts would argue that our ultimate objective -- to establish an Islamic democracy in the cradle of the Islamic world in order to protect our vital national interests -- is as critical, if not more so today, as it was in 2003.
Over 6,000 lives, most of them American, have been lost because of his actions. Many Muslims have now been given a stereo type of being “violent terrorists,” just because of the alacrities of a handful of extremists. Due to bin Laden’s interfering with the United States, they abortively invaded Afghanistan, punching a dent in President Bush’s presidency, and throwing the economy into turmoil. Any hope of returning to the former lifestyle that Americans had once enjoyed has been long dissipated. Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that he founded in the early 1980’s, has been encouraging other minor terrorists to take action, making the world an over-all more dangerous place to live.
The media, politicians, advocacy groups as well as the FBI are steadfast in claiming that the only rational explanation is that of the individuals falling prey to the aggression inciting video game. In short, the violent video game made them do it. One might be reminded of the Salem Witch Trials, where no educated explanation can be derived, those which cannot defend themselves, no matter how far-fetched the reasoning, is the obvious answer. Religious and political dogma has run rampant. The media have created unnecessary fear and moral panic to legitimize their personal agendas under the guise of “protecting children”.
Erin Delaney March 3:30 MW The Mind of the Militia Peter Doskoch’s The Mind of the Militias talks about the different violence groups around the world and the thoughts people have about them. Doskoch is trying to show the difference between homegrown militias and terrorist groups by talking and giving the different examples of why they have different reasons for committing the various violence acts. He talks about how for the homegrown terrorists their intentions are not as harsh because they might just trying to be noticed. In the end terrorist groups have a much more serious intentions to hurt people because it is what they have been taught about their whole lives. Don’t further Empower Cliques In Bernard Lefkowitz
Nowadays when one sees a Muslim or someone who looks like a Muslim, that person is automatically deemed as either being dangerous or a terrorist. This fact comes to tell how far the world has come to. The 9/11 attacks changed the people’s perspective upon Muslims and now the stereotype is that all Muslims are bad and that they are all terrorists looking to kill innocent Americans. The next reason as to why the attacks were a success was due to the support that al-Qaeda got from different organizations and countries. They got financial support from countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria.
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
The Real Effects of Torture “If we are unwilling to torture, we should be willing to wage modern war.”(Harris). This quote is from the article “In Defense of Torture” where author Sam Harris makes a stance stating that torture should be legal. Throughout this article Harris makes comparisons between the lives of innocent people and the lives of terrorists and other war criminals. His main point of argument is that dropping a bomb on a foreign country creates collateral damage killing some innocent people along the way, and that collateral damage is more detrimental to a foreign country than torturing people for information. Harris provides a good point of argument with these examples, however, this argument is flawed.
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 real challenge to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and its medieval, terror-laden theology, has come not from the West’s war on terror but from the Arab Spring, from the revolts that have shaken the region from Tunisia to Egypt to Yemen to Syria. The desire of the peoples across the Arab world for democratic change has not only humbled autocrats, it has also marginalized the jihadists who have played no part in the popular movements. These uprisings, and the hope that they engender, will transform the world far more than will bin Laden’s
This may be too soon to use but I believe that the events that has transpired since the Boston Marathon Bombing is a great current ethical dilemma. With events like this individual emotions take over and it can be hard to do the ethical things when your personal feelings of hurt, hate and the unknown are present. The nature of a dilemma in the case of the Boston Marathon Bombing is do we kill the suspects out of anger and because we can, or do we capture, arrest and let the arms of the justice system take over and predict the outcome. It would have been just as easy to shot and kill both suspects in this horrible event. And after learning that a law enforcement officer was gunned down is enough for an officer’s personal emotional feelings to take over and