Terrorism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Terrorism - Essay ExampleOne thing which is commonplace in all the terrorist approachings is the involvement of the semipolitical motive. It is the action on behalf of a political trend. Sometimes the cause was on national grounds much(prenominal) as the separation of Russia from Chechnya or the separation of North Island from groovy Britain. Sometimes the cause was the grievances against the American government which led to the World Trade Center attacks or okey City bombing. thither is no private motivation of the attackers of all these incidents. There is always a political agenda which is accomplished by means of these attacks. The two many factors of terrorism atomic number 18 publicity and the bouncy of psychology. The aim is to capture the attention of all the people around the globe by making the attack more dramatic i.e. killing a large number of people to politically motivate violence. fit in to Peter Kropotkin, a ninth century anarchist, terrorism is propaganda b y deed by which groups particularly fiddling in number receive the attention for a cause. In this paper, the quote of Noam Chomsky which says Terrorism is simply what our drawing cardship decl ar it to be is discussed with its implication for law/ lawyers. Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and political activist. He has been writing on politics and language for the past forty years and is one of the most prominent and original mixer critics of his times. He is the eight most cited authors and is known as the most cited living author. The first misgiving that must be answered is that whether an event is declared as terrorism just because the most powerful leadership declare it as terrorism or there are other factors that lead to this conclusion. 1 There have been many instances where the politicians make clear predictions some an event just because they are some hole-and-corner(a) goals in such goals and simple declare an events as a form o f terrorism. If nothing happens as such they say that it is because of the tight security conditions that made it unsuccessful whereas if a leader is on a shaky ground then all types of events are expected to be blamed as terrorism attacks. It is to a fault the responsibility of the media that provide such inadequate and wrong assumptions regarding an event. All the happenings are a repetition of the aforementioned(prenominal) tasks and different reasons are given to make the people fool about it. These protocols are backed by honourable leaders who just condemn such acts by their strong words of cowarfaredice. The usage of magnates language in public speaking is just a method to gain assumption of the people to make them sure that the nation is in the safe hands. Who are the real terrorists? Is it the leaders or the terrorists who should be called as the real terrorists in the interest of the common man? When a leader declares war on terrorism, we dont look beyond the terrors t hat are systematically placed upon the humanity. When hundreds of people are just killed for the sake to counter the issue of terrorism then it is considered as enforcement efforts. The leaders claim that they are in a position to combat these evil acts. My question is same as Noam Chomsky that when a leader doesnt promote terrorism then why one should participate to make it worse. This means that leaders are not less culpable. Here are a few examples to support my argument In 1980s, a former leader of the CIA in Central America informed on record about his