Effects Of Inside Terrorism By Bruce Hoffman

The book “How Terrorism End; Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns”, written in 2011 at the height of Al-Qaeda, the most well-known international terrorist group of our time. The author of this work, Audrey Cronin, at the time of print, served as a professor of strategy at the United States National War College in Washington D.C., and a senior associate at Oxford University’s Changing Character of War Program. Both positions allowed her to impact strategic policy making in the execution of the Global War on Terror by allowing her access to senior military and civilian policymakers. Her previous area of her prior work has been mainly focused on international terrorism with an emphasis on al-Qaeda. She has authored

Since the events of 9/11, drone strikes have become a tool for the United States as it fights a global war against terrorist organizations. The advantages and disadvantages of this particular counterterrorism option continue to be debated. Instead of sending in warfighters to achieve specific objectives, many argue that unmanned combat aerial vehicles provide the U.S. military and government with low-risk and low-cost options as it engages in military operations in other regions of the world. Compared with manned fighter aircraft, some of these unmanned vehicles are able to fly longer without stopping, which affords the U.S. with better intelligence collection and targeting opportunities. Even if the aircraft were shot down, there is not

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

Caleb Carr is stressing that terrorism is never the answer throughout this chapter and I presume, the rest of the book. This is clearly shown in him saying "for just as meeting the tactics of terror in kind will only perpetuate the cycle of terrorist violence.." As for whether or not the affect of Roman warfare can be applied to today's governments in training people that are not of their own, it can be. Carr begins to explain this when he says "There is an irony concerning most of those rebel leaders that also holds enormous implications for our present experience..." (p. 37).

Wherever anyone goes, anyone is vulnerable to Terrorism. Terrorism exists as an incredibly horrific and violent act, and it affects everyone that goes through it and people watching news and reading newspapers. The effects of terrorism can be extremely dangerous; sometimes it can even be deadly. “In the last of a couple of years around 50 terrorist attacks have been in the United States and Around 200 in the world” (Barrett), just last week there was an attack on the London bridge. ISIS even has claimed that they planned the attack. For anybody that doesn't know who ISIS is they are a terrorist organization that people say " They are upon extreme than Al-Qaida or any other terrorist group in the world"(Tran). Terrorism affects the world in so many ways, and it isn't pretty. As People that travel a lot read the

Technology is changing the way humans complete certain tasks. Whether it be communicating with others, or using navigation tools for directions, technology affects everyone in some way or another. In fact, technology is changing the way our government fights wars with other countries and terrorist groups. Drones have become one of the most sought after pieces of military equipment in the last decade. They have become one of the many important tools our government uses for counterterrorism policies in the United States. Recently, these defense mechanisms have received a great deal of public attention, which has stirred up much controversy. Many people, including government officials and politicians, question the necessity and ethics of drones

National terrorism has been the focus of attention since September 11. But now domestic terrorism is becoming increasingly common among hate groups across the nation. Domestic terrorism can be defined as visible crime, or “street crime.” These acts would consist of violent crimes, (acts against people in which injury or death results) property crimes (acts that threaten property held by individuals or the state) and public order crimes. (acts that threaten the general well-being of society and challenger accepted moral principles) It can also however be described as political crime, (criminal acts by or against the government for ideological purposes) which would include the 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

After 9/11, the U.S started to implement policies intended to combat terrorism in hopes of preventing further attacks and bring those who were involved to justice. One such policy that the U.S started was to implement the heavy use of drones- unmanned aircraft capable of bombing specific targets. These drones would be controlled by a pilot remotely from the U.S, thousands of miles from where the strikes were taking place. The U.S used these drones to assassinate suspects who were believed to have been linked to terrorism as well as various targets that were deemed to be associated with terrorism, such as weapons factories. Currently, however, there is a debate on the legality, morality, and effectiveness of drones. One side sees the drones as effective at destroying targets while at the same time, minimizing civilian casualties. On the other hand, the other side believes that drones are reliable for

One reason why drones are such an obvious future trend is they weaken terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban. During President Barak Obama’s term, an estimated 3,300 terrorists have been killed including 50 senior leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (Byman 32-43). By March 2011 33 Al Qaeda and Taliban members killed and from 1100-1800 insurgent fighters (Sluka 89). Three hundred and fifty drone strikes have been made since 2004 (Cronin 44-45). Among the terrorist casualties, one stands out. A Drone strike killed Al-Shabab, killer of 74 in a soccer stadium bombing in Uganda (Klaidman 38-44). A Drone could have prevented the bombing of the soccer stadium before it happened, but the US called off a drone strike because of the

While the debate over the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts has intensified, the arguments, both for and against their usage, although informed by plausible logics, are supported primarily by anecdotal evidence and not by systematic empirical investigation. This lack of attention is unfortunate: unmanned aerial vehicles, and

Warfare is an ever evolving aspect to human nature. Throughout human history, man has always invented new ways to kill one another. With the new current war on terrorism this idea still holds true. With recent advances in robotics, mankind has developed a new type of warfare. This new type of asymmetric warfare is fought against individuals that do not wear a uniform or have a sponsored country. This condition has made for a new type of weapon system to fight this type of warfare. These new weapons to fight the current war are called drones. “These drones provide a real time solution for the new faster paced warfare” (Rienhart). There is a lot of debate on the current use of drones in warfare and if they should be used to kill. Some of the debated topics include: success rate, civilian casualties, legality, cost and the lack of human boots on the ground. The drone has provided an answer to the new high tempo of the current war and is having “great success on disabling the terrorist networks around the Globe” (Rienhart). This is why our country must continue to use and develop our drone program to stay ahead of our enemies and take advantage of this new weapon.

Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.

The Sageman-Hoffman debate is between two very pronounced scholars of modern terrorism; both men have impeccable credentials and experience in dealing with terrorism today.

We define terrorism as using force to influence or change a political decision. Given that there may be an array of situations the U.S. government and the American people are faced with on a daily basis, most would probably agree in saying that terrorism is the most imperative issue we are not only becoming victims to, but are interminably asked to deal with as well as finding a solution for.

The United States reckons that drones allow the U.S. military workforces to be safer. UAV’s are launched from bases in allied countries and are controlled remotely by navigators stationed in the U.S., which reduces the threat of injury and death that would transpire if ground soldiers and airplane pilots were used during combat instead. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups usually work in far away locations where it would be exceedingly hazardous for the United States to deploy special force teams to find and arrest terrorists. These searches may pose severe dangers to U.S. soldiers due to the threat of their being land mines, suicide bombers, unforgiving environments, involved in these confrontations. Drone raids remove all of the risks that are common with “boots on the ground” missions.