Violent Terrorism Campaign example essay topic

In the following review, I will be assessing the problem a free society has when the horror of Terrorism invades our way of life. The topic has and for the most part, will be for generations to come seen as a threat to everyone living in the entire world. During the past several months, Acts of terrorism have become synonymous with everything from traveling within our country and abroad to postal services and hospitals. We are now faced with the probability of living our lives as those people who abide by this act on a day-to-day basis.

As America faces terrorism, domestic and international, at home and abroad, it is imperative, if we are to deal effectively with this threat, that we understand the root cause of it. As war is an extension of politics, so too, is terrorism. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals to attain a political objective. As defined in the United States by the Code of Federal Regulations As: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". Terrorism Why do people resort to such violent acts as bombings, assassinations, and hi-jacking?

How do individuals and organizations justify these acts of terror? These acts can be described as terrorist actions. Terrorism is a growing international problem. During the last twenty years, new terrorist groups have emerged all over the world. Governments up to now have had little success in their attempts to resolve issues by which terrorism is used.

A major difficulty in discussing terrorism, is establishing a general accepted definition. Terrorism can be defined as the unlawful use of fear or force to achieve certain political, economical, or social goals. Due to its difficulty in definition, organizations like the United Nations have discovered great difficulty developing policies against terrorism. Terrorist actions may be committed by a single individual, a group, and in some instances entire governments.

Many terrorists, unlike criminals, claim dedication to higher causes, and do not believe in personal gain. Some of the methods used by terrorists include threats, bombings, and the destruction of property, kidnapping, the taking of hostages, executions, and assassinations. There are many reasons why political groups attempt to bring about radical change through terrorism. People are often frustrated with their position in society. They may feel in some way that they are persecuted or oppressed due to their race, religion, or by exploitation by a government. Groups that utilize terrorist actions have very complex and powerful reasons to engage in such activities.

The use of terror to achieve goals is not a new idea in history. One early terrorist group emerged in the 12th and 13th century known as "the Assassins". The assassins, used murder to dispose of their enemies. Their name has come to be used for 'one who kills for political or religious reasons'.

Government terrorism dates back to as least the period immediately after the French Revolution, in 1789. During this period, known as the "Reign of Terror", the French Revolutionary executed thousands of citizens who were considered enemies of its rule. Individuals, or groups seeking national independence have committed acts of terrorism. One such act was the assassination of the Arch Duke of France in 1914.

The assassination had sought to win Bosnia from Austrian rule. It failed and led to the outbreak of World War I. While many groups have engaged in terrorism throughout history, the Anarchist political groups in the 19th century are most remembered. These groups were especially strong in Italy, France, Spain, and the United States, but their roots lie within the Russian peoples movement. Anarchists believe that by nature people are good, and that under the appropriate circumstances people can live in peace. They are opposed to the centralized state, and believe it is an oppressive force that prevents people from cooperating with one another. Modern Terrorism retains some elements of terrorism from the past.

At the same time, it differs due to having a wider extent in many of its methods. Today, terrorism posses a threat to innocent people, and are a serious threat to democratic forms of government. One of the more pronounced characteristics of the modern terrorist is their practice of taking hostages in order to force their demands upon a particular government. Unless demands are met, the hostages face the threat of death.

Hi-jacking commercial airlines and holding the passengers and crews hostage has become a favored method among terrorist today. However, what we have witnessed recently with the Hi-jacking of four airliners and then not only holding the passengers and crew hostage. The feeling that comes over me thinking about those moments that the passengers and crew experienced, we as Americans shall never forget. Since acts of airline hi-jacking of times past, those unfortunate people must have retained hope that their episode with these terror inflictor's would end in a safe and peaceful manner.

We all know what became of those four airliners. The loss of life not only on the planes but also in the World Trade Center and Pentagon will live in our hearts forever... Terrorism is a consequence of injustice perpetrated on the weak and underrepresented by the powerful and in control... The terrorism directed at America emanates from the Arab / Israeli conflict, or more specifically, the takeover of Arab lands, and the oppression of Palestinians by Israel. It has changed and continues to change the face of America... The American support of Israel, political, economic, and military, is what empowers Israel to pursue her course of usurpation of Arab lands, which fact is not lost on the Arab world, and is what justifies from their perspective, terrorist attacks on America.

Many people believe that terrorism became global in its extent in the late 1960's. In 1970 over 300 acts of terrorism were recorded worldwide. By 1979 the number of terrorist incidents for one year increased to 3,700. Politically unstable countries offer frequent opportunities for terrorism. Lebanon, which has been torn by years with civil unrest, has been the sight of numerous terrorist attacks. The 21st century began on September 11, 2001.

The attack on America that day will prove to be the precipitating moment of a new kind of war that will define a new century. This war will be fought in the shadows and the adversary will continue to target the innocent and defenseless. This threat is not directed solely against the United States - it is a threat directed against all countries that seek freedom, peace, and stability. The world's response to terrorism will change not only international efforts with respect to terrorism; it will change geopolitics as countries take sides and see mutual interests where few were apparent before. These interests will include a desire to understand how states can combat an enemy who has no borders, no sovereignty, no government, no massed armies, and no inhibitions about violence against civilization and the rule of law. Terrorism's public impact has been greatly magnified by the use of modern communications media.

Any act of violence is certain to attract television coverage, which brings the event directly into millions of homes and exposes viewers to the terrorist's demands, grievances, or political goals. Modern terrorism differs from that of the past because its victims are frequently innocent civilians who are selected at random or who merely happen into terrorist situations. Lacking a base of popular support, extremist substitute violent acts for legitimate political activities. Theory and Practice of Terrorism Terrorism is much misunderstood. Like any form of warfare it can have horrible results.

However, the behavior of terrorists is not inexplicable. When a terrorist campaign is run well, there's a purpose behind everything they do. Warfare itself is equally explicable, and also can be horrible. But wars don't happen for any reason, and they do not always happen because of insanity.

Sane and moral men can start a war if they believe that the alternative is even worse. A war is fought because one side in a conflict wants something and cannot get it by diplomacy. In the great aphorism attributed to Clausewitz, "War is diplomacy by other means". But there are many ways in which a war can be fought; they " re not all just armies maneuvering on a battlefield. In particular, that kid of war is only really possible if the two sides are approximately comparable in military strength. In order to take on an opponent in that way when he is vastly more powerful than you, is just a fancy way to commit suicide.

However, with the use of proper tactics, numerical inferiority doesn't have to mean defeat. You can fight a guerilla war, or a terrorist action. Terrorism is the lowest form of warfare, requiring the least resources for the inferior side. Terrorism is war on the cheap. And terrorists can win. "Terrorism" is actually misnamed, because the goal of it is not to sow terror.

The goal of terrorism is to sow discord and disruption and to provoke reprisals from your much stronger opponent. One of the paradoxes of terrorism is that when your opponent commits a major act of violence against your people, the terrorist win and become stronger. A war is always fought for a reason, and there are only three ways a war can end, all of which come down to elimination of the reason. First, everyone on one side can be exterminated. Or the losing side can abandon the struggle either because they no longer think they can accomplish their goal with acceptable losses, or because they have actually accomplished their goal.

You can only win a war by appeasing your opponent, discouraging him, or exterminating him. Terrorists can win in several ways: by making their opponent weary in the struggle and, even with superior strength, give up, or by increasing the power of the terrorist side through recruitment so that the campaign can be converted to more normal guerilla action or outright military campaign, or by inducing outsiders to impose a peace more favorable to the terrorist's side. There are seven critical participants in a terrorist campaign: our forces, our people, their forces, their people, our allies outside the zone of conflict, their allies, and the remainder of the world. Our forces consist of all people who are actively participating in the struggle on our side. Our people consist of everyone who may possibly be a recruit for our side in the conflict, or who support our campaign through contributions or taxes. Their forces and their people are comparable.

Our allies are any groups or governments outside the zone of conflict who may be feeding us material support or who may be able to bring diplomatic pressure to bear in our favor, and of course our opponents also have allies. Then there is the remainder of the world consisting of people who might become involved on one side or the other or who might ultimately bring about a settlement diplomatically or by other means (including armed intervention). In our campaign as terrorist, our goal is to continually strengthen ourselves and to continually weaken our enemy, so as to redress the inequality of power between us. We want to recruit our people into our forces. We want to recruit international neutrals to become allies. We want to convince powerful neutrals that it is in their best interests to impose a solution on our enemies.

These are all desirable and efforts will continue on all of these simultaneously, as long as the struggle continues. All of these require propaganda, and a successful terrorist campaign and will always involve a cagey relationship with the international press. The ultimate and essential weapon of terrorism is publicity. If we are terrorists then we are weak and few.

We must hide, probably using a cell structure. Our weapon of choice is terrorist acts. We appear out of nowhere, commit an act, which disrupts the normal flow of events, and then vanish once again. When we are not actively campaigning, we appear to simply be no different than any of the rest of our people. When we commit a terrorist act, our goal is to invite violent reprisals from our opponent's forces.

However, since they do not know where we are, they will choose to make these reprisals against our people - which will increase the will of our people to resist, and make then more open to joining our forces. Thus each time we successfully inspire a major reprisal, our recruitment will become more successful and our forces will grow. Unlike us, our enemy's forces are not hidden. They are public and well known, and though they cannot target our forces, we can target theirs. In some cases we might decide to target their people, but often we " ll try to target their forces. Another effect of this is to cause fatigue and loss of moral will among their people, leading to a loss of political will.

It may even lead to our victory without a conversion to standard warfare; they may give up and leave without a full-scale war. Or we may deliberately and directly target our enemy's allies, hoping to cause them to decide that the price they pay for alliance is too high. They may abandon our enemy, or they may pressure them to end our disruption on terms favorable to us. However, this leaves our enemy in a bind; increased reprisals do not end our struggle as long as even one of us continues to resist, so they may end up being forced to grant us concessions - which may be sufficient to achieve our goals. There is the risk that our enemy's reprisals will likely cost the lives of many of our people. But war is an unpretty business, and when we embarked upon it we knew we were going to lose people, though our decision was worth the odds anyway.

Our forces are not weakened when our people are killed; and indeed our forces can be strengthened through increased recruitment and support from our people. In addition, as our enemies retaliate against us violently, this can cause moral outrage among our allies and may cause international neutrals to come onto our side. It can even cause moral outrage among their allies, decreasing their support both materially and politically. Of course, all of this requires that we be in tune with the general feelings of our people. If we are not, than we will not gain recruits even if there is a violent response. The extreme example of this would be a lunatic like Ted Kaczynski (the "Una bomber"), a lone terrorist who never did gain any allies during his fifteen-year campaign.

Once he was captured, his terrorist movement ended. However, for the fifteen years of his acts, he was an army of one. Had he actually been in tune with his people, those sympathetic to his cause might have joined him. Four Distinct Classic Terrorist Campaigns in History Let us review four classical terrorist campaigns in history: The Marquis, the liberation of India, the American Civil Rights movement, and the Palestinian struggle against Israel. As we move along on our review, we must understand that terrorism does not require any violence. Disruption is committed but does not require violence in order to achieve this goal.

The goal is to cause the opponent to be violent, and often being violent we will cause that reaction. But first, a classic violent terrorist campaign: the Maquis. This was the French resistance against the German occupation during WWII. They operated in a cell structure, using arms, which were stolen or smuggled in from the UK. They targeted militarily useful infrastructure, and enemy forces, and collaborators. The German response was orchestrated by their Army and in particular by the Gestapo and was above all brutal.

The casualty rate among the Maquis was appalling and the fate of those who were captured was terrible, because they were routinely tortured for information. On the other hand, the response by the Germans was quite broad-brush, leading to many innocent French being killed and tortured at the same time as captured members of the Maquis were. This inflamed the hatred of the French, already high anyway after the military catastrophe of 1940, leading to a steady stream of new recruits. So while casualties among the Maquis were high, recruitment more than made that good and as the war progressed their numbers and strengths increased. This also served as propaganda victory in the West, helping in particular to convince the American people to support an invasion of France. The payoff came in 1944.

On a radio signal from London, the Maquis converted from terrorism to guerrilla action and mobilized its strength. Its military goal wad limited but critical. Maquis forces met Canadian, British, and American army forces and gave them help, but more important was that they operated in strength behind German lines and attacked railroads and bridges, highways, convoys and communications. The goal was to impede the German ability to move forces and supplies to Normandy in order to fight the invasion. Gandhi's Congress Party used a much different kind of terrorist campaign against the British in order to gain India's liberation.

This displays how tactics and strategy must always be adapted to the current political situation, for the situation in India was far different from that in France. A non-violent campaign in France would have failed. However, a violent campaign in India would also have failed. First, violence was normally repugnant to the majority of Indians for religious reasons.

A violent terrorist campaign would have lost the support of the Indian people. Second, the British public entertained the fantasy that they were actually serving the Indians even as they ruled over them, and indeed British rule did help the Indians in many ways. Though British rule was far from benign, it was not vicious either. The British people, therefore, believed that it was in both the interest of the UK and of India that the British continue to rule, and Gandhi's goal was to convince them that this was not true. So he adopted non-violent public terrorism. Instead of hiding, he made himself as well as his top leaders clear and obvious targets.

Instead of bringing reprisals onto his people, he accepted them himself, knowing that the British were too decent to simply take him out and shoot him without trial. If such an outstanding and moral man thinks that we, the British, are harming India and if he wants us to leave, then how can we stay? Gandhi won his war when the British people began to ask themselves that question. And when the British saw their people being violent and cruel to the Indians, who did not respond in kind, then the British self-image of decency was damaged. Martin Luther King Jr. used public non-violent terrorism in the American South in the 1960's, however with somewhat different goals. Again, he adapted his campaign to the local political situation, to take advantage of the significant political division among American whites.

He did not expect to convince the Southern whites to voluntarily end the apartheid system; his goal was to bring the Northern and Western Whites into the struggle on his side so that they would use their might to force the Southern Whites to end apartheid. Like Gandhi, the best way to achieve this was to force his opponents to make themselves look despicable, so as to gain the sympathy of outsiders. King was jailed many times and each time he emerged from jail more powerful. His non-violent terrorist acts (in the form of sit-ins and demonstrations and boycotts) became larger and more disruptive as recruitment brought more people into his forces. However, he knew he had won when Northern Whites began to travel to the South to join his forces in numbers.

Then it was only a matter of time. Ultimately he inspired the more moral white political majority of the US to use legislative power to force the Southern states to grant him what he wanted. This included the threat of using armed force by the Federal Government. Before he began his struggle, this had already happened in Arkansas, where the US Army was used by Eisenhower to force integration of the schools after a Supreme Court decision. So he knew Federal military force was possible, so did his opponents.

With the passage of the Voting Rights act and the Civil Rights act of 1964, it became a matter of implementation, with the full power of the US behind King's movement. The struggle continued and the walls fell slowly, but the lot of the Negro in the US is now vastly better than it was in 1955, and the momentum is now unstoppable. Unfortunately, it cost both Gandhi and King their lives. By making their roles in their respective revolutions so public, they set themselves up for assassination. But soldiers in a war often pay with their lives. Terrorists are no different.

At this time I would like to point out that terrorism is a device and not necessarily a moral evil. It can be evil, but it isn't necessarily so. Even violent terrorism can be morally correct; I doubt that anyone would condemn the Maquis even though they killed thousands during the war. And, we revere Gandhi and King as men of towering morality. In some cases, the violent terrorism campaign is an evil embarked upon to prevent an even greater evil in the eyes of those launching the campaign. Let us review, fighting against a terrorist campaign.

How can we win? As with any warfare, there are only three ways: appeasement, extermination, or destruction of the enemy morale. Of the three, destroying the morale of the terrorists is the most difficult and it is very rare for it to succeed. Extermination is nearly as difficult. And yet, a combination of extermination and assaults on morale is the approach nearly every country attempts to use when facing a terrorist movement.

Perhaps that is due to the paradox of terrorism, that provoking reprisal is victory. In any other level of warfare, one of your goals is to annihilate your enemy's forces, because without a force, he cannot win. Indeed, this is a truism in war: your goal is not to take ground; it is to defeat your enemy's army. If you defeat an army, you can take all the ground you want. If his army still exists, taking ground does no good.

So countries have become used to the idea that you respond to violence with violence of your own. However for a terrorist, this is exactly what he wants you to do. When you respond violently to terrorism, the terrorist wins. You can try to annihilate his forces - but this is exceedingly difficult unless the terrorists are not actually in sync with the views of their people. He uses a cell system, and espionage is slow, inefficient and risky. And as long as even one cell continues to exist, the potential for it to reproduce and spread again through recruitment from his people who agree with his goals.

Terrorism is a difficult disease to stamp out. Or you may choose to remove the reason why terrorists resist by negotiation, to give them perhaps some, but not all, of what they want. The hope is that this will be sufficient to cause them to give up the struggle. Now for the Palestinian campaign against Israel, which has been going on intermittently for fifty years.

We shall look at this situation through the eyes of a Palestinian patriot. He has a different attitude toward things than we do, and that he may be wrong. His decision to fight is based on his worldview, so whether we think he is right or wrong, we need to understand what he sees. Without that, we have no chance of dealing with him. This is the Palestinian reason: In the 1940's, our people and we had a homeland. In the late 1040's, Europeans in large numbers began to movie in, and in 1948 they usurped power and forced all of us out.

We were beginning to respond to take back our land, which these invaders had stolen when the United States and Great Britain imposed a completely unfair peace on us, for whatever reason. The United States and UK were motivated by guilt about an event which took place somewhere else which had nothing to do with us, but we were punished anyway. As a result of this, these invaders ended up with most of the best land, and we ended up living in abject poverty packed in to refugee camps. Since then, they have gotten richer and we have gotten poorer. Our children die of disease and poverty, and the future for us looks ever more grim for us. That is the Palestinian worldview, and there is enough truth in it that it will be hard to shake.

Add to that long standing religious conflict and fundamental racial issues and a religion, which venerates martyrs and you, can see that the divide is deep and the motivation to resist is strong. The Palestinians are not going to give up. I believe they accept now that they will not be getting all their land back. but they definitely want some of it so that they do not have to live in refugee camps any longer. They want what we want: a brighter future for their children.

As all adults, they will do what they have to. As I think I have made it clear by now, Israel cannot defeat this violently. They have been trying this for fifty years and haven't yet succeeded. When conditions are right, terrorist movements spontaneously appear, and right now there are at least five independent ones operating against Israel. Even if they could all be found and exterminated, others would pop up. The situation for the Palestinians is intolerable, and there are enough of them who feel this way that there will always be an armed struggle until the situation gets better.

So each side in this conflict has come to recognize that it cannot directly defeat its enemy, and both are looking outside the country for help. Over the course of the last fifty years, the Palestinians have three times convinced neighboring Arab countries to attack Israel - and all three attacks have failed. There have been no further attacks since 1973 and probably will never again. Which leaves only the possibility of political or economic pressure imposed on one side on behalf of the other, and that is what both sides have been attempting to do since 1973, with singular lack of success. In the mean time, the Palestinian terrorists continue to attack Israeli targets, and the Israelis continue to make reprisals. I can see no way out of this, which is why I believe low scale warfare will continue for the foreseeable future.

Neither side can win, and neither side will give up. So the pile of dead bodies will continue to grow. Known Terrorist Organizations The Palestine Liberation Organization is undoubtedly one of the best-known terrorist organizations in the world. Accordingly, this organizations is led by perhaps the best-known individual in the modern history of international terrorism; Yasser Arafat. The PLO was created in 1964 during a meeting known as the Palestinian Congress in an effort to give a voice to the large number of Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon.

It was not long before the group began to splinter into various factions, all of whom believed they knew the best way to achieve Palestinian liberation. Most notable of these groups were the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, and al-Fatah. Each of these factions remained more or less under the umbrella of the PLO and never strayed from the fold. By 1967 the PLO had decided that their primary goal was the destruction of the state of Israel. For the next ten years, this goal was the primary focus of the massive terrorist campaign by which their reputation was formed. This war cost untold hundreds of casualties on both sides with very little to show in return.

Therefore, in 1974 the PLO made a conscious decision to alter its focus from the purely terrorist to one that would include political elements. necessary for any meaningful dialogue. This created more unhappiness amongst some followers who felt that the PLO, while striking blows, was not truly finding its mark. This led to the creation of yet another splinter group called the Rejection ist Front. It was at this time that Yasser Arafat and his al-Fatah took over the leadership role. Things began to change quickly such as the all-important recognition of the PLO by the United Nations and by the Arab peoples at the Rabat Conference. Arafat deftly manipulated the organization from one perceived by the (Western) public as barbaric into one slowly being considered a movement with legitimate claims.

Israel, perhaps sensing the growing sympathy, redoubled its efforts to eliminate the Palestinian threat. In 1982, the Israeli army swept into Beirut, Lebanon and forced the PLO to flee from the bastion. In a decision that radical Palestinians resented, Arafat agreed to come to the bargaining table to discuss peace with the Israeli leaders. Little came of these talk, and soon after dissension within the ranks of the PLO became more pronounced and some of the moderate leaders were assassinated. Perhaps in an attempt to reconcile with these dissenters, Yasser Arafat decided to provide support for the hijacking of a major cruise ship. The ship that was selected was the Achille Lauro.

What would happen next would do more damage to the reputation of the PLO than anything that happened previously. Together with operatives from the PLF, terrorists seized the vessel and took the entire ship hostage. In a cowardly and reprehensible act, members of the team shot to death a wheel chair bound Jewish passenger named Leon Kling offer. They then dumped his body overboard. World response was swift, condemning, and slow to recover.

By 1988, Arafat had taken the diplomatic road one step further when he not only announced the right of the state of Israel to exist but also renounced the PLO terrorism. The perceived commitment to these ideals caused Israel to finally agree to serious talks with the PLO. The result of these discussions was that today the Palestinian people live under partial self-rule and seem on the way to obtaining the homeland they have yearned for years. In recent years, Palestinian youths have become disillusioned by what they perceive as the plodding nature of the PLO in regard to its pursuit of an independent Palestinian nation. Many of these followers have joined either HAMAS or Hizballah. ON September 9, 1993, in letters to Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Norwegian Foreign Minister Holst, PLO chairman Arafat committed the PLO to cease all violence and terrorism.

On September 13 1993, the Declaration of Principles between the Israelis and Palestinians was signed in Washington, D.C. Between September 9th and December 31st, the PLO factions loyal to Arafat compiled with this commitment except for one, perhaps two, instances in which the responsible individuals apparently acted independently. Two groups under the PLO umbrella, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PULP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine-Hawatmeh faction (D FLP-H), suspended their participation in the PLO in protest of the agreement and continued their campaign of violence. Today, Yasser Arafat and the PLO participate in a tentative peace with the Israeli government in an effort to stabilize tensions and establish a mutually acceptable resolution to the decades-old conflict. Al - Qaeda otherwise known as "the Base" and "the Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders". Usama Bin Laden established this terrorist organization in the late 1980's to bring together Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion. Bin Laden helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan resistance.

The current goal of Al - Qaeda is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries. An issued statement under the banner of "the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" in February 1998, stating that it was the duty of all Muslims to kill United States citizens-civilian or military-and their allies everywhere. Al - Qaeda has plotted to carry out terrorist operations against the United States and Israeli tourists who were to visit Jordan for the millennial celebrations. (Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial.) Al - Qaeda conducted the bombings in August 1998 of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 persons and injured more than 5,000 others.

They have also claimed to have shot down United States military helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia in 1993 and to have conducted three bombings that targeted US troops in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992. This organization is linked to the following plans as well: . To assassinate Pope Paul II during his visit to Manila in late 1994... Simultaneous bombings of the United States and Israeli Embassies in Manila as well as other Asian capitals in the late 1994 period...

The midair bombing of a dozen US trans-Pacific flights in 1995... Orders to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines in early 1995. Al - Qaeda continues to train, finance, and provide logistical support to terrorist groups in support of these goals. Their strength may be as many as several thousand members. Al-Qaeda is not based in the United States and is not fighting for the rights of a group of people in the US.

Its attacks on the US were more like an international guerilla action than a classic terrorist campaign, despite being called "Terrorists" in the press. The tactics and strategies that the US and its allies will have to use against Al-Qaeda will also need to be different. In the case of Al-Qaeda, I do no believe that appeasement is possible. In conclusion Terrorism to me is something new.

In a way for our country we now have an unknown enemy. We must be kept up to date on the strategic alliances, which allow each of to feel free. I can remember when air travel was exciting and rather simple. But as our society has excelled forward, we as the human race have become barbarian. Trouble has been brewing for the United States in the Middle East and at home for some time.

Today the world is ever more complex and dangerous than the Cold War era, because the country knows so little about its enemies. This lack of historical perspective increases the need for caution and intelligent foreign policy as the country responds to the terrorist attacks. America will not win friends for democracy by starving the Iraqi people or offending religious beliefs of other nations. This will not solve the problems of the Middle East until we look at their historic roots and redress some of the mistakes made in creating the state of Israel; and that we cannot bring pressure to bear on the rogue nations of the Middle East as long as we remain dependent on foreign oil. Television drones on the news of bombing raids, fears of anthrax contamination at home, reporters reciting the numbers of the dead among the Palestinians and Israelis. It's always about greed and power - material power or sexual power - or religious power or ideological power.

In the end they " re all the same. In 1958 the enemy was communism; today, it's terrorism and religious ideation. For the amount of time we have to spend on this earth, you would think that each and every one of us would make the best from it. To live a life enriched with all that nature has to offer. The human race must now be on alert both domestically and internationally. For where there are people who are dissatisfied with their lives, surroundings or government agencies, the threat of terrorism becomes a valid means to worry about.