Terrorism and Conceptual Problems
International terrorism is the use of political violence to gain specific goals by force. These acts of terrorism may be practiced on individuals, governments, and religious groups. The purpose of terrorism is to promote terror, in that case, the population is force into fear and the delusions of death (”Terrorism, International” Microsoft (R) Encarta 1994.). United States has been maintaining the ominous terrorism acts by increasing security, high-tech devices detecting characteristics of a terrorist, and preventing fewer menacing attacks against the United States.
International terrorism has been recurrent during the periods of political and social upheaval. The distinctive wave of international terrorism, that developed after the mid-1960’s diversed from earlier ones in its comprehensive greater impacts. Numerous elements associated to make international terrorism uncomplicated and more effective: technological advances, resulting in both greater destructiveness and smaller sized weapons leading mass destruction (?U.S. asserts? n. pag.). Such groups may use terrorism tactics in extortion attempts like those used to “shake down the neighborhood.” The scope and magnitude of future potential terrorist organizations will be improved by the impetuous changes in technology will provide a next generation of terrorists. The resort to terrorism could be an effort to dramatize a cause and provoke the to the extent of a more extreme hazardness. As the United States tries to redefine the formation and execution of foreign policy humanitarian assistance, which will be objects of an effort might resent it (”Domestic Reports” n. pag.).
Today, the U.S. alone spends roughly a $billion a year combating terrorism and hoping to decrease the catastrophesity of terrorism. Statistically, few of will ever be killed by the deeds of a terrorist; “kill one and terrorize thousands” says Chinese leader chairman Mao (”Domestic Reports” n. pag.). Yet our, and other governments spend vast amounts of money fighting terrorism, and to secure the peace in our nations cities. Terrorists find it easier and more productive to plant a big bomb to wipe out an entire neighborhood, rather pin pointing the targets. Because of this, about every nation now has at least a rudimentary counter-terrorism team. Because of these ghastly acts, the United States and other nations have created the Anti-terrorism tactics. Anti-terrorism refers to the prevention of terrorism, while counter-terrorism takes the opponents out (”In the Senate” n. pag.).
“If there is a “fog of war,” there is probably a more dense “smog of terrorism,
” for the small nature of terrorism groups, their close interpersonal communications, and their predilection for soft targets of opportunity make it difficult to predict their future operations. Counter-terrorism analysts must therefore peer through a very cloudy ball when assessing the intentions, capabilities, and targets of existing and future terrorist groups. Life would be easier if, as when assessing a conventional army, analysts could pour over communications intercepts to discern orders of battle and make predictions based on the enemy?s known doctrine and strategy,? says Strategic Intelligence for American National Security, Allen E. Goodman (?Patterns of Global? n. pag.).
The potential spillover effect may be intensified by the domestic, political, and economic environment. The capability of ethnic-based politics, with the tendentious debates over immigration policy, may provide abundant ground by which ethics conflicts may be transported to the United States. The existence of large immigrant communities may provide the ?human Jungle? in which the external terrorist groups can operate. The United States has been insuring the safety of the United States public and calculating the steps of terrorists. The focus is the vulnerabilities in the United States by international linkage(?Patterns of Global? n. pag.).
Finally, one might contemplate the existing radical operations to issue-oriented movements such as radical environmentalism, fringe elements of the pro-life movements, and radical animal rights groups, there will emerge new groups willing to use terrorism to advance grievances both real and imaginary. As lawmakers debated what steps to take to prevent future attacks, many Americans ponder what sacrifice are they willing to take to counter the terrorist threat. The questions are to be asked if the travelers are willing to wait in longer lines, so that sensitive equipment can inspect their bags for explosives or unusual items? Are they willing to pay more for the airline tickets to finance the new detection equipment? Are Americans willing to submit to increase security measures at the expense of their freedom of movement as well as privacy(?Patterns of Global? n. pag.).
In 1996, Anti-terrorism act was passed through congress and president Clinton signed into law, which granted $one billion to combat terrorism. The new law was unduly expands the federal government?s power and violates citizen?s constitutional rights. The Anti-terrorism act, gave an earlier provision to federal governments powers to wiretap suspected terrorist group?s phones without warrant was removed from the final bill. Such tragedies such as the Oklahoma City bombing argued lawmakers to make essential that the federal government be allowed to monitor militia groups more closely. In addition, President Clinton authorized computer passenger ?profiling? systems, expanding an informal identification system now in place. The system will determine a closely ?profile? match on whether of a terrorist profile. The plans advocates were repelled as the advanced bomb detection equipment, but they were generally acknowledged resulting in safer travel (?How Vulnerable? n. pag.).
Lawmakers have challenge themselves, trying to respond to the fear that has been invading Americans that the United States are becoming more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. But, many experts believe that the American public and lawmakers need to think about whether they are responding to fear or to the facts. For these many experts, the responses to the explosion of TWA flight 800, is a perfect example of overreaction. Investigators are pondering the cause of what the explosion resulted from, and yet, this explosion has promoted a revival of the Anti-Terrorism act and President Clinton has requested the expansion of federal governments wiretapping rights once again. The question that has been said many of times is that, ?should Americans give up a measure of freedom for the increased safety it will likely provide? (?CNN Domestic? n. pag.)?
Similarly, terrorists must be made to realize that they cannot strike at the United States and its citizens with impunity. While Soviet embassies and legations have escaped all but incidental violence in recent years. U.S. embassies have been attacked in dozens of countries, the most serious incidents involving the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, and the sacking and burning of our embassies in Libya and Pakistan, and the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut. It is time that policies that ensure swift and sure retribution against those who attack our citizens and property. ?If it is our destiny as a nation not to be loved, then surely it behooves us to be feared, at least by the purveyors of violence,? says Stephen Sloan (?How Vulnerable? n. pag.).