Why Concerning Global War On Terrorism And Clash Of Civilization Is Incorrect?

Third, after the September 11 attack, the relationship has undergone some profound changes between America and other countries especially with Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Political people in Saudi Arabia did not accept what happened in the United States and other countries have been exposed to violence. In addition, people a treatment became very rude with Muslims because they thought Muslims are agree with American's situation. For example, my uncle came with his family in 2003; they faced a lot of problems with American people. Also, while his wife was wearing Islamic dress, she got a lot of harassments from citizens. So, they could not stay more than one week then they decided to travel to Canada to complete their vacation. In my experience, sometimes old people called terrorist because I wearing Islamic costume. However, after 9\11 Muslim people did many important things for American people. Also, Muslim people

In November of 2002, Osama Bin Laden put a “Letter to America” on the Internet, listing his reasons for attacking the US. America’s support for Israel, sanctions on Iraq, and military occupation of Saudi Arabia angered Bin Laden. Israel has

Social and cultural aspects play a significant role in the media’s unflattering depiction of Islamic extremists, which correlates directly to military spending and relations with the Middle East. Since 9/11, when Arabs attacked the U.S. on behalf of Afghan Islamic extremists, relations with the Middle East have been tense, according to Thomas Kean and others in "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Kean and others report that repercussions of the 9/11 attacks included homeland security improvements. Dov S. Zakheim, former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense and Chief Financial Officer, similarly discussed that relations worsened after 9/11 in "September 11: A Decade Later What 9/11 Has Wrought”, which details the effects

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.

Samuel Huntington’s controversial article “The Clash of Civilizations?” was first published in Foreign Affairs in 1993 and was subsequently turned into a book in 1996 titled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. As this paper will show Huntington’s work can be seen as a product of the post-Cold War context it was written in. Huntington’s article takes a new perspective on the new world order and outlines a different way a thinking about how future world conflicts will unfold. Since the initial journal article was published in 1993 there has been a great deal of response from academics and also from Huntington himself. A majority of the responses come in the form of critiques, with the authors offering their own insight into how the post-Cold War World will operate. Although the validity of Huntington’s arguments have been questioned, it did create a great deal of controversy in the academic world. As Huntington explained in the preface of his 1996 book, the original article published in Foreign Affairs created more discussion in three years than any other article published in the journal since the 1940s.

This paper will discuss religious terrorism in particular. Religious terrorism can be defined as “the terrorism [is] carried out based on motivations and goals that have a predominantly religious character or influences.” (“Religious Terrorism”) An example of this will be the 9/11 attacks. It was “a series of four coordinated terrorist attack launched by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.”(“September 11 attacks”) This attack had led to a serious causality, “almost 3000 people dies in the attacks.” (“September 11 attacks”) Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, declared a “holy war against the United States” (“September 11 attacks”) In his “letter to America”, he stated the motives as follows: In opposition to western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia; supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir; the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon; the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia; U.S support of Israel and the sanction against Iraq. (“September 11 attacks”) The disastrous attack leads to a serious attention of re-constructing the old version of counter terrorism strategy, which had failed to protect the citizens against terrorism. However, ‘terrorism is far to complex for one solution to be effective in dealing with all the possible threats.” (Lygutas 146) Therefore, some of the measures have difficulties in balancing the rights of

The argument here is that terrorism has gone through three transitory phases since 1945. The first phase was dominated by nationalism, and the second emphasized ethnic

After the occasions of September 11, Americas' point of view toward Islamic nations, and Muslims changed in a split second. Not long after the assault of U.S, upgraded security, observation and the protection of Americans, tenacious military and automaton operations, and improved cross examination and torment were implemented. Beginning from President George W. Hedge, that insane Islamic terrorists loathe America, its flexibility, and vote based system. Being ignorant of terrorist's fundamental thought processes politically talking, words were out that they are insane mass killers (serial executioners), suicide planes are silly and aggravated. The writer says that perusers who trust the myth of against Americans and Islamic terrorists are insane flexibility haters, ought to examine the constraints of the their accept.

“War on terror is a misnomer. It would be like calling America’s involvement in World War II a “war on kamikazism.” Terrorism, like kamikazism, is a tactic,” Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian public speaker once noted. It goes without saying that terrorist actions do not appear suddenly, by someone’s unexpected insight. Actually, terrorism is a tactic that is built on the solid fundament of its inner complex philosophy. There are certainly a number of reasons for terrorism to live so long and escape diminishing, and these reasons, when adequately understood, first of all, and only then properly treated, may make the scale of terrorism reduce visibility. That is only a hypothesis, but this is clearly an issue worth of careful attention which does not close up in leading a war against terrorism. As D’Souza has remarkably specified, “this word combination has been already a kind of foolish”. In short,

A new type of link between religion and globalization within the American public arena was cast on 9/11. for a few giant lines was drawn between sensible and evil religious faiths. the next American military response in Islamic State of Afghanistan was meant to secure America by destroying the forces of the evil religious faith, forces assumed to be accountable for the events of 9/11. at a similar time the afghan folks were liberated by the oppression of the evil faith so they might fancy the fruits of freedom and democracy. ​

“Muslims, Bin Laden argues, must reverse a series of humiliations that they’ve endured since the Ottoman Empire, the last Muslim great power, was dismantled after World War I. Al-Qaeda’s 1998 declaration of a jihad, or holy war, against ‘Jews and Crusaders’ urges Muslims to attack ‘the Americans and their allies, civilian and military,’ supposedly as a response to U.S. policies that al-Qaeda feels oppress Muslims: the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia; the backing of U.N. sanctions against Iraq; support for repressive Arab regimes; support for Israel; alleged complicity in Russian attacks on Muslims in Chechnya; and interventions in Bosnia, Somalia, and other Muslim regions that bin Laden sees as attempts to spread America’s empire. These Western policies, according to al-Qaeda, add up to a ‘clear

As a matter of fact, since September 11, ‘Civilization’ has been evoked to justify the revenge on both the Al Qaeda network and those who harbored it in Afghanistan. Identifying terrorism as the enemy of civilization provides an enormous scope for US intervention overseas as well as sanctioning the Federal Government’s curtailment of civil liberties at home. Furthermore, Bush put the attacks of 9/11 in religious terms, he declared that ‘this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while’ and also in civilizational terms ‘this is civilization’s fight.’

Samuel Huntington has made famous his thesis "the clash of civilizations", which was developed in his article in Foreign Affairs in 1993 and in the book that followed, in which the author expanded his thesis and reaffirmed the validity of his theory after the success and controversy that followed the publication of his article. In fact, the “civilizational” approach of conflicts today is now intrinsically linked to a comprehensive theory of international relations, which Samuel Huntington has developed by giving it an important value and a dominant paradigm

There are many changes in the character of war that are taking place with the passage of time and with the amount of education which is being spread all over the world. Along with this, the importance of collaboration has also been learnt by many countries to get a win-win situation for both countries/parties. However, the changes have also come towards more extremism in the way of terrorism which has affected the peace of the entire world greatly and is destructive by all means without having the factors of any positivity

In The Clash of civilizations Huntington argued that the future conflict would be different in the Post-Cold war era. In which different ideologies would not be the main reason for world problem but instead it would be because of the differences between cultures. The division of power would be placed in the civilizations that have the similar cultural norms. Huntington states that the “most dangerous enmities occur across fault lines between major civilizations” (20). This argued that foreign affairs cannot be peaceful or accommodating rather that these affairs go onto the basis of the influence of power based on different civilizations societal norms. The major societies that Huntington included were the western, Sinic, Islamic and Orthodox civilizations. The “ fault lines” between these societies