Persuasive Essay On Terrorism

One more time. I promise after that I’ll let you go. The last tune that rang out in eight year old Saffie Rose’s ears before everything went dark. This was the experience of a young life cut short due to the horrific and misguided actions of a lone-wolf.

The United States has been in a national state of emergency fighting a war on terrorism since September 11, 2001. The intelligence communities have pursued and tracked down terrorist suspects who pose a direct threat to this country, yet one of the greatest threat to this country is the astronomical number of mass shootings and hate crimes that have occurred in this country post 9/11.

In response to the 9/11 terror attacks, President George W. Bush declared an all out war on global terrorism. To fight this war, the Bush administration introduced a new weapon, creating the highly secretive US Drone program, pushing the bounds of technology, giving UAVs the power to take life with impunity. In 2009, Barack Obama became president and the rise of the killer drones began. His campaign in the Middle East and abroad would usher in a new age of warfare, one fought not in trenches or fields, but from small air-conditioned rooms, while great Birds of Prey rain Hellfire down upon enemies half a world away; one where powerful men decide who will live

The War on Terror is a military campaign that began under Bush’s administration. Their aim was to fight organizations that identified themselves as “terrorists”. These so called “terrorists” defined themselves as individuals or even a group who use violence and threats to coerce people or countries to perform a certain action. Between the years 2006-2013, they have caused 130,000 casualties and 90,000 of those have been deaths. This campaign arose immediately after one of the most tragic events that ever occurred; the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. Sadly, this tragedy caused almost 3,000 lives and injured over 6,000 innocent civilians. Other more well-known targets are Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Taliban. There has been great controversy to whether the WoT campaign should have even been brought about, even though this program successfully devised the plan to kill Osama Bin Laden.

I decided it would be best to wait for a while to write on what has become Donald Trump’s now infamous proposal that there should be “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” for a couple of reasons. First, the outrage, predictably, over Mr. Trump’s ban was fierce and fast and I wanted to allow some time for it to cool. Reacting to the hottest thing is not always the wisest thing. Second, I wanted to take some time to gather my thoughts on what has transpired. It is a tricky thing for a pastor to write about a politician and I never do so lightly. This is why I also feel compelled to state upfront, lest there be any confusion, that, though I do reference certain political realities, the primary purpose of this blog is not to analyze Mr. Trump’s politics or campaign. There are others who are far more adept at these types of analyses than I. I do believe, however, that Mr. Trump’s ban on Muslims has worldview and theological implications that are important for Christians to recognize and to address. Indeed, what fascinates me most about Mr. Trump’s ban is not so much what he proposed at first, but how he has continued to defend his proposal. In an interview on Live with Kelly and Michael, the presidential candidate argued, “It’s not about religion. This is about safety.”

What comes to mind when you hear “The War on Terror”? For someone like myself I immediately go back to my tenth grade English class the morning of September 11, 2001 and the devastating effects of terrorism and what we as a country need to/ should do to keep ourselves safe. Sometimes you need to detain a large quantity of suspects to find the few terrors amongst the many innocent, Habeas Corpus is made to help protect and weed out the innocent and when that right is violated in hopes of find the bad within the good it is no longer an acceptable way to fight terrorism. Several case have come to the Supreme courts and no one can clearly answer to what extent the war on terror justifies the President's unspecified time limit on enemy combatants

On september 11, 2001 there was an attack on America. Four airplanes were hijacked, two were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, the third crashed into the Pentagon in D.C. and the fourth got stopped by a passenger. It was the first terrorist attack on the U.S. soil. Thousands of lives were lost that day. This attach was the most devastating act of belligerence on U.S territory since the Civil War (Terrorism, 2011). This even had an enormous influence on America and its history. It led to numerous short and long term effects. On September 20, 2001, former president George W. Bush announced publicly that he declares “War on Terror”. After this announcement, our country has altered. To determine if an effect was

In today’s day and age, the fear of terrorism is not only a common sentiment, but is also a rising subject of debate. In order to keep troops out of harm’s way, the United States has looked for alternate means of combatting terrorist organizations. Since September 11, 2001 the United States has relied heavily on its men and women in uniform to prevent terrorism abroad. Technology of today and the use of intelligence offer the United States alternate means of addressing terrorism. For instance, drone strikes were called by former US CIA director Leon Panetta, “the only game in town in term of confronting or trying to disrupt the Al Qaeda leadership” (ODLE, 2013). With the use of typology, socioeconomic assistance, drones, diplomatic engagement and enhanced airline security services, the use of military force is not the only way to prevent terrorism.

Terrorism by meaning comes with several facets and is something that cannot easily be understood by just simply labeling it with one specific group of people or religion due to a cultural misconception. Homegrown specifically is an extension of the basic underlying truth in terrorism. Homegrown Terrorism becomes more about the ideology behind such acts of violence. And in that, understanding that terrorism could potentially be all around us, committed by those in which can be closest to us. The biggest Common denominator is that we are all capable and that we all have choices in which we make every day. Within what makes you different from the other person is that you choose to be constructive rather than destructive with that choice. In Addressing that terrorism and more specifically, the situations occurring within the acts of homegrown terrorism for what has previously transpired as well as the effort and preparation to discourage future incidents, we will be able to understand and set forth means to protect the country from further attacks resembling ones that have affected the way we as people currently

In a new book written by Tony Blair’s former chief of staff and chief negotiator in Northern Ireland, Jonathan Powell, the author of “Talking to Terrorists” states “there is no conflict in the world that cannot be solved” (p. 35). In this book, Powell draws on his wider experiences of conflict resolution to argue that terrorism nearly always ends in negotiation, and that we waste much blood and treasure in failing to recognize the need to talk to terrorists at a much earlier stage. Additionally, the former chief of staff states “the problem is not talking to terrorists, it is giving in to them” (p. 37), and acknowledges that there is a time to negotiate, and that time is often when a state of “mutually hurting stalemate” (p. 42) has been achieved. Yet, he contends, that we waste much time in regarding terrorists as irreconcilable and beyond the pale before we belatedly decide to talk.

Millions of people are living in terror not knowing if their house is going to get bombed or if they are going to get shot. Terrorism is all around the world; countries are being controlled by terrorist groups all over. There are countries around the world that are either being controlled, have a terrorist presence, or are experiencing attacks. I believe that terrorism is growing and that it needs to be stopped. There are tons of countries and territories that are in desperate need of help to stop the terrorist groups.

It has been said that the easiest way to discredit someone in the political field is to accuse them of possessing "Machiavellian morals." Until recently, today's political arena has been consumed by such illusive and controversial topics as human rights and the environment. Thus, it is easy to see why being referred to as a disciple of the austere Machiavellian principle could result in the untimely death of a political career. However, as of September 11th, the times have changed and so should the mindset with which politicians approach such elusive topics.

The cost for suicide bombing is as low as $150 which can easily cause 12 deaths and a fear among the people which will last forever. Being on the receiving end of terrorism becomes more expensive is ever plausible sense. The world is aiming to counter terrorism with extremely expensive measures which is putting a strain on the worlds resources. The cost incurred on terrorism in the last 16 years has been close to $80 billion but despite the measures undertaken, terrorism is rising by a great measure every year. The only effective measure could be to either make all possible ways of attacking extremely difficult or cut off terrorist organizations from access to any resources whereas the world seems to be doing neither of the do. Increased diplomatic relations should be brought into focus to mutually shut down the terrorist organizations sponsored by states all together.

Imagine it’s 2001 you are just taking a leisurely walk in Stonycreek. You hear the sounds of the city planes, cars, people, “ BOOM!”. You look across the street you see the twin towers and to planes. You start to run. Once you're far enough you watch them burn. Now everything is more loud. This is no ordinary walk in New York City.

Genocide and terrorism are both forms of collective political violence that occur throughout the world and lead to the question: why do people kill? There are numerous answers that can be given to answer that question such as people just being plain evil. I believe reason that people kill people can be found by examining three overlapping factors. If the benefits of using violence such as genocide or terrorism outweigh the risks in doing so then leaders of countries and terrorists groups have a reason to use such tools to advance their goals. The advancement of goals tends to be a primary factor in political violence. To commit these acts, leaders or those in charge must use the idea of culture to make it justifiable to kill those deemed “others” to their followers. Not just justifiable either but a part of their duty to kill the “others. The use of culture to promote mass killings through genocide and terrorist attacks is one of the primary factors but for those who are following orders. Economic forces such as globalization and economic pressure from external forces also tends to be a secondary factor in committing acts of terrorism and genocide. So with this we can see that there are three factors that contribute differently to why people kill one another.