Political Correctness And Terrorism Case Study

For our purposes, we will use the Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), to define terrorism. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Examples of terrorism persist on a near daily basis around the world. Unstable countries, such as Afghanistan and Syria, deal with terrorist attacks on a constant basis. The common thread of these attacks is deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political objectives. The best known and largest example are

Terrorism is a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a

Hasan, of Syrian descent, was a young Muslim in respect to practicing the religion but was not reported to possess hostile views toward the U.S. His family reported that he often talked about his job positively. Hasan could have been converted to extremist views by the imam due to his influence within the mosque, and that because extremist ideals contradict his Army position. U.S. officials released that as many as 20 emails were exchanged between Hasan and al-Aulaqi (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/texas.fort.hood.shootings/index.html).

Domestic terrorism has played a major part in shaping the societies of the United States. The ideologies of individuals can become radicalized. This can lead to a movement. This movement involves the infliction of fear upon the communities, in attempt to make it a better world. It is critical to examine the events created by one man’s extreme ideologies in effort to better understand.

Criminal activity and terrorist activity have a relationship that is closely related, with only minor differences separating the two. Terrorist activity are criminal acts that are motivated by a higher cause beyond the basic causes of crime. Terrorist attack are highly planned out, and the same can be said about criminal activity. Serial killers often plan out their acts just as much as terrorist organizations, however the same cannot be said for certain crimes like random assaults. (Newman & Clarke, 2008) The relationship between crime and terrorism is brought closer when terrorist organizations use common crime to fund their attacks. For example, a terrorist organization may resort to stealing chemical agents to make their dirty bombs. The

Jeffery Ian Ross (1999) differs from earlier research suggesting that both political and social factors can lead to a criminology of terrorism. Terrorism involves violence but criminal behavior is a result of

After the Brussels massacre that took place on March 22nd, a question of faith rose surrounding the sanctity of the Islamic faith. In an article meant to expose answers to this very question John Kasich brings up a point that when people claim France is at war with Islam, they actually should be referring to radical Islam. This point pulled further controversy as those who were not Islamic began to wonder if the faith condoned suicide bombings in the name of expelling infidels and bringing the coming of the Caliphate. Another case mentioned in the same article details the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, whose terrorist group attempted to bring down the World Trade Center back in 1993. While the U.S. government had attempted to paint

“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

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).

In examining Islamic terrorism, we are presented with two very different viewpoints from politicians. On the one side, we have John Kerry, who contends that terrorism is the result of barbarism…says “this is a battle between civilization itself and barbarism” (Kerry, 2015), and describes religious extremists as “psychopathic monsters”. When we reduce the actions of these people to barbarism and separate their brand of violence from our, as Mary Moran puts it, "[...] it provides a satisfying depiction of the fundamental difference between the deployment of U.S. military might and the "senseless violence" perpetrated by others" (Moran, 200; p. 251). She is quick to explain, however, that this strategy of explanation is counterproductive because

The following is a brief explanation of the motivation of the Islamic Jihad Group. Included is a response to how the knowledge of the Islamic Jihad Group’s motivation might assist in planning counter terrorist strategy. Included are explanations as to how the motivations of terrorists differ from the motivations of other violent criminals and how cultural, socioeconomic, or political factors could lead a person to become a terrorist or criminal.

Terrorism is a difficult issue to understand and grasp for many people. What is even more difficult to understand is what drives an individual to become radicalized to the point of joining a terrorist organization and committing terrorist acts. While there is not specific criteria or a “cookie cutter” approach to understanding what motivates and radicalizes an individual to participate in such atrocities, there are however, several psychological and behavioral factors that have been common among these individuals. The following paper will outline some of the psychological and behavioral factors that attribute to an individual’s radicalization and eventual willingness and even perhaps

Abu al-Hindi, though not a member of ISIS, is a radical Muslim who has been spreading his extreme beliefs throughout the St. Louis community. During a gathering near his mosque, al-Hindi gave a speech where he stated: “A time may soon come when we must act against the infidels. When that time does come, we will not be afraid to wage war against our enemy. Blood will be shed, and all martyrs will find salvation.” A follower of al-Hindi posted his speech on a blog that is visited by radical Muslims. A few days after this occurred; a man was arrested for attempting to blow up a MetroLink train. Although he was not a loyal follower of al-Hindi, he had visited the same blog site that al-Hindi’s speech was posted on. To explain

Ever since September 11, 2001 Americans along with the majority of the world’s population have been skeptical of Muslims. It’s a sad reality but it’s hard for people to think of a Muslim without linking them directly to terrorism. But these assumptions aren’t totally out of the blue—the Muslim’s religion, Islam, teaches a low tolerance for other religions and the Islamic government has no separation of church and state, so it’s only normal to assume that their government shall have a low tolerance as well—some however, immediately translate this into terrorism. Through the Islamic government and religion, relations with foreign countries, and separation amongst themselves it can be concluded that Islamic Fundamentalism is clearly a threat

Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.