Terrorism, Ideology, And Politics 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.

Global debates are dominated by controversial political figures that use charged arguments to debate the most controversial issues on the political agenda. The authors argue that success in politics is not about being right or well-reasoned. Instead, it is asserted that success in politics is the ability to imprint positive associations in the long-term memories of voters. More so, success in politics is may be the ability to craft regular, credible, and persuasive arguments that resonate with those of one’s

Ignorance due to inability to spot biased is a monumental issue in the U.S. In 1984, people did not have an option on who or what to believe. They were all required to watch a Two Minute Hate so they would dislike what the Party wanted them to dislike. The people could only see what the Party wanted them to see as no other channels they existed. In fact, the telescreens could not be shut off at all. Constant exposure to the Party’s beliefs caused people to be biased towards the government’s views. In this country, people hear, watch, and absorb news every day, but they do not always see or hear the presented bias. For example, Fox News is conservative-leaning and MSNBC is more liberal (Garrett 2&3). People who only watch one news channel without acknowledging or spotting the bias tend to accept what they hear as fact without a second thought. Depending on where information is collected or heard, the person forms opinions based on bias rather than facts without realizing the error in their wapithes and become easy to manipulation occurs.

My understanding of extremism is that it’s a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards. In democratic societies, individuals or groups which advocate that democracy should be replaced with some kind of authoritarian regime are usually branded extremists.

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.

What seperates domestic terrorism from mass killings? The United States have a long history of terrorism, mass terrorism and mass killings. Most of these happened in the open public and targeted a number of population to execute. Among these incidents are the bombing of twin towers in 9/11. The Oklahoma City Bombing, The Wisconsin Sikh Killings, the shooting of Congresswoman Giffors and others in Arizona, the Virginia Tech shootings, the cinema shooting during the filimng of Batman and recently the mass shooting at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. What drives the motivation to do such crime? Is It a mass spree killings or an act of domestic terrorism? In this essay we are going to analyze the whether it is a mass spree killing or domestic terrorism.

The emphasis of counterterrorism policy in the United States since Al Qaeda’s attacks of September 11, 2001 has been on jihadist terrorism. However, in the last decade, domestic terrorists have killed American citizens and damaged property across the country. Not all of these criminals have been prosecuted under terrorism charges. This is not meant to imply that domestic terrorists should be taken any less seriously than other terrorists.

Al-Qaeda is the parent to ISIS. Al-Qaeda translates to “The Fundament”. It is a multi-national radical group founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden and other militants who fought for Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. It has been labeled as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and quite a few other countries. The Sunni- Islamic group was based in Sudan for the early part of the 1990, they moved to Afghanistan somewhere around 1996 and went under the name of Taliban. The group merged with Jihad’s and later declared a holy war against the United States. The United States troops all but eliminated the group and killed its leaders while they were in Afghanistan, but with withdrawal of the troops in 2011, have regrouped and made a comeback. https://www.britannica.com/topic/al-Qaeda

It has been over a decade and a half since Americans were first exposed to the power of foreign terrorism. The twin tower attacks left us helpless. Americans didn’t see it coming and we were even more unsure of how to respond to such a tragedy. Who would want to kill innocent people on purpose? Why? It wreaked fear over the American population for years. Its ghost, constantly revived with every sensationalized explosion, every failed attempt, every image of that Muslim man deeply dedicated to the Islamic ideology. Americans had never experienced such a huge attack from a foreign enemy since Pearl Harbor and we would do anything to prevent this atrocity from happening again.

This was exemplified by the treatment of comments made by Ben Affleck when he appeared on Bill Maher’s HBO show, and those of Reza Aslan on CNN. While both argued against anti-Muslim prejudice, their opinions were viewed very differently by the American media. While Ben Affleck’s visceral anger, calling Maher’s ideology “gross and racist,” was praised and valued, Aslan, a Muslim American academic and professor of religion, was forced into an apologetic stance to elicit a recognition that Muslims are diverse in their outlooks and beliefs before being dismissed anyway. His opinion was later recast as angry and hostile, invalidating his argument completely by basing it in emotion rather than rationality, tactics that we see employed over and over again. Compare Affleck’s obvious annoyance and Aslan’s polite frustration, and it is easily ascertainable that Affleck’s white privilege allows him to express similar sentiments as Aslan in far cruder terms, and not be dismissed entirely for it.

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

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.

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

Purpose: To inform readers of the effects the recent terrorist attacks have on society today.