Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
effects of terrorism that changes the united states
the impact of september 11 2001
the impact of september 11 2001
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: effects of terrorism that changes the united states
The terrorist attacks of September 11 led to a lot of pressure from the public to find those responsible and bring them to “justice”. In order to do so, President Bush declared a war on terrorism just a few days after the attacks, but little did he know that this very decision would also bring devastating consequences to many countries. Over time, people have been losing faith in the war and in its purpose. Consequently, countries whose economies have fallen under the Military Industrial Complex have manufactured a societal fear against Muslims and jihadists. As a result, they are now being stigmatized and portrayed as the enemies of democracy, and of the United States in particular. To make matter worse, it has driven western countries to implement many extreme security measures that undermine the democratic principles they are attempting to spread over the world. The war on terrorism has had many negative consequences on modern society, which include a legitimization crisis of democracy, mainly in the U.S, and the manufacturing of moral panics over security risks that have led to the criminalization and stigmatization of the Arab world.
Chomsky and the Heritage Society take opposing views on the issue of the war on terror. Noam Chomsky argues in the article ““Looking Back on 9/11: Was there an Alternative” that by rushing into this war, the U.S just fell into bin-Laden’s trap of forcing them to engage in many expensive wars that would drive them to bankruptcy (Chomsky). Whereas as the in the article titled ““A Counterterrorism Strategy for the "Next Wave"”, the Heritage Society disputes that the war and the negative effects of it are justifiable because it is for the greater good, it is to prevent terrorism. They insist on spe...
... middle of paper ...
...r’ Became Everyone’s Islamophobia and the Impact of September 11 on the Political Terrain of South and Southeast Asia.” HUMAN ARCHITECTURE: JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE 1 (2006): 20-50.
Piazza, James and James Igoe Walsh. “Physical Integrity Rights and Terrorism.” Terrorism and Human Rights (2010).
Simon, Johnathan. “Power, Authority, and Criminal Law.” Simon, Johnathan. Governing Through Crime : How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. Oxford University Press, 2007. 341.
The Heritage Foundation. “A Counterterrorism Strategy for the “Next Wave”.” The Heritage Society, 2011.
Walklate, Sandra and Gabe Mythen. “How Scared are We?” British Journal of Criminology (2007).
Welch, Michael. “Trampling Human Rights in the War on Terror: Implications to the Sociology of Denial.” Critical Criminology (2004).
Messner, Steven F., Eric P. Baumer, and Richard Rosenfeld. 2006. “Distrust of Government, the Vigilante Tradition, and Support for Capital Punishment.” Law & Society Review 40: 559-586.
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
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.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Zedner, L. 2005, "Securing Liberty in the Face of Terror: Reflections from Criminal Justice", Journal of Law and Society, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. pp. 507-533.
Kash, Douglas A. “An International Legislative Approach to 21st-Century Terrorism.” The Future of Terrorism: Violence in the New Millennium. Ed. Harvey W. Kushner. London: Sage Publications, 1998.
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
Rothe, D. & Muzzatti, S.L. 2004. Enemies everywhere: Terrorism, moral panic and US civil society. Critical Criminology. 1(12): 327–350.
Ever since September 11, 2001 Americans along with the majority of the world’s population have been skeptical of Muslims. It’s a sad reality but it’s hard for people to think of a Muslim without linking them directly to terrorism. But these assumptions aren’t totally out of the blue—the Muslim’s religion, Islam, teaches a low tolerance for other religions and the Islamic government has no separation of church and state, so it’s only normal to assume that their government shall have a low tolerance as well—some however, immediately translate this into terrorism. Through the Islamic government and religion, relations with foreign countries, and separation amongst themselves it can be concluded that Islamic Fundamentalism is clearly a threat to political stability.
Stephen M. Sobieck, “Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany,” in David A. Charters (ed.), The Deadly Sin of Terrorism: Its Effect on Democracy and Civil Liberties in Six Countries, 66.
Bhutto, Benazir. “Three Victims of Terrorism.” 2002. World Views: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 6th ed. Eds. Darren Felty et al. Boston: Pearson Custom, 2010. 293-304. Print. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
On September 11, 2001 the United States finally understood the reality of terrorism. As people watched The World Trade Center collapse, terrorists became more than a group of Muslims in the Middle East. After that fateful day, terrorism became a real threat, and the United States declared war on Terror. Since then, American soldiers have been sacrificing their lives to keep the United States free from many foreign terrorist groups. The background and history of the terrorist groups helps the United States understand the culture and motivation for the attacks. Therefore, since terrorism is ever present, the United States has
Yet, in addition to these shocking transnational attacks, domestic terrorism seems to be underemphasized although it causes more casualties and greater damage than transnational terrorism in the long term. Democracies are among the countries suffering from both domestic or transnational terrorism and their long term consequences. In particular, Turkey, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Italy suffered from domestic terrorism for many years and still struggle with the damaging consequences. Yet, while some democracies are targets of terrorism, it is not a problem for all democracies. This phenomenon raises the research question for this paper: Why are some democracies targets of terrorism and others are not?
This examination provides insight to the ways state power is used to define challenges to authority. For example, behaviors that threaten the social, economic and political order are labeled terrorist was well as criminal. For instance, the Black Liberation Army a splinter group made up of the more radical members of the Black Panther Party, the BLA sought to overthrow the US government in the name of racial separatism and Marxist ideals. Which according to the Justice Department the group was suspected of involvement in over 60 incidents of violence between 1970 and 1980. Different responses to criminal acts are facilitated when the stat-controlled of terrorist can be applied. In the same way, the focus on repeat offenders, long prison terms, on street crimes rather than corporate or white-collar crimes. As a result, the powerful can exert social control on the common people while excluding their own act and the criminal acts of those who serve powerful
The assumption that these countries have a “broken” system has led the United States to believe that even the spread of democracy would effectively put an end to terrorism. This sentiment of idealism has everyone believing that “Faith-secular and religion-urges us to insist on a freedom for every soul in the service of democracy and salvation” (Fineman 198). In contrast to the proposed analysis, I suggest instead that the roots of terrorism are not based on poverty or political inefficiency of the nation, but are rather triggered by the growth of idealist views held by the United States. Western intervention has increased resentment among terrorist groups making this ideological and political resentment be their primary source of power.