Kerry And Rubio's Arguments

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para

The horrific events of that day definitively answered Linenthal’s question, the scale and scope of the 9/11 attacks understandably pushing the 1995 bombing from center stage. The 9/11 attacks, by their very destructiveness, helped to relegate the Oklahoma City bombing to a side exhibit in the national memory—to somewhere in the background of Linenthel’s “landscape of violence.” The 9/11 attacks were larger, far more deadly, and committed by a more faceless, harder-to-comprehend enemy, whether defined as Al Qaeda or more broadly as violent Islamic radicals in general.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Many people growing up in the area felt that war against one another was right and affective. Though they have been devastated by war in the pass, many do not know anything different. It is a cycle, if having war and violence is something child and adults are used to having, then it will always be in their blood, they will always want to try and hurt one another. ”As terrorism becomes normal, it becomes acceptable. It grows into a routine.” For the most part the Arab children felt as though war was more important than then Jewish child. “Nearly all the Arab children, 94 percent, said that

Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to

There are different elements clarify why terrorism is ethically wrong, regardless of the possibility that different types of murdering are every so often passable. Notwithstanding, terrorism slaughtering considers whether the utilization of different sorts of fear for political as opposed to military use makes terrorism altogether off-base. A few good qualifications that may be critical to the ethical quality and reasonable portrayal of terrorism are incorporated.

For these reasons, historians of terrorism normally work with a wide definition, and social scientists do so much of the time. But philosophers may well prefer a narrow definition. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of (what one considers) an unjust and oppressive government, and planting a bomb in a tea shop and killing a random collection of common citizens, including children. While both acts raise serious moral issues, these issues are not identical, and running them together under the same heading of “terrorism” will likely hamper, rather than help,

Terrorism can be defined and viewed in many different ways. As discussed in “Terrorism and Political Violence,” by Alex Schmid, there are multiple frameworks in which terrorism can be defined (Schmid 2010, 197). In Schmid’s article, he discusses the five ways he feels terrorism can be looked at, terrorism as/and politics, terrorism as/and crime, terrorism as/and warfare, terrorism as/and communication and terrorism as/and religious fundamentalism (Schmid 2010, 197). This is interesting because it explores the concept of terrorism in different lenses, where each has its own motives, its own background and its own participants. This is important to understand because not every act of terrorism is done in the same light and for the same purposes. Just as any other crime, there are reasons behind the act. When studying terrorism, understanding motives makes all the difference, and understanding what is at stake for the attacker or the attacked helps fully conceptualize the matter.

The term has expanded immensely during the twentieth century to include any type of political violence that an observer does not agree with; thus contributing to the confusion and the murkiness of the meaning of the word. The media and Politicians are quick to label any violent enemy as terrorist. Deeming any act of violence that one disagrees with as terrorism cause the term to lose its meaning and become a highly contextual and highly subjective. Some acts of violence are portrayed as terrorism by certain media outlets and this notion of legitimate is resisted by others. Confusion further depends by the fact that researchers and governments have more than one hundred working different definitions for the term terrorism. Critics believe that another contribution to the media’s confusion is the need to get the news first which can lead to inaccurate reporting and misrepresentations (Tuggle, & Huffman, 2007) or “blatantly false pretenses” (Greenwald,

Over the last 13 years, since the attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the world has been exposed to the global threat of extremist ideologies. Service men and women have had a firsthand view of the breeding grounds and environments such ideologies are harbored and developed. With the drawdown of the war in Afghanistan, the global war on terrorism will not end. Instead the focus will shift to other dangerous parts of the world where extremists have already become established; places like Somalia in the Horn of Africa. The weak government in Somalia has fostered an environment conducive to the development of extremist ideologies. This is evident

It is necessary to examine the historical context of Muslim terrorism in the United States to understand the evolvement of Muslim extremism today. Juergensmeyer (2003) supports this stance by stating that contemporary acts of violence are influenced by historical violence perpetrated in the religious past. The assumption could be made that Muslim extremism in the United States is a more recent phenomenon; on the contrary, this is not true. By understanding history enlightens to where foundations and structures were built to support Muslim extremism and terrorism activities that exist in the United States today.

When one is coming to understand terrorism and all of its components, a generally accepted definition is hard to come by because it tends to be described through the “subjective outlook of the definer” (Ganor, 2002). This idea has best been described as saying that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Laqueur, 1987). For example, Osama Bin Laden, the man who is most known in the development of the plans for the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, was most likely seen as a freedom fighter in the eyes of those in support of Al-Qaeda, while Americans and people all around the world viewed his actions as one of a terrorist. Terrorism is not this tangible object that can be defined as one thing and is applied

Eyder Peralta wrote an article sponsored by NPR under the Two-Way breaking news titled “When Is An Act Of Violence An Act Of Terrorism?” The author includes examples of acts of violence such as shootings from various parts of the country. Then, includes the opinions of professors on how to tell the difference between an act of violence and an act of terrorism. Beginning the article, Peralta highlights how difficult it is to decipher the muddled situations of violence. Then, throughout the article, Peralta picks apart the differences. Lakoff, a professor, said “That's because, she says, "terrorism itself, whatever that is" lives in a place between crime and war.” Peralta mentions how the uncertainty of terrorism versus random acts of violence

For instance, the murder of abortion-clinic doctors is among the cases used to come up with the perceived reduction in the frequency of terrorist attacks. This raises the question of the exact definition of terrorism used by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism to come up with the statistics. It also includes other cases of attempted but foiled attacks in the United States. Arguably, whereas it is fallacious to extend the view and scope of terrorist attacks, it would have been better if the source had explained the exact meaning of terrorism used to develop the statistics (Plumer, 2013). Additionally, the source ignored other aspects such as the prevalence of fatal attacks, as opposed to generalizing cases of