Essay on "Terrorism"

/>

References

O'Connor, T. (2012). "American Terrorism," MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3410/3410lect03.htm.

How the U.S.A. Patriot Act Redefines 'Domestic Terrorism' (2002) ACLU. 6 Dec 2002.

Differences Between International, Domestic and Homegrown Terrorists

The objective of this study is to examine the difference between international, domestic, and homegrown terrorists. Homegrown terrorists are those who are born and raised on American soil and who commit acts against the citizens of the United States through commission of acts that are dangerous and against the well-being of the U.S. populace. Domestic terrorists are individuals who live in the United States although they may not have been U.S. born citizens and who due to their political views plan activities that are focused toward hurting the United States and the American way of life or that of Democracy. The acts committed by these individuals are focused on undermining liberty. International terrorists are those who live in foreign countries and who are focused on bringing about death and tragedy in the United States and affecting the U.S. political system and its way of life.

Attack on Libya and Increase in Terrorism

The objective of this study is to answer whether since in the summer of 2011 the United States was pounding Libya with bombs if the U.S. population can expect an increase in terrorism as a result. It is the opinion of this writer that attacks on other populations would tend to increase terrorism if the specific country, and in this case Libya, had the means to increase terrorism on the United States. Terrorism requires resources such as funding for terrorist acts because terrorists have to travel great distances to reach the target of the United States when they are located in the Middle East. It would appear that should another country attack U.S. citizens that the United States would use all necessary resources to inflict the same or worse damage on the perpetrators so it is the opinion of this writer that attacks on Libya would increase rather than decrease terrorism.

Distinguishing Between Deterrence and Counter-Terrorism

The objective of this study is to examine what distinguishes between deterrence and terrorism. The work of Keeney (2005) relates that it is necessary to develop a value-model for deterrence of terrorism which includes the five steps posited by Keeney (1988) including those as follows:

1. Specifying objectives,

2. Identifying attributes for those objectives,

3. Relating and integrating objectives,

4. Specifying relative preferences for different levels of the single attributes,

5. Defining the value tradeoffs that prioritize the different objectives. (Keeney, 2005, p.5)

Keeney (2006) states that there are five properties that are desirable for a good set of fundamental objectives including:

1. Complete: All of the important consequences of alternatives in the decision context can be adequately described in terms of the set of fundamental objectives.

2. Non-redundance: The fundamental objectives should not include overlapping concerns.

3. Concise: The objectives and subobjectives, that more precisely define the objectives, should be the minimum number appropriate for quality analysis.

4. Specific: Each objective should be specific enough so that the consequences of concern are clear and useful attributes can be readily selected or defined.

5. Understandable: Any interested individual knows what is meant by the objectives. (Keeney, 2005, p.6)

According to a Joint Chiefs of Staff report "In joint doctrine, CT was simply defined as operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism." Therefore, it can be understood that deterrence and counter-terrorism have the same objectives. (2005, p.4)

References

Keeney, RL (2005) Modeling Values for Counter-Terrorism Analysis. Duke University. 28 Oct 2005.

Is it Wise That the Focus of Counter-Terrorism is Exclusively in Islamic Supremacy

The objective of this study is to answer whether it is wise that the focus of counter-terrorism is exclusively on Islamic Supremacy. In a report by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff it is stated "Terrorism has evolved as a preferred tactic for ideological extremists around the world, directly or indirectly affecting millions of people." (2009) Terrorism arises from all over the world and not only from the Islamic Supremacy. As history has demonstrated terrorism arises from many developing countries that are envious of the liberty and freedom in the United States. It is stated in the Joint Chiefs of Staff report: "The broad USG strategy is to continue to lead an international effort to deny violent extremist networks the resources and functions they need to operate and survive. This strategy of three key elements and three enabling elements represents the critical efforts (the ways)

for achieving success. The key strategy elements are: protect and defend the homeland; attack terrorists and their capacity to operate effectively at home and abroad; and support mainstream efforts to reject violent extremism. The three key elements of the strategy are enabled by three crosscutting elements: expanding foreign partnerships and partnership capacity; enhancing capacity to prevent terrorist acquisition and use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD); and institutionalizing, domestically and internationally, the strategy against violent extremists." (2005, p.7) as noted in the Joint Chiefs of Staff report (2005) the focus on counter-terrorism must be a focus that is broad in nature and that considers all possible sources of terrorism if terrorism is to be combated effectively.

References

Counter-Terrorism (2005) Joint Chiefs of Staff publication 3-26.

To Stop Immigration From Islamic Countries: Should We Round Up Every Muslim and Send Them Back?

The objective of this study is to examine whether the United States should stop immigration from Islamic countries and round up those who are already in the United States and send them back to their country of origin. For anyone who has known Muslim individuals on a personal basis, the individual understands that all Muslims are not jihadists nor are they extremists who intend to do harm to the American way of life. Many Muslims are peace-loving individuals who would no more commit a terrorist act than would any patriotic American. It is important that the U.S. population understand that only a fraction of Muslim individuals are jihad extremists or terrorists. In fact, there are individuals who are born and raised in the United States who practice the religion of Islam. Therefore, to round up all the Islamic individuals in the United States and send them back would result in U.S. citizens being expelled from their own country. One of the primary founding concepts of the United States as a country was that of freedom of religion. This means that those living in the United States are free to follow the religion that most closely adheres to their beliefs. The religion of Islam is not a terrorist religion, but like any religion, has a potential for extremists who veer off the true doctrines of that religion and develop their own twisted version of the religion. Those who have known personally individuals who follow the religion of Islam and who are not extremists understand that the religion of Islam is a peaceful religion that calls for love for fellow-man and that requires believers to adhere to a peaceful way of life.

Questioning Libyans in the U.S. Related to Sleeper Cells

The objective of this study is to answer as to whether questioning Libyans in the United States on planned terrorist acts is a… READ MORE