We Should View Terrorism By Alan Krueger And Jitka Maleckova

The book “How Terrorism End; Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns”, written in 2011 at the height of Al-Qaeda, the most well-known international terrorist group of our time. The author of this work, Audrey Cronin, at the time of print, served as a professor of strategy at the United States National War College in Washington D.C., and a senior associate at Oxford University’s Changing Character of War Program. Both positions allowed her to impact strategic policy making in the execution of the Global War on Terror by allowing her access to senior military and civilian policymakers. Her previous area of her prior work has been mainly focused on international terrorism with an emphasis on al-Qaeda. She has authored

As previously mentioned, hate crimes are borne out of one person’s prejudices. However, rarely does prejudice alone cause hate crimes. It is a toxic mixture of one’s prejudices, anger and animosities in life. (Sepulveda Carmona, 2012) First, hate crimes are caused by the mundane – thrill seeking. (Burkes, 2017) People crave the sudden rush of adrenalin

Many issues impacted by hate crimes can be informed by psychological research. For example, are hate crimes more harmful than other kinds of crime? Why do people commit hate crimes? What can be done to prevent or lessen the impact of hate and bias-motivated crimes? Social scientific research is beginning to yield information on the nature of crimes committed because of real or perceived differences in race, religion, ethnicity or national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Current federal law defines hate crimes as any felony or crime of violence that manifests prejudice based on “race, color, religion, or national origin”. Hate crimes can be understood as criminal conduct motivated in whole or in part by a negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons. Hate crimes involve a specific aspect of the victim’s identity. Hate crimes are not simply biases, they are dangerous actions motivated by biases.

Acts of terrorism plants fear and terror into the hearts and minds of individuals but when mass shootings occur in the U.S., they get classified as murder or hate crimes. This research will show that mass shootings and hate crimes inflict the same type of terror in the hearts and minds of individuals throughout communities within the U.S. as terrorist attacks have inflicted on communities.

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.

Acts of terrorism plants fear and terror into the hearts and minds of individuals but when mass shootings occur in the United States, they get classified as murder or hate crimes. This research will show that mass shootings and hate crimes inflict the same type of terror in the hearts and minds of individuals throughout communities within the United States as terrorist attacks have inflicted on communities.

Levin and McDevitt’s typology of hate crime offenders found that offender’s motivations could be divined into three classifications. Fist, the thrill-seeking crimes, is based on cases were the offenders almost always young and in small groups were “just bored and looking for some fun.”( Gerstenfeld, 91) In most of the cases perpetrators may not be biased toward the victims, but they follow a leader who was biased. Thrill-Seeking crimes is the most common type, perpetrators often left their neighborhood to searching for victims. Second, reactive crimes, perpetrators don’t leave their own neighborhoods to seek out the victims; instead the victims happened upon them. (Gerstenfeld, 93) Cases such as Howard Beach in 1986, where three young African-American

There are four types of hate crime offenders according to McDevitt and colleagues: thrill seeking, defensive, retaliatory, and mission. Thrill-seeking hate crime offenders are inspired by excitement and make up most of the cases in the study, representing 66% of the cases (Burgess, Regehr, & Roberts, 2013, p. 494). These offenders are typically subjugated by teenagers, who generally conduct their crimes when they are looking for fun and have spent time together drinking (Burgess, Regehr, & Roberts, 2013, p. 494). Thrill-seeking hate crime offenders tend to attack minority communities and normally use their hands or feet to go through with the attack (Burgess, Regehr, & Roberts, 2013, p. 494). Next, defensive hate crimes represent 25 % of hate crimes committed and are led by individuals who only see the world as being one way, nonetheless wanting to defend their neighborhood from anyone who would be considered an outsider (Burgess, Regehr, & Roberts, 2013, p.

Hate groups, and hate crimes associated with their ideologies, are a major problem facing Americans. This is evident when observing the increasing number of hate groups becoming radicalized in recent years. For example, hate crimes in major metropolitan areas such as

Caleb Carr is stressing that terrorism is never the answer throughout this chapter and I presume, the rest of the book. This is clearly shown in him saying "for just as meeting the tactics of terror in kind will only perpetuate the cycle of terrorist violence.." As for whether or not the affect of Roman warfare can be applied to today's governments in training people that are not of their own, it can be. Carr begins to explain this when he says "There is an irony concerning most of those rebel leaders that also holds enormous implications for our present experience..." (p. 37).

Intro: Political crimes can be simplified into two categories, oppositional and state, reducing that further into violent and nonviolent subgroups. Specifically, violent oppositional crimes are acts that intend to cause harm to the state in any number of ways (Class Lecture, 9/6/17). Two acts that are most interesting are hate crimes and riots, which can influence or cause one another. The frequency of these crimes causes resources to be over saturated for these topics which can lead to inaccurate information being spread around. Due to how closely these violent oppositional crimes intersect, it is important to further look into the theories surrounding hate crimes and riots, as well as efficiently researching these acts in reliable ways.

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.

Hate crimes have a devastating effect, beyond the harm inflicted on any, one victim ().  They resound through families, communities, and the entire nation, as others fear that they too could be threatened, attacked, or forced from their homes, because of what they look like, who they are, where they worship, whom they love, or whether they have a disability (). Hate crime is defined as an offense in which the victim is targeted because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin of that victim (Sullaway, 2004). On the basis of the legal definition, most researchers of hate crime tend to conceptualize hate crime as a manifestation of intergroup conflict or violence (e.g., Levin & McDevitt, 2002; Levin & Rabrenovic, 2001). They are motivated by the distinctiveness of the victim(s)because the offender only targets victims with different groups (Sun, K, 2006) and they tend to justify themselves with numerous excuses, however, researchers have now been questioning the offender's mentality. With this sort of conceptualization of a hate crime and the reasoning behind them, it has then since begun to change clinical interventions with the victims of a hate crime and the research done is now focusing on the objective of the offender of a hate crime and distinctive factors or with lead to the offender's mentality.

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

Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.