International Relations Essays Terrorism Definition Solutions

International Relations Essays Terrorism Definition Solutions Terrorism: An Exploration Of Its Definition, History, And Possible Solutions Terrorism upsets people. It does so deliberately. Thatis its point and that is why it has engrossed so much of ourattention in the early years of the 21st century. Townshend Ask any tenindividuals on the streets of London, Paris, Moscow, or New York for the topthree issues facing the world today and one common response is likely to be terrorism.Inquire further about how the same people would define terrorism, whenterrorism began, and how terrorism can be stopped and you will probably befaced with a myriad of answers, or maybe just looks of puzzlement. The range ofresponses (or lack thereof) from the public should not be surprising. Not evenexperts agree on responses to these seemingly fundamental questions on an issueof such importance to worldwide security, an issue that Thackrah suggests isone of the most intractable global problems at the start of the twenty-firstcentury. This essaybegins by surveying the vast array of definitions for the term terrorism,providing some insight into the reasons that terrorism is so difficult forexperts to define, and adopting a working definition for the term. Thehistorical roots of terrorism will then be explored and results of a review ofselected literature on possible solutions for dealing with terrorism will beintroduced. Finally, a conclusion discussing the results of the literaturereview will be presented. Terrorism Defined What is terrorism? The definitionassigned to the term very much depends on who you ask, although, as Hoffmanwrites, few words have so insidiously worked their way in to our everydayvocabulary.Oots writes that terrorism has been defined in different ways by variousscholars.Hoffman suggests that most individuals have vague notions of what the termmeans, but cannot offer precise, explanatory definitions. The TerrorismResearch Center claims that [t]errorism by nature is difficult to define.Townshend writes that both politicians and scholars have been hung up inattempting to define terrorism in a way that distinguishes it from othercriminal violence and even military action.Complicating attempts to define terrorism, the meaning and usage of the termhave changed over the years.Complications aside, most people would agree that terrorism is a subjectiveterm with negative connotations, a pejorative term, used to describe the actsof enemies or opponents. The term has moral connotations and can be used topersuade others to adopt a particular viewpoint. For instance, if an individualsympathises with the victims of terrorism, then the perpetrator is consideredto be a terrorist, but if an individual sympathises with the perpetrator, thenthe perpetrator is considered to be a freedom fighter or is referred to byequally positive characterisations.About this, the Terrorism Research Center writes: One mans terrorist isanother mans freedom fighter.Whittaker distinguishes between terrorists, guerrillas, and freedom fighters inwriting: the terrorist targets civilians; the guerrilla goes for militarypersonnel and facilities; and the freedom fighter conducts a campaign toliberate his people from dictatorial oppression, gross disarmament, or the gripof an occupying power. One author includedover one hundred definitions for the term terrorism.Another quoted over ninety definitions and descriptions.The definitions range from those that are quite simplistic to those that areequally comprehensive. The following definitions are illustrative of the broadrange of thought: Terrorism is violence for purposes of creating fear. Terrorism is politically and socially motivated violence. Terrorism is political violence in or against true democracies. Terrorism may be described as a strategy of violence designed toinspire terror within a particular segment of a given society. Terrorism is the most amoral of organised violence. Terrorism is a form of warfareused when full-scale militaryaction is not possible. Terrorism is a method of action by which an agent tends to produceterror in order to impose his domination. Terrorism is the systematic use of coercive intimidation,usually to service political ends. It is used to create a climate of fear. Terrorism is the threat or use of violence, often against thecivilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidateopponents, or to publicise grievances. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at populations inan effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. Terrorism is politically motivated violence perpetrated againstnon-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usuallyintended to influence an audience. Whittakerexplores the complexity of defining terrorism by furnishing a comprehensivelist of terrorism criteria: The violence or threat of violence inherent in terrorism ispremeditated and politically motivated for the purpose of intimidating orcoercing a government or the public in general. The strategy of terrorism is to instil fear and insecurity. Sustained campaigns or sporadic incidents are applied byterrorists in conducting their unlawful activities. Calculated use of violence is applied against civilian,non-combatant targets. Acquiring, manipulating, and employing power is at the root ofterrorism. Revolutionary terrorism attempts to completely change the politicalsystem within a state; sub-revolutionary terrorism attempts to effect changewithout totally replacing the existing political system. Terrorism consists of carefully planned goals, means, targets,and access conducted in a clandestine manner. The goals of terrorism focus on political, social, ideological,or religious ends. This distinguishes terrorism from other criminal activity. Terrorism is conducted occasionally by individuals, but mostoften by sub-national groups. An important objective of terrorism is to obtain maximumpublicity. Increasingly, terrorist zones of action are extending beyondnational borders, becoming transnational in effect. The vast number of definitions proposed for the term terrorism might makeone wonder if there could ever be agreement around a common definition. Forwithout a common understanding about what terrorism is, how can it bechallenged and ultimately removed as a threat to modern civilisation? Despitethe many definitions for terrorism, there does seem to be an emerging consensuson the definition of the term, according to Jenkins.For instance, Enders and Sandler offer the following comprehensive definitionof terrorism: Terrorism isthe premeditated use or threat of use of extranormal violence or brutality bysubnational groups to obtain a political, religious, or ideological objectivethrough intimidation of a huge audience, usually not directly involved with thepolicy making that terrorists seek to influence. Enders and Sandlersdefinition will be used for the purpose of this essay not only because it is anexample of a current consensus description, but also because it containscriteria suggested by other definitions surveyed in the literature review -violence or threats of violence; intimidation of large civilian audiences; desireto influence; subnational terrorist groupings; and political, religious, orideological objectives. Historical Roots of Terrorism Colin Gray writes thatterrorism is as old as strategic history.The roots of terrorism can be traced back in time to ancient Greece, andterrorist acts have occurred throughout history since that time. The termterrorism, however, originated in the French Revolutions Reign of Terrorand was popularised at that time.Terrorism in this era carried a very positive connotation as it was undertakenin an effort to establish order during the anarchy that followed uprisings inFrance in 1789. It was considered to be an instrument of governance institutedto intimidate counter-revolutionaries, dissidents and subversives and wasassociated with the ideals of democracy and virtue. In fact, according toHoffman, the revolutionary leader Maximillien Robespierre claimed that virtue,without which terror is evil; terror, without which virtue is helpless andthat [t]error is nothing but justice, prompt, severe and inflexible; it is thereforean emanation of virtue. Terrorism at thestart of the twentieth century retained the revolutionary connotations it hadacquired during the French Revolution as it took aim on the Ottoman andHabsburg Empires. In the 1930s, the meaning of terrorism mutated to describeactivities of totalitarian governments and their leaders against theircitizenry in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Stalinist Russia. For instance,in Germany and Italy, gangs of brown shirts or black shirts harassed andintimidated opponents, although leaders of these nations denied that thisoccurred. After World War II, the meaning of terrorism changed once again,returning to its revolutionary connotations where it remains today. Terrorist activitiesin the 1940s and 1950s primarily focused on revolts by indigenous nationalistgroups opposing colonial rule in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, resultingin independence for many countries. Although terrorism retained itsrevolutionary connotation in the 1960s and 1970s, the focus shifted fromanti-coloni alist to separatist goals. Today, terrorism involves broader, lessdistinct goals.The right-wing and left-wing terrorism that became widespread in recent times includedacts by diverse groups such as the Italian Red Brigades; the Irish RepublicanArmy; the Palestine Liberation Organisation; the Shining Path in Peru; theLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka; the Weatherman in the UnitedStates; various militia organisations, also in the United States; radicalMuslims through Hamas and Al Quaeda; radical Sikhs in India; and the AumShinrikyo in Japan.Some governments, such as those in Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, are also consideredto be involved in terrorism as sponsors of terrorist activities.Some people, such as American dissident Noam Chomsky, contend that thegovernment of the United States is engaged in terrorism, as exemplified by thetitle of Chomskys 2001 article entitled U.S.A Leading Terrorist State,which appeared in the Monthly Review. Terrorism associatedwith the French Revolution had two important characteristics in common withterrorism today. Firstly, terrorism was, and is today, organised, deliberate,and systematic. Secondly, the goals of terrorism then and now were and are tocreate a new, better society.But, terrorism today has changed in some very fundamental ways: (1) terroristorganisations have evolved into network forms and are less often organised inhierarchies; (2) the identities of transnational terrorist organisations areharder to identify because they claim responsibility for specific acts lessoften; (3) todays terrorist groups do not make demands as often as in the pastand their goals appear to be more hazy and vague; (4) motives have generallyshifted from those that are more politically-oriented to those that are morereligiously-oriented; (5) targets of terrorists are more dispersed around theglobe; and (6) terrorist violence, today, is more indiscriminate, involvingsignificant collateral damage to the public. With thishistorical foundation, particularly the description of the evolution ofterrorism into its current form, the focus now shifts to possible solutions todealing with the issue today. Possible Solutions to Terrorism To effectively meet thechallenges of terrorism, one should consider the history of terrorism, but mustalso look to the future. Kress and colleagues contend that terrorism isincreasing in geographical scope, numerical frequency, and intensity as wellas in ingenuity and subtlety. They suggest that these trends could welltranslate into more varied threats and more powerful tools and weapons, addingthat bombs will get smaller and more powerful, poisons and mind-blowing drugsmore insidious, psychological techniques for converting or brainwashing thevictims more effective, and psychological tortures more agonizing. Ian Lesser offers acomprehensive approach for meeting the challenges of terrorism. His approachconsists of a core strategy and supporting strategies aimed at targetingsecurity threats posed by terrorists within a context of global securitythreats from all sources. Lessers core strategy consists of four components:(1) reducing systemic causes of terrorism, (2) deterring terrorists and theirsponsors, (3) reducing risks associated with superterrorism, and (4)retaliating in instances where deterrence fails. In reducing system causes ofterrorism, Lesser is referring to the long-term goal of addressing issues thatgive rise to terrorism such as social and economic problems, unresolved ethnicand nationalist conflicts, frustrated political ambitions, and personalexperiences of individuals who may become future terrorists. In deterringterrorists and their sponsors, Lesser suggests taking massive and personalactions against terrorist leadership, although he concedes that this is becomingmore an d more difficult as terrorists and their sponsors become more diverseand diffuse. In reducing risks associated with superterrorism, Lesser callsfor eliminating weapons of mass destruction that terrorists could use ininflicting destruction and suffering. And, finally, in retaliating whendeterrence fails, Lesser suggests developing the means to retaliate quickly andspecifically to terrorist activities. One of Lessersstrategies supporting his core strategy is environmental shaping, whichinvolves exposing sponsors of terrorism to global scrutiny and isolation;shrinking the zones of chaos and terrorist sanctuary; includingcounterterrorism as an integral component of strategic alliances; limitingglobal exposure; and targeting terrorist networks and funding. His hedgingstrategy involves hardening key policies and strategies to limit risks ofterrorism, increasing ground and space-based surveillance of terroristresources, and preparing to mitigate the effects of terrorism to limit negativeeffects. Kress andassociates reiterate the first component of Lessers core strategy in offeringtheir proactive approach to dealing with terrorism; specifically, addressinggenuine political injustice and resolving supposed injustices.Chalk contends that a state response to terrorism must be limited,well-defined and controlled to avoid compromising the political and civiltraditions that are central to the liberal democratic way of life. He suggeststhat any liberal democratic response to terrorism has to rest on oneoverriding maxim: a commitment to uphold and maintain constitutional principlesof law and order. Conclusion The long history ofterrorism, dating as far back as ancient Greece, suggests that this phenomenon maynever be eliminated as a tactic by those people or groups without sufficient formallegal power to achieve their goals. However, this does not imply that terrorismcannot be engaged proactively and reactively. Logically, it seems that thefirst step should be to agree on a universally-accepted definition forterrorism because, without a consensus on the meaning of the term, effectivelyaddressing its causes and its effects may be difficult at best and impossibleat worst. With a consensusdefinition in hand, the comprehensive strategy for dealing with terrorismproposed by Lesser reduction in systemic causes, deterrence, superterrorismrisk reduction, and retaliation would appear to offer the most balanced,effective approach. Todays leaders should realise that offensive and defensivemilitary action, so typical of traditional warfare, is quite ineffective as asole method for dealing with modern forms of terrorism as demonstrated byfailures experienced by Israel in dealing with the Palestinian terroristproblem and the greater-than-expected difficulties experienced by the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom, and others in ridding the world of radical Islamicterrorists. These efforts may not only fail to ultimately deal effectively withpreventing terrorist activities, but may also produce more terrorists who are offendedby military actions. Alternatively, a holistic approach one which includesproactive prevention and reactive punishment measures such as the approachadvocated by Lesser should be employed. In any solution to theglobal problem of terrorism, the cautionary advice offered by Peter Chalkshould be considered; that is, political and civil liberties should not besacrificed in responding to the terrorist threat. For the very way of life thegovernments of free societies are trying to protect in their attempts to combatterrorism could be compromised by actions that are not limited, well-definedand controlled. Interestingly, this thought was eloquently proffered more thantwo centuries ago by American inventor, journalist, printer, andstatesman Benjamin Franklin in warning that [t]hose who would give upessential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neitherliberty nor safety. Therecommendation, then, is to deal with terrorism in a holistic, balanced mannerstressing proactive and reactive measures whilst preserving political and civilliberties. References Bassiouni,M. Terrorism, Law Enforcement and the Mass Media: Perspectives, Problems,Proposals, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 72:1 (1981).Cited in Thackrah (2004). Bergesen, Albert J., and Han, Yi. New Directions forTerrorism Research. International Journal of Comparative Sociology46:1-2 (2005). Bite, V. InternationalTerrorism. Foreign Affairs Division, Library of Congress, Appendix of U.S.Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1975. Cited in Thackrah (2004). Chalk,Peter. The Response to Terrorism as a Threat to Liberal Democracy. TheAustralian Journal of Politics and History 44:3 (1998). Chomsky, N. U.S. ALeading Terrorist State. Monthly Review 53 (2001): 10-19. Cited inBergesen and Han (2005). Enders, W., and Sandler, T. Patterns of TransnationalTerrorism, 1970 1999: Alternative Time-Series Estimates. InternationalStudies Quarterly 46 (2002): 145-65. Cited in Bergesen and Han (2005). Fromkin, David. TheStrategy of Terrorism. In Contemporary Terrorism: Selected Readings,John D. Elliot and Leslie K. Gibson, eds. Gaithersburg, Maryland: InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police, 1978. Gray, ColinS. Modern Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Heyman, P.B. Terrorism and America: A Commonsense Strategy for a Democratic Society. Cambridge,Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1998. Cited in Thackrah (2004). Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism.New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Jenkins, B. M. Terrorism and Beyond: A 21st CenturyPerspective. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24 (2001): 321-27. Citedin Bergesen and Han. New Directions for Terrorism Research. InternationalJournal of Comparative Sociology 46:1-2 (2005). Kress,Bruce, Livingston, Marius H., and Wanek, Marie G. International Terrorism inthe Contemporary World. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978. Lesser, Ian.Countering the New Terrorism: Implications for Strategy. In Countering theNew Terrorism, Hoffman et al., eds.Santa Monica, California: Rand,1999. Mallin, Jay. Terrorismas a Military Weapon. In Contemporary Terrorism: Selected Readings, JohnD. Elliot and Leslie K. Gibson, eds. Gaithersburg, Maryland: InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police, 1978. Cited in Oots (1986). Oots, Kent Layne. PoliticalOrganization Approach to Transnational Terrorism. New York: GreenwoodPress, 1986. Ruby, C. L. TheDefinition of Terrorism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2(1)(2002): 9-14. Cited in Bergesen and Han (2005). TerrorismResearch Center, What is the Definition of Terrorism? (n.d.) Availablefrom: Charles Townshend, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2002).

Essay --

â€Å"As of 2012, approximately 400,000 people in the United States have been diagnosed with MS, with 10,000 new cases being diagnosed each year. Worldwide, MS affects between 1.5 and 2.5 million people.† (Davidson, Fallon, Slomski & Cataldo, 2013, p. 2228). With statistics like this many people have encountered individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The purpose of this report is to describe in detail this disease and how MRI is the modality of choice to diagnose. The Disease MS is an autoimmune disease. This means that the body’s immune system attacks normal tissue. Immune cells attack and obliterate the myelin sheath that surrounds neurons found in the brain and spinal cord. Myelin is an important component of neurons because it acts as an insulator. Myelin sheaths help electric signals travel efficiently from the brain to areas of the body, and â€Å"speeds transmission and prevents electrical activity in one cell from short-circuiting to another cell† (Davidson et al., 2013, p. 2228). MS attacks these myelin sheaths and disrupts the efficiency of that signal. It can be compared to a radio transmission. When myelin is working properly, one can hear a clear broadcast. However, when myelin is attacked and destroyed the transmission is no longer clear. It is jarbbled, hence, it alters and disrupts the message. When myelin is destroyed it turns into scar tissue called a plaque. This plaque will appear as â€Å"small round areas o f gray neurons without the white myelin covering† (Davidson et al., 2013, p. 2228). Causes There is no known reason to explain why the body starts attacking its own myelin sheaths. Though there has been much research, researchers have not been able to pinpoint a trigger. However, through this resear... ...em, because cortical bone does not produce a signal in MRI. This area is often obscured on CT because of the beam hardening artifact. The use of gadolinium better differentiates and increases sensitivity in detecting lesions. Diffusion-weighted imaging also gives MRI the ability to determine the age of lesions or differentiate acute from chronic ischemic changes (Pierce & Dubose, 2012). In conclusion, MS is a disease affecting many individuals. It can shorten the individual’s lifespan, but many treatment options are available to help cope with the symptoms. MRI is an evolving modality as it was just introduced in the 1990s and many advances have been made in the past couple of years. MRI is more sensitive than CT in detecting changes in the white matter of the brain. That is why MRI is the modality of choice to help diagnose a case of Multiple Sclerosis.

The Awakening Deconstruction

When understanding a work of literature, most readers would take the work at its face value, not looking Into other possible meanings, while a deconstructionist would take apart a text and find many other possible meanings. In The Awakening, Kate Chopin tells the story of Edna Pointillist, who feels that society is constricting and that she needs to be free of the norms set by society. She decides to leave her responsibilities and pursue a life of freedom, which she at first thinks is exactly what she wants. She abandons her life as a housewife and mother to follow a path that leads to her own destruction.By freeing herself from what she thought was an unhappy life, Edna finds herself more dejected, which leads her to her death. She thinks the only way to be truly free from the oppressiveness of society would be to die, which would release her of all her worries. The point Chopin was trying to convey in The Awakening is that society is oppressive and forces women to stay in their pla ce otherwise their reputation would be in Jeopardy. The idea falls apart in that no one ever tries to stop Edna from her process of â€Å"awakening. Not one person forces her to do her housework or take care of her children. It Is merely suggested that she does so. Even though Edna receives warnings and scolding from her husband to be a better mother and to take better care of the family, she ignores them, and L ©once thinks there is something mentally wrong with her (86). When Dean's father comes to visit her, he scolds L ©once for being too lenient and not asserting his authority instead of realizing that Edna was asserting her own independence (107). The idea of an oppressive society disintegrates through this example.Edna believes that society Is constricting her, when there Isn't anyone who Is limiting her actions. L ©once, on finding out that Edna has moved into a smaller house, only disapproves because he fears his reputation would be injured because he believes others would think he is having financial difficulties (137). This shows that L ©once isn't particularly worried about Dean's reputation, only what she could be doing to his reputation. Therefore, Edna isn't necessarily being burdened by the norms of society; she is already partially free to express herself.Doctor Mandated, on speaking with L ©once concerning Dean's â€Å"condition†, asks If Edna has been associating with â€Å"pseudo-Intellectual women†, which L ©once reports that she hasn't (99). Mademoiselle Raise could be considered an intellectual woman, being that she often gives Edna advice, whom is also Dean's confidant. Mademoiselle Raise also warns Edna by telling her â€Å"The bird that would soar above the level plain of tradition and prejudice must have strong wings. It is a sad spectacle to see the weaklings bruised, exhausted, fluttering back to earth† (122).So, even the woman whom Edna turns to for guidance tells her she must be strong to break t hrough societies clutches, or she will fall, which foreshadows Dean's death. Chopping concept is void because Edna continues to challenge authority. Throughout the story, Dean's friends and relatives worry for her reputation, though she seems to not care about it. The society that Chopin displays deeply considers the role of women and how it forces women to conform, otherwise jeopardizing their reputation.This Idea crumbles when Edna throws a house party her father's health, praising him for â€Å"the daughter whom he invented† (129). Dean's reputation has obviously not been affected by her actions because of the many people who showed up to her party. They didn't seem to Judge her for inviting Robin either. When Ad ©eel visits Edna, she tells her that she worries for the impulsive and reckless nature of her actions, but the two seem to still be close friends despite her actions (141). Her reputation is not affected by her so-called â€Å"impulsive and reckless nature†.Also, earlier in her process of â€Å"awakening†, L ©once scolds Edna for being out on a Tuesday, which is Dean's reception day, and not leaving an excuse for her absence (77). Edna finds that while she was out, there had been many callers, proving that her reputation is not affected. L ©once is only worried about his own reputation throughout the novel. Ad ©eel tells Edna to â€Å"think of the children† after she gives birth to a child, warning Edna that her endeavors could also hurt the reputations of her children (164).It seems that Dean's reputation is not significant in the views of others, therefore diminishing Chopping notion that not conforming to society standards can ruin a woman's reputation. Although, Chopin intended the work to say that Edna is constricted by society standards and feels that she can free herself by not conforming, Edna feels that society is oppressive and that she can't do things on her own without becoming independent and freeing herself of the responsibilities set for her.In actuality, the work said that society isn't as oppressive as Edna makes it seem, through her constant dismissal of its nature. Throughout the story, not one person tries to stop Edna in pursuing her ideas of freedom and independence. Though some people warn her of the consequences of her actions, they do not demand her to stop. This shows that society is not totally oppressive, even though Edna may believe so.

The Rationality Assumption in Neoclassical Economics