Terrorist 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.

The fear of being racially profiled and being linked to terrorism is an issue for Americans ever since the attack on 9/11, and other residents that are in our country from other nations like Iran (Muslims). The Muslims or Iran is being targeted by any and everyone who seem to hold the whole nation accountable for 9/11 attack. But is racial profiling of their religious or other Muslims belief a reason that we should hide behind to justify profiling them? Within this discussion this learner will try to explain why this may or may not be right to fear Muslims or any other person who is from a different nation.

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

On September 11th, 2001, 2,977 Americans lost their lives on what they thought was just another workday. These actions against the United States catapulted our Armed Forces into a full on War on Terror spread out over different countries. Since that fateful morning in September, over 6,000 Americans have lost their lives fighting in multiple theaters in support of the War on Terror. Many people have been personally hit by tragedy resulting from the War on Terror. People have lost their sons, their daughters, friends, and parents as the war creeps on. The United States needs to rescind its involvement in the War on Terror, which has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, all while draining the American economy.

Multiple groups and civilians have responded to the terrorist attack 9/11 in different ways, having different viewpoints, values, and ideologies. George W.Bush who was the President of the United States of America at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was against what occurred. George W.Bush talks about the incident as being a monumental day in our nations history, and how he went from being a “President primarily focused on domestic issues to a war time President”, something he never anticipated or wanted (27). George W.Bush valued America and it’s rights to freedom and believed that whoever was responsible for this act of terrorism is held responsible. His values and beliefs can be seen as a conservatism ideology as he believes terrorists must be stopped and destroyed, he doesn’t believe that militant Islamists can peacefully co-exist with the Western world, forever will be on going attacks on America implicated by Islamic terrorists (28). Conservatisms believe that terrorism posses one of the greatest threats to the United States of America (34).

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.

On November 13 ISIS killed 130 people in Paris France with suicide bombers. The United States should escalate the war against ISIS because attacking, treatment, and war. ISIS is starting to kill people in the world and the united states are not doing nothing about it. The United States should get involved with the ISIS because there are killing, torturing people, and treating people with disrespect the people who live in Syria so it will not keep going on. America should help the others and stop the war that is going in Syria.

The fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been drawing a lot of attention as of late due to the rapid growth and success of this Islamic terrorist organization. ISIS has a larger income than any terrorist organization in history (Arango). They are making around $1 million to $2 million a day (Arango). If they aren’t stopped, they plan on setting up something called a “Caliphate,” which I will address later in this essay (Johnson).

The United States Policy in Responding to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

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.

Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.

The government can implement many new methods to increase security, or better yet give off the image of better security which is what they have predominantly done, yet ultimately there will always be a way to bypass or come up with a new way to infiltrate that measure. The government so far has done a variety of things ranging from the closing of the Dulles airport (permanently), working with the FAA on new security measures, having pilots carry handguns, and a not so specific, profiling.

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