The Negative Effects Of Terrorism

September 11. 2001 was a major turning point in American History, and its political and social impact can still be felt today. The tragic event shook the entire country on the civilian and federal level. Before 9/11 many did not think that a plan of terrorism such as that of Osama Bin Laden's would be able to come to fruition because they had great trust in American security. The destruction came as a wakeup call to the federal government and American citizens themselves. National Security became the first thing people thought of when they traveled, and civilians looked to the government for reassurance that they were safe. The federal government's plan of action was to pass a series of acts that would go on to create the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Association. Along with the creation of more strict security measures came the question of "who is a terrorist?" within the country. The formation of the DHS, TSA, and increase of Islamophobia are some examples of the lasting effects that 9/11 had on the country.

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.

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.

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

In a United States-centered world, when one considers domestic terrorism, often one assumes that the United States is being spoken about, with all other acts of terrorism being deemed as “international.” While it is true that it would be international from a US standpoint, if all acts of terrorism are seen within a bubble it makes it much more difficult to combat terrorists before they become a larger problem. Often, many domestic terrorists can go on to have an impact on the international community and Greece is no different. They, like many other countries, have their own internal terrorism issues and ironically, most of these groups like November 17, Revolutionary People’s Struggle or Revolutionary Nuclei, are anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist

The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather

During the Cold War era, fallout shelters were an instrumental part of society where the government-sponsored these measures to protect the country and its citizens from nuclear attack. However, the Cold war has past and a new threat has emerged that is unpredictable and seems to appear out of nowhere. Seemingly, the government is trying to secure the critical infrastructure of the United States through internal restructuring, legislation and the private sector.

Terrorism has had a negative effect on the world. In the United States the role of terrorism is steadily a growing, creating new issues and situations which the United States government must battle. The department of Home land security has an active and significant role on ensuring the security and safety of the United States of America. Acts of terrorism differs in every region, what one might consider terrorism the other might not. Terrorism comes in several forms such as domestic, international, bioterrorism and cyber terrorism. Every law enforcement agencies has a different approach to terrorism. Strategies for battling terrorism in multicultural communities are different compared to communities inhabited by a less diversified group.

Before I continue, it is important to note that one of the reasons McPherson’s argument on the morality of terrorism is unconvincing is because his argument contains the ‘irrelevant conclusion’ fallacy. That is to say that his point was to prove that terrorism can be morally sound and justifiable, but he proved it in comparison to war as opposed to proving it on an individual basis. “The fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion.”[3] I believe that his argument was attempting to establish the truth of a different proposition, which is that terrorism should be morally justifiable because it ultimately does less harm than war.

History is made every day. Some may be good and some may be bad, some may be ground breaking discoveries and some may be heart shattering tragedies. History will never stop being made and it is our job as united citizens, politicians, and leaders to make sure that a great America will go down in history books forever. I want America to seem like the great place that it is to generations and generations to come.In my opinion America is headed down a bad path. Terrorism is a horrible thing yet there is no doubting that rates of terrorism have raised within the last ten years. One of the worst parts of terrorism after September eleventh is that most terrorist attacks in America were caused by of American citizens. Although terrorism is a heinous

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.

Among lots of these outside factors is terrorism – because of the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, particularly against civilians, inside the pursuit of political aims. The oblique outcomes of terrorism create the maximum danger to the activities of companies and then throughout the supply chains (Barry, 2004). The consequences of terrorism can cause the reduction customers wanting specific goods and services, due to the mental reaction of clients. The acts designed to attain beyond the instant target to intimidate a broader audience, to include religious groups, corporations, political parties, or the whole United States. Terrorism acts aimed at accumulating exposure to introduce political change via impact and strength.

Wherever anyone goes anyone is vulnerable to terrorism. Terrorism is something that is a very horrific thing and effects everyone that went through it and the people watching the news and newspapers. The effects of terrorism can be very dangerous, sometimes it can even be deadly. In the last of couple of years around 50 terrorist attacks have been in the united states. Around 200 in the world, just last week there was an attack on the London bridge. ISIS even has claimed that they planned the attack. For anybody that doesn’t know who ISIS is they are a terrorism organization that people say “are more extreme than al-Qaida or any other terrorist group in the world.” Terrorism effects the world around us and it isn’t pretty we have all seen it manifest its self in so many ways on the earth.

Over the years there have been significant changes in how terrorism is carried out. With the changes in how terrorism is carried out there have also been dramatic changes in how countries counter terrorist attacks. The modifications in the way a country counters these terrorist attacks affects international relations of these countries. These issues bring about the question of how have counter terrorism methods affected international relations. To answer this question several things must be addressed which are, methodology, history of terrorism, and a literature review of multiple authors that have discussed this subject.

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