Reject Terrorism Essay

Security measures drastically increased after 9/11. 9/11 was an act of terrorism that would change the way the country handled privacy. Americans needed to voice their opinions after this happened and have their own rights protected. The need to protect individual rights is the utmost important aspect in a thriving U.S. society.

In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.

By understanding the steps to prepare for countering and responding to a terrorist, the well-being of US national security interests can be promoted and the exposure to risk and susceptibility to experiencing harm can be efficiently managed for communities, families and individuals in the event of a terrorist incident. The welfare of US national security, citizens and property can be effectively safeguarded through the understanding of protection strategies administered collectively by local communities, families and individuals. Local emergency operations planning, family disaster planning, as well as self-protection planning each represent important protective measures, which serve to educate the nation and its citizens how to

On September 11, 2001, at 8:45 a.m. on a Tuesday morning, a Boeing 767-222 aircraft plummeted into the twin towers. Boarding 56 passengers including 5 hijackers. After the incident, no survivors were found all passengers and more were found dead at the scene.

In the last two decades, the United States has experienced disastrous terrorist incidents. Including 9/11, the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, and the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, these incidents have varied in the scale, location, weapon used but have all had the same goal; to harm Americans and put fear the minds of everyone else. Before September 11th, 2001, there had never been a large attack on the continental United States of America. Our first responders have new threats and must be put through rigorous trainings in order to try and minimize the risks.

Tehran can threaten major energy market fluctuations from oil production and maritime security through control of the Straits of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz link the Persian Gulf and the flow of oil to the world. Iran is aware of the significance of the Strait of Hormuz. “While Iran’s capability to actually “close” the strait is questionable, there is little doubt that it could quickly wreak havoc on the global economy by doing much less.” (Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.: Part 3 Stratfor, 2009). Global stability is constantly in jeopardy through Iran’s continued support of terrorist activities. (Rhode, H., n.d., The Sources of Iranian Negotiating Behavior) states “Yet the Iranian government has not been dissuaded from sponsoring and implementing terror tactics, and has not been convinced to halt its illegal nuclear program.” Iran has demonstrated their intent to continue their nuclear program regardless of international sanctions and admonishment. They continue to support terrorist activities throughout the region. There is no sign that if Iran was able to produce weapons grade nuclear material that it would not be used by a violent extremist organization. Iran can disrupt or control maritime trade and security of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian leadership views compromise and requests for negotiations as a sign of weakness and an opportunity for exploitation. “Compromise (as we in the West understand this

The situation in Israel was tense after the UN signed a Geneva accord easing sanctions on Iran in exchange for inspectors to be allowed into the country. Daniel Taub, the Ambassador to the UK from Israel, believes the agreement will do very little, possibly nothing, to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability and also exercising it in the relatively near future. While the Western sponsors of the bill insist that it's a huge stepping stone for diplomacy for the Islamic State, those in Israel highly disagree and insist the UN will be at fault if they are attacked by Iran using nuclear weapons while this accord is supposed to be in effect.

Counter-terrorist analysts argue on the real causes of terrorism, being against or in favor to negotiate with terrorist groups in certain circumstances. But, is there any reason or special moment when it is fine to make a deal with terror groups or individuals? Governments should have a clear idea that this kind of negotiations will always bring terrible consequences, therefore, the importance to follow the principle of zero government negotiation with terrorists. People debating whether or not to give up on terrorist’s claims, might remember that terrorism means the pursuing of control by provoking terror and violent acts, whose purpose is to infuse fear, coercing governments to impose their claims. One argument proving the above statement

Terrorism and the United States A cloud of anthrax spores looming in the sky of San Diego California

As you might expect, the disengagement process is not an easy one and much like the process for radicalization there is a process for successfully disengaging. Leaving is not an easy process as there are still obligations that the person may feel pressured to fulfill and of course, the fear of consequences for no longer wanting to be a part of the organization and leaving with the knowledge they have of the group. When a person first becomes involved with the organizations the perceived rewards that are promised to the individual provide a huge motivation to engage and create bonds with fellow members, however, when the reality sets in that the rewards are not as great as one anticipated or the actual amount of work

On September 28th, 2015, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Dr. Hassan Rouhani addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations during the General Debate and made statements that Iran was ready and had voted for engagement with the world. Within Rouhani’s speech he also stated that Iran did not want “Zionist regime to remain as the only impediment in the way of realizing this important initiative” speaking about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is an international agreement on the nuclear program of Iran which was outlined in Vienna, Austria in September 14, 2015 between Iran, China, France, Russia, United Kingdome, United States, and European Union (P5+1). In this agreement, Iran will eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, reduce its low-enriched uranium stockpile by 98 percent and reduce by two thirds the number of gas centrifuges. Iran also agrees not to enrich uranium past 3.67 percent and not to build new heavy-water facilities for 15 years. Iran will be facing sanctions if they fail to follow the agreement. The statement made about the Zionist regime, is speaking about the implications of the US providing nuclear support to Israel. While Iran still supports Hezbollah, the Assad regime and Houthi rebels in Yemen , they are acting counter to US interests.

Since the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis (Marfleet, 1997) in the sixties, the United States has become increasingly more relaxed as to the possibility of an attack on American soil. Since the attack on the Twin Towers in September of 2001, by the terrorist group al-Qaeda, the United States has again become more aware and alert to this possibility. Not only did the attack on the United States bring Americans together as a country united, it also brought on changes that included the newly developed Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security is now charged with not only protecting the country and territories from another terrorist attack but also responding to an attack, man-made accident, and natural disasters. It is also

Think of the word terrorism. What is the first thing that comes to mind? One might think of kidnapping, assassination, bombing, or even genocide and guerrilla warfare. Because it is such a broad and complex issue, an all-encompassing definition is hard to formulate. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as…

The immediacy and the primacy of any truly potent force is the ability to perpetuate itself. Sharp and energetic outbursts have their place, and can be known to have great effect-cataclysmic forces, despite their maximum destructive potential, are temporary in their total effects in relation to some absolute goal. In other words, they are generally limited in scope, and well defined in purpose; there is a tactical objective, which is usually consummated quickly. The more dreaded force creeps along, escalating incrementally, and while it may abide a strategic goal, or even a policy, it is generally open-ended. This sort of ambiguity I am referring to differs from the flexible tactical necessity in that strategic outcomes are very much

Terrorism, which has been around for as long as people can remember, has been on the rise for the past ten years. Terrorists usually use murdering, kidnapping, hi-jacking and bombings to achieve their political purpose. For instance, according to Wikipedia.com (2006), in 1985 816 deaths, then in 2003, more than 1,000 people died by terorist acts around the world. In recent years, terrorism seems to be at a new height and attacks are much more violent than in the past. Unfortunately, in spite of many anti-terror campaigns, projects and organizations are being created for prevention (to prevent) terrorism, the number of terrorists only is increasing. These days terrorism is all over the world.