Interstate Wars Vs Terrorism

There was a total of 64 people in that plane. A fourth plane United Airline Flight 93 was also reported to have crashed in New Jersey after some passengers tried to fight off the hijackers of the plane. All 45 on board the plane were also killed after the plane had flipped over and hit the ground. These crashes resulted in the death of over 3000 people on the soil of the United States of America. Reports shows over 10000 people were treated for various injuries with the most being severe. Investigations from all four incidents show there were 19 terrorists on board all four planes whose objectives kill people in sending out their message. They were member of Osama bin-Laden’s group Al-Qaeda. A well planned and almost complete attack without

I will look to the similarities and differences between terrorism and interstate wars. Firstly, they both have different targets in sending out their messages. Interstate wars have a fought by soldiers in arms. They are the ones who have the skills and the know how to operate machines used in wars. Terrorist attack has innocent civilians as their targets. The attack on civilians is done to provoke an outrage for the population to get the government to alter a political decision or depart from certain areas. Just as in the above incident, they did that to send a message to the United States government to leave Iraq and secondly to wage a war on Christianity. Secondly, the element of surprise. Unlike wars, terrorism occurs at times that people least expect them to. Attacks in London, Bali and Milan and most recently Paris were surprises to most people. With modern day improvements to technology and surveillance in general, it is still difficult to predict when these attacks will occur because, unlike interstate wars, they are not required to declare war on states before attacking them. They are also not bounded

Theorists as realists and liberal find it extremely irrational looking at the basis of the explanations given. In the world, there are clear laws that govern the global affairs yet terrorism has very limited laws with most acts against it being straight justice by bombings or military interventions. Most terrorists are killed even before made to face any the law. One theory that has for the past years sought to understand the acts of terror is the constructivism theories. A theory based solely on observation and scientific study on how people learn. It studies how the experiences and actions of people shape their understanding of the world. A core social constructivism scholar Alexander Wendt believes that International Relations “is not given but a construction”. He argues; “the impact of ideas and identities, how they are created, how they evolve and shape the way states respond to a situation.” “Constructivism seemed best placed in evaluating terrorism” (Lynch 2009). Per Wendt, interactions give up the identities of groups as terrorist groups with the world in general. To the sympathizer of the group, they view them as freedom fighters but states as the United States will object to that. They are known to be evil people who take the lives of innocent people. This constructivism uses to teach us that the issue of terrorism is indeed a social issue, hence the difficulty for