Terrorism

As the world’s population grew, so did political and economic instability, as well as major international conflicts. Tensions between countries and cultures tightened, and eventually and inevitably, one of them attacked. This terrorist act brought with it the panic and chaos fuelled haze that was post-911 Australia, and similar to many situations in the past, the fear and vulnerability associated with the community allowed the government quite a substantial amount of political power.

This atmosphere of fear and ignorance lead to several incomplete and somewhat extreme pieces of Anti terrorist legislation to be passed by the Howard government, in order to ensure the safety of all Australians, or so they said. Dr Mohammed Haneef a doctor working in Queensland on a skilled migrant visa, soon found himself a victim of these laws. When two Indian men attempted to bomb an airport in Glasgow, UK, Mohammed Haneef became a suspect in the eyes of the Australian Federal Police, and was arrested shortly.

Several blunders and misinterpretations by the AFP lead to the wrongful detention and charging of Dr Haneef, a man who spent a total of 12 days in detention without being charged and had his visa unfairly revoked during his trial. Haneef was eventually released and all charges were dropped against him, when the Public Prosecutor determined that there was no legitimate trial against him.

However, the course of events that Dr Haneef experienced brought to light the glaring dilemmas associated with Australia’s radical Anti Terrorist laws and corresponding government agencies. The Clarke inquiry and concurrent recommendations As a result of the badly handled Mohammed Haneef case, the labour party ordered a full inquiry be conducted into the legal case, in order to identify the key faults and inefficiencies in government agencies and legislation that related to the Haneef Case.

This Inquiry was called the Clarke inquiry, conducted by John Clarke, a Supreme Court judge. Despite the inquiry lacking several crucial powers, it worked well to suggest a number of key findings and recommendations. Some very key recommendations that worked toward rectifying mistakes made in the Haneef case were as follows: That the government consider establishing legislation or necessary arrangements that would consequently apply to other inquiries and reviews that involve national security.

That parliament review part 1c of the Crimes act 1914, the part that relates to terrorism offences. That the Australian government appoint an independent reviewer of the Australian counter terrorism laws. That the Minister for immigration and citizenship be included in the list for security intelligence notifications and reports produced by ASIO, in order to in the future. All of these recommendations and more were implemented and thoroughly elaborated on by the Australian government. Anti-Terrorism laws reformed due to the Haneef case.

Following the Haneef case and the Clarke inquiry, the government decided that necessary reforms were in order and announced its intentions to amend and alter several Anti-terrorism laws in order for them to correlate with conventional, sophisticated standards, standards that find a fair balance between national security and civil liberties. The Labour government took a major step in deciding to abolish the sedition terms within anti terror legislation while focusing more on rebellious acts that insight violence. The previous laws were deemed restricting of academic liberty and free speech.

Some of the other significant changes listed in a newspaper article include the advancement of individual review of the Australian federal police, the government’s decision to broaden powers assigned to the Inspector general of intelligence and security which allows inquiries to extend across all National security agencies, and the in-statement of an independent reviewer of Australia’s counter terrorism laws, to be named the National security Legislation Monitor. These reforms are a strong representation in the government’s effectiveness in update obsolete or otherwise procedurally dangerous Anti-Terror laws.

These changes are the first of many steps in order to find the balance between human rights and National security. Claims for compensation by Mohammed Haneef After the ill handled arrest and charge against Mohammed Haneef and the distasteful cancellation of his Visa, Haneef has finally returned to Australia to claim compensation against the federal government on the basis on his trauma, loss of wages and career, defamation. Despite having an almost iron hard case against the federal government, Haneef opted to first try his best to resolve the manner through a mediation process.

A News article reported that Mohammed Haneef’s lawyers were able to reach an agreement with the federal government and rested his claims for compensation, a substantial claim, though the actual amount is undisclosed. It can be seen as a victory for the Mohammed Haneef and the Australian government, whose reputation will be partially restored over the matter. The government chose to make a good decision and provide Haneef with legitimate compensation through very discreet and uncontroversial means, casting little to no negative association to the government. Formal apology from the Federal government

Almost immediately following Dr Haneef’s success in claiming compensation, as reported in a relevant media article, the federal government released a document in the form of a formal apology on behalf of the AFP’s several blunders and misinterpretations, which lead to the prolonged detention and charge of Mohammed Haneef. Haneef’s lawyer congratulated the Government for recognising the need for such measures in a formal declaration of innocence, that would help clear Haneef’s name of any wrong doing . The AFP also participated in the assist of Dr Haneef’s claim for compensation, and were eager to rectify its previous hastily made mistakes.

The Federal government’s formal apology not only allowed Haneef’s professional reputation be cleansed, but also publicly rid them of any negative association with the controversial court case. Conclusion The politically fueled implementation of Anti-terrorism legislation by the Howard government was a rushed and ineffective endeavor, and despite Mohammed Haneef becoming the victim of such broad laws, his Case, as well as the efforts of the labour government, allowed these radical laws to be reformed to concur with Australia’s legal and utilitarian standards.

Drone Attacks Inside Pakistan there is ‘national consensus’ on the drones: the US must stop its Predators because they kill innocent citizens in collateral damage and increase the pressure on Pakistan Army fighting the Taliban by swelling the ranks of those who fight it for revenge. Outside Pakistan, there is an impression that the drones are being used against the terrorists in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas under some kind of secret deal between the CIA and Pakistan Army.

Another al Qaeda top echelon leader has been killed on January 11 in Miranshah in North Waziristan through this alleged ‘coordination’. This was said to be Abdullah Khorasani, who is believed to have been playing a key role in planning the overall strategy of terror acts in Pakistan. The man’s real name was AslamAwan, and he was a citizen of Abbottabad, where Osama bin Laden was killed last May by US commandos. As per routine, the drone attack was effective because it was directed by spotters on ground calling the strike precisely on to the victim.

The strike ended a 55-day-long pause after the Salalacheckpost attack by American gunships in November 2011. Following this, a foreign news agency quoted Pakistani officials who said that the drones are being operated under an agreed US-Pakistan plan which remains classified. This clearly contradicts the government’s public stance on this issue, which, quite stridently believes that drones violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The American stance in the past has been that drone attacks had to be carried out without bringing Pakistan into the loop because the Pakistani side tended to ‘pass on’ the information about the attack to the terrorists who then moved away from the target area. This was understood all over the world in the light of the belief that Pakistan was actually an allowing safe haven to foreigner terrorists in North Waziristan whom it used for attacking inside Afghanistan to retain its stake in the Afghan endgame.

The new ‘information’ — including quotes from unnamed Pakistani officials — belies much of that. It purports to verify that the Pakistani side was indeed keeping the strikes secret and, instead of passing on the information to the terrorists, was actually helping the CIA target them with spotters on the ground. Given the nature of these revelations, it remains to be seen what the Pakistani military’s response will be to them. One should understand that the drone attacks have been a success story as far as the US and its allies are concerned.

The ‘analysis’ about the ‘wiping out’ of al Qaeda and the sharp diminution in its ability to target America and Europe is based on the number of al Qaeda terrorists killed by the drones inside Pakistan. As if to confirm this, a meeting took place between an al Qaeda leader and Mullah Umar in the presence of other commanders in which the al Qaeda representative was quoted as appealing for help for more attacks by allies in Pakistan. Pakistan’s wrath against the CIA after the Raymond Davis case in Lahore early 2011 had brought the US-Pakistan quarrel to a boiling point.

Since then, and since the May 2 attack that killed Osama bin Laden, the relationship has been hurtling downhill, ending in Pakistan’s decision not to attend the Bonn conference on Afghanistan. This would then lead to many arguing that with this all as a backdrop, how Pakistan could possibly be cooperating with the US on the drone attacks. Yet there is logic to the opposite point of view. Pakistan has benefited from the attacks in the sense that some of its most dangerous enemies have been killed by the drones.

BaitullahMehsud, the Taliban chief, whose intercepted telephone call revealed that he was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, was killed by a drone. Ilyas Kashmiri was killed in a drone strike and HakimullahMehsud, who succeeded Baitullah, was killed ‘twice’ in drone strikes. The first one was false but the second more recent one is yet to be proven false. Clearly, drone strikes are effective. However, Pakistan’s policy of saying one thing in public and quite the opposite in private should be replaced by when where the people should be persuaded of this strategy’s effectiveness.

The Arms Trade Treaty Derek Matthews International Relations Abstract The Arms Trade Treaty is the result of an international consensus that there is a need for global arms regulation. This belief began to develop after the Cold War in response to consequences facing the international community from countries whom purchased arms unimpeded and used them towards aggressive and oppressive ends.

The Arms Trade treaty has been applauded as an initial framework to begin practical implementation of effective arms regulations through the context of international consensus in a way that will reduce egregious human rights violations and increase weapons accountability as well as regional stability. There are criticisms as to the future effectiveness of the treaty because the scope of the treaty covers arms sales, not other forms of arms transfer and because major arms exporters have abstained from participating in the treaty.

These realities are staunch hurdles towards the future effectiveness of governing policies that may evolve from the treaty. Because the treaty has not reached the stage of ratification, an actual analysis of the impacts of this treaty have yet to be seen. Background The origins of the international arms regulation and thus, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) can be traced back to the start of the Cold War. NATO had an interest in slowing the transfer of advanced military technologies to the Soviet Union.

They created the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) to block arms, industrial technologies, and “atomic” technologies from being exported to the Soviet Union from countries in the Warsaw Pact. This was not a nonproliferation regime and its limited scope proved ill-equipped to handle the emerging problems of the Post-Cold War era. This was evident during the 1991 Persian Gulf War where the Iraqi military was able to build the world’s fourth-largest military with $40 billion in foreign weapons purchases. Lewis, 2005) After the war, western countries began working on international agreements aimed to stop destabilizing accumulations like the arms transfer component in the Middle East. (Collina, 2012) The idea for these international agreements was proposed by the United Kingdom which wanted a global regime aimed at “avoiding arms transfers that could destabilize a region, put human rights at risk, or provide inappropriately advanced technology. (Lewis, 2005) The language set forth in this goal would lead to a chain of international agreements and guidelines aimed at reducing illicit arms trade and defining the parameters of what illicit arms trade entailed; the United Nations (UN) Registry for Conventional Arms in 1991, the US begins work on the US Code of Conduct Bill in 1993, the Warsenaar Agreement in 1996, UN Guidelines for International Arms Transfers in 1996,Oscar Arias and a group of Nobel Laureates produce first draft of the International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers in 1997, European Code of Conduct in 1998, US passes International Code of Conduct in 1999, UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in 2001, Organization of American States (OAS) Model Regulations for the Control of the International Movement of Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition in 2003, Great Lakes and Horn of Africa region adopt the Nairobi Protocol for the Prevention, Control and Reduction of Small Arms and Light Weapons in 2004, UN begins work on a global arms trade treaty in 2006, the General Assembly of the UN votes overwhelmingly for approval of the global Arms Trade Treaty on April 2, 2013. Shah, 2008)(Charbanneau, 2013) For the two decades following the end of the Cold War, the world has been moving in the direction towards a global consensus on how we should provide accountability and responsibility to the selling of weapons culminating with an almost unanimous agreement laid out in the Arms Trade Treaty of 2013 which was passed through the General Assembly of the United Nations with a vote of 155 for, 3 against, and 22 abstained. (Charbanneau, 2013) Reason for the ATT The trade of goods internationally has long been subject to regulation. The import and export of cars and clothes has more restrictions on trade than Ak-47s and rocket launchers. So when the discussion surrounding arms trade regulation began, it was initially just a way for western nations to stem the unfettered growth of aggressive militaries which caused regional instability such as Iraq in the Persian Gulf War.

However, once these discussions entered the international arena, it was easy to see the practicality in implementing arms regulation and to contextualize the benefit that regulation would have on preventing numerous other instances of international instability. (UN Conference, 2013) From the Contras in Nicaragua, to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, to the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, it is easy to see the potential social and human impact of effective restrictions on the sale of weapons. The reason behind arms trade regulations is to stop weapons from falling into the hands of criminals, gangs, warlords, and terrorists who would use them to oppress human rights and destabilize the region.

There are economic impacts as well. The unrestricted sale of weapons results in damages through crime, gang violence, and piracy that vastly exceed the initial profits from selling them. UN peacekeeping missions alone cost the world over $7 billion a year and the global burden of armed violence stands at $400 billion. (UN Conference, 2013) ATT Policy Goals To address the lack of international oversight on arms trade, the UN formulated language designed to codify the growing international consensus of what responsible arms trade should look like. Through various concessions to accommodate differing opinions, they formulated a treaty with two rationales in mind.

The first was to stop sales to state end-users that would use them to undermine global peace and security, violate international human rights laws, impair socio-economic development, or are at risk to re-export those weapons which then might come into the hands of organized criminals or terrorists. The second rationale is to close loopholes in trade regulations and strengthen the effectiveness of legal frameworks to hinder the illicit arms market which provides weapons to end-users whom would normally be barred from acquiring them through legal means. (Kimball, 2011) The idea behind this rationale is to end the prevalence of weapons smugglers like Viktor Bout, whose actions inspired the film “Lord of War”.

These smugglers effectively exploit loopholes in national and international laws to provide illegal arms around the world. (Austin, 2012) The Arms Trade Treaty would also seek to strengthen transparency and reporting on arms trade transfers and the production of munitions which will provide more accountability for State’s actions. (Kimball, 2013) The treaty was created with the original UN Charter Chapter 7 Article 51 in mind which reads, “Nothing shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs”. The treaty was shaped to allow arms purchases justified through the realm of self-defense and to fight back against regimes that violate human rights.

The vague nature of the language still leaves significant room for state differences on what acts will be deemed self-defense or political struggle. The language is also weak on providing a legal framework to deal with non-state actors and terrorism. The policies laid out by the Arms Trade Treaty are primarily aimed towards better control over the export sale of arms; however there is little language to account for the import of arms or for arms transfers which are labeled gifts, or trades. Impacts and Opinions There are 193 Member States of the UN General Assembly. The vast majority of them agree with the ATT, although most have varying reservations to the limitations of the treaty.

The treaty is considered a floor of regulation from which to work with and not a ceiling. 155 States voted in favor of the treaty, the most impactful vote came from the US. The development of this treaty was coming to a close in 2008 after the US Senate voted their intention to deny ratification of a ATT treaty. The withdrawal of support from the top arms exporter in the world would have vastly diminished the prospects for any meaningful implementation without the support of the US. The US has come out in support of this treaty since 2009, and the renewed support by the US fundamentally changes the effectiveness that implementation of the treaty will have.

The US did influenced language in the treaty to ensure that the regulations will not impede on State’s domestic gun rights and will not lower the bar of States that already practice a high level of arms control. Despite this accommodation made specifically for the US, the National Rifle Association (NRA), a powerful interest group within America, is against the ATT and threatens to stop ratification in the Senate on the grounds increased regulation will affect domestic gun ownership. (MacFarquhar, 2013) The UN Association (UNA) which lobbies on behalf of the UN in America, stands in strong support of the ATT and is working to combat poorly informed opinions on the nature and language contained within the ATT. (UNAUSA, 2013) Proponents on both sides of the Syrian conflict voted against or abstained from the ATT.

Syria and Iran voted against the proposal while China and Russia abstained because of “the lack of an explicit prohibition on the supply of weapons to non-state actors that would, for example, restrain the ability of Syria’s armed opposition from building up its stockpile. ” (Lynch, 2013) Many of the Persian gulf powers which support the Syrian opposition, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Yemen abstained from the vote as well. The vague language in the ATT allows for political pressuring to frame either the Syrian opposition as terrorist groups or the Syrian regime as human rights oppressors and potentially justify a moratorium on arms exports to those organizations. This is one of the main criticisms of the ATT.

India also abstained from voting for the treaty, stating that the language was “the draft treaty was “tilted” in favor of the world’s leading arms exporters. ” Other abstentions came from the Latin American sect of countries that generally vote against all US led initiatives in the UN. These countries include Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. However, the treaty was met with tremendous support in the rest of Latin America and Africa, countries that have seen a tremendous amount of instability at the hands of organizations who receive their arms through illicit arms trafficking such as the drug cartels and the Muslim resistance movements. These countries mainly asserted that in the long run, the treaty would curb the arms sales that have fueled many conflicts. MacFarquhar, 2013) The cumulative sum of opposition and abstention for various reasons creates a reality where some of the top arms exporters have chosen not to adhere to the new treaty. This creates concerns on the ultimate effectiveness of the treaty, because a large part of the export nations the treaty was designed to add transparency and regulation to are not participants. America and the Western nations make up a tremendous percentage of global arms sales the percentage fluctuates annually, but America generally represents around half of all arms sales and the UK, France, and other European countries account for between 10 and 15 percent of global sales. Shanker, 2012) So the impact of this treaty will be felt through close to three quarters of global sales, and the hope is that as international norms strengthen, the outlier nations will feel the pressure to conform to these new international standards as well. Success of the treaty Impact analysis over the next decade will truly define the success of this treaty. In fact, ratification will not even begin until June 3, 2013. Every state will define the standards to which they want the treaty to measure up to and view success through that lens. Pertinent questions might arise over the next decade, about how the ATT shifted geopolitical power, how it will enforce arms transfers for conflicts where the consensus is split such as Syria, and whether it will have the teeth to prevent the widening of the black market which generally occurs when more stringent legal precedents are set.

At the bare minimum, this treaty must succeed at stopping the supply of weapons to regions of conflict where there is an overwhelming international consensus about the extent of human rights violations being carried out under a particular regime. There will always be political conflict, but through the ATT the ultimate success will be when it succeeds in ensuring that conflict does not manifest into disproportionate violence and perhaps alter the path of least resistance to a point where it is more expedient to resolve conflict through nonviolent means. References Austin, K. L. (2012, August 20). What Mauritius Can Teach Us About the Global Arms Trade – NYTimes. com. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from http://atwar. blogs. nytimes. com/2012/08/20/what-mauritius-can-teach-us-about-the-global-arms-trade/? ref=viktorbout Charbonneau, L. (2013, April 2). U. N. verwhelmingly approves global arms trade treaty| Reuters. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from http://www. reuters. com/article/2013/04/02/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE9310MN20130402 Collina, T. (2012, October). The Wassenaar Arrangement at a Glance | Arms Control Association. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from http://www. armscontrol. org/factsheets/wassenaar Kimball, D. G. (2013, March 27). ‘Final’ Arms Trade Treaty A Good Step Forward | Arms Control Association. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from http://www. armscontrol. org/pressroom/Final-Arms-Trade-Treaty-A-Good-Step-Forward Kimball, D. G. (2011, October). The Arms Trade Treaty At a Glance | Arms Control Association. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from

Terrorism

Terrorism comes from the word panic which means terror or the usage of fright to transfuse fear in people to coerce them or hale them to make one ‘s command. Terrorism is the deliberate and planned usage of force, force or even fear against guiltless civilians for the intents of accomplishing aims and ends that may either be politically, ideologically, personally or sacredly instigated ( word net.com ) . Terrorism can besides be carried out as a signifier of retaliation by those who feel they may hold been wronged by certain persons. Terrorism has become a major concern non merely to universe leaders but to citizens of assorted states as good, particularly those viewed to be anti-Islam. Unfortunately the United States of America ( USA ) is top on this list, doing the citizens ever worried that their safety may be at interest.

Crime in the signifier of terrorist act can be traced back to antediluvian times, for every bit long as human existences have been willing to utilize fright or force to hold their manner. In the first century, a Judaic group naming themselves The Sicarii employed slaying to their enemies every bit good as confederates in their command to subvert the Roman swayers from Judea ( Amy, 2005 ) . In the eleventh century all the manner to the thirteenth century, a secret Islamic religious order, The Hashashin, became active in Syria and Iran and they executed Abbasid and Seljuk politicians, doing them feared among their equals. It is besides deserving observing that the word bravo, normally used to depict terrorists was adapted from the word Hashashin.

Modern twenty-four hours terrorist act nevertheless became rife in the late 1960 ‘s a period ill-famed for highjackings. The popular forepart for Palestinian release hijacked an El Al flight and about 20 old ages subsequently, a Pan Am flight was bombed over Lockerbie in Scotland, a cooling world that terrorist act was here with us. Numerous other terrorist activities have been carried out since so with the most hideous in the recent yesteryear being the September 11th 2001 bombardment of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre in New York in which claimed the lives of 2,995 people, including 19 highjackers and wounding over 6,291 people.

Harmonizing to the website Terrorism Research there are legion classs of terrorists, among these are: Breakaway whose chief signifier of action is the separation through independency, domination or spiritual freedom through such agencies as societal unfairnesss among others. Other classs include Nationalist, Ethnocentric, Revolutionary, Political, Religious, Social, Domestic and International or Transnational. The means the terrorists can utilize to accomplish their ends can be classified as cyber terrorist act, biological terrorist act, province sponsored terrorist act or violent terrorist act among others ( Categories of terrorists, 2006 ) .

This research will concentrate on international terrorist act which is presently the major manner in which terrorist act activities are perpetrated. International terrorists in the recent yesteryear have been of Islamic beginnings. Harmonizing to Islam instructions, none is to be worshipped but Allah, and anyone who seems to be interfering with the spread of Islam as a faith or non welcoming it is considered an heathen who should be wiped out. The USA has in its international policies been portrayed as an enemy of Islam and this has led to a batch of hatred to it from the Islamic states. Terrorist cells have hence come up in these states where sometimes even immature male childs are educated and brought up in a manner that makes them believe the Western states are a beginning of immorality that should be cleaned.

Most of the terrorists are brought into these cells when they are immature and have their caputs filled with the negative impacts of the Western states. These immature male childs hence grow with a negative attitude towards these states and by the clip they attain the age of about 18, they normally have to the full formed attitudes towards these states that they are willing to give their lives in the name of supporting their faith, every bit good as assisting free the universe of the soil that is coming from the West. Their Acts of the Apostless range from bombing centres they believe to prolong the economic systems of these states to others like killing, albeit ghastly people they consider to be sympathisers with these states.

The universe ‘s most wanted felon when it comes to terrorism at the minute is the Saudi born Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden. He is one of the laminitiss of the ill-famed terrorist group, the Al Qaeda and was born on 10th March 1957 in Riyadh in the democracy of Saudi Arabia to a affluent man of affairs male parent who was a polygamist. Bin Laden, was the boy of the 10th married woman and his parents divorced shortly after his birth. He graduated with a grade in civil technology. Osama is of the sentiment that the reconstructing the Sharia jurisprudence will compensate the wrongs in the Islamic universe and hence all other sentiments are disused. He believes American democratic political orientations are to be resisted by all agencies possible and he advocates for violent Jihadism as a agency of accomplishing this aim.

In Osama ‘s beliefs, America, Israel, and the Shia Muslims are enemies and are vehicles through which moral degeneracy is dispersed. He has specific hatred towards the Jews who he considers cunning and Masterss of perfidy. He is non sympathetic to anyone when it comes to Jihadism and he considers all citizens, including adult females and kids to be suited marks of jehad. He insists jehad is the lone manner to compensate the wrongs that have been perpetrated against Muslim states and in peculiar his choler is directed at the USA. He is besides of the belief that Israel as a state should be wiped out.

Theodore Kaczynski was born on 22nd May 1942. He is a former professor of mathematics who carried out a batch of mail bombardments and is most celebrated as the Unabomber ( University and Airline Bomber ) . He was a child mastermind and while in the fifth class, an IQ trial conducted on him revealed he had an IQ ( Intelligence Quotient ) of 167 and he was hence allowed to jump the 6th class and travel straight to the 7th class. At the age of 16, he is said to hold been involved in CIA head control and emphasis experiments which his attorneies during his test claim may hold had inauspicious effects on his province of head ( McFadden, 1996 ) .

He moved to Lincoln, Montana in a cabin that had no basic necessities in an attempt to hone his endurance accomplishments and while there he began bombing universities and air hoses in an attempt to hold his positions about the devastation of the natural home ground around him heard. He was classified as a domestic terrorist as his action ne’er went beyond boundaries of his state. His terrorist onslaughts were carried out in the periods between the old ages 1978 and 1995 and led to the decease of 3 people and hurt to 23 others. Despite conjunct attempts and legion probe efforts, the governments were unable to capture Theodore and it took the aid of his brother for them to eventually capture him. He is presently incarcerated in a province prison, functioning a life sentence at the ADX Florence Maximum Facility in Florence Colorado without the possibility of a word.

Timothy James McVeigh was born on April 23rd 1968 to a Catholic household and his parents, like those of Osama bin Laden divorced, although much later when he was 10 old ages old. In his confessions subsequently, he expressed an eager desire to decease from manner back in his childhood as he was ever picked upon by the senior pupils who took pride in strong-arming him. This made him turn up angry at the universe for doing his life so suffering. His terrorist activities were geared towards retaliation as he considered it the ultimate payback to those who wronged him. He was a bright pupil and at high school was even considered the school ‘s most promising computing machine coder ( Patrick, 1996 ) .

Mc Veigh ‘s Terrorist activities involved the bombardment of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in which 168 people lost their lives and 450 people were injured. He blew up the edifice in a truck that contained about 5000 lbs of a compound of ammonium nitrate and Nitromethane. He is said non to hold been contrite as he had at last exacted retaliation to the greatest bully of all-the USA. He merely regretted holding led to the deceases of kids who attended day care at the land floor of the edifice. On the 11th June 2001 at the USA Federal penitentiary in Indiana ‘s Terre Haute Timothy Mc Veigh was executed by deadly injection holding been found guilty of charges of terrorist act leveled against him.

The most dramatic characteristic about all the three terrorists is the fact that they were all bookmans. Osama bin Laden graduated with a grade in Civil Engineering, Theodore Kaczynsky was a child mastermind who joined Harvard at the stamp age of 16 and went on to go a professor of Mathematics, Timothy was good at programming and in high school, he was the schools most promising computing machine coder. The other similarity is that they were all driven by their beliefs and their actions were as a consequence of these beliefs, and they had no declinations whatsoever about their actions. The major difference is that while the latter two are domestic terrorists, Osama is an International terrorist who is still on the tally. The other two have been captured and incarcerated with Mc Veigh already executed.

As per the profile at the start of the paper, they all fit since their terrorist inclinations seem to hold originated from their childhood thereby specifying their grownup life determinations and beliefs. From the research, their mind is a fact that was non so out in the unfastened and is one of the new facts learned in the class of the survey. Had timothy non been bullied so much in his childhood, he may non hold turned out so angry at the universe and acted in the mode in which he did. Possibly the CIA ‘s experiment on Theodore may hold backfired taking him to go the unstable person he subsequently became, and Osama may hold turned different had he turn up in a different scene that did non portray other ideals apart from Islam as misleading.

The international community should continue with its restrictive policies towards Hamas even after it has recorded huge victories in the Palestinian’s election. Hamas has in the past declared its open hostility principle towards Israel its interests especially in the Middle East. Unless it openly denounces such ideas, it should continue to be treated as a terrorist group.

Hamas is also referred to as the Islamic Resistance Movement. It practices both party politics and militarism. It is its later mission that has seen its branding as a terrorist organization by nations such as United States, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and Israel amongst others. The European Union has also blacklisted it for exhibiting terrorist tendencies. It is currently having its moment of glory in Palestine having recorded surprise wins in the parliamentary elections that astounded many especially across the western world (Levitt, Matthew, 2006).

The history of Hamas dates back to 1987. Its formation is known to have been inspired the Muslim brotherhood, a group reputed to have committed countless terrorist acts towards the Israelis. Hamas is said to have been formed by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin with a sole objective of annihilating the state of Israel and forcing its total withdrawal from the disputed Palestine territory.

This is what its charter stipulates. It is credited for having been the mastermind and perpetrator of violence against the Israelis and their interests all over the world, these acts are meted out with impunity only equaled to that of al Qaeda. Together with Al Qaeda, Hamas leads the list of the worst terrorist organizations in the world (James L. Gelvin, 2005).

After winning the elections in 2006 and assuming power, it issued a 10 year truce to Israel and vowing to let go temporarily, its suicide missions if the later withdrew from the disputed territories of Gaza, Jerusalem and West bank. This however was not the first truce as again in 2004, it had offered a truce if Israel could totally withdraw from the territories it captured during the Six Days War.

This truce however was not held for long as it attacked Israel later in August 2005. Hamas had opted out of the presidential election in 2005 running for the municipal ones where it took control of some important territories. In the parliamentary elections the following year, it was able to garner over 42 percent securing majority seats.

Hamas has been accusing Israel of violating the stipulations on the road map that had posited the formation of a Palestinian state, its feud is not limited to Israel only but also to the United States and is ready to wage terrorist attacks against the U.S in 2006 for example, a statement issued by the Hamas officials but later denied, urged the Muslims to target America and its interests all over the world, accusing it of providing financial and logistic support to the Israelis. Hamas officials though, have never owned up to any attack against the United States or to any other country apart from Israel (Lynfield, Ben, December 27, 2004).

Its Democratic election into power has thrown a pner in the works complicating relations with major powers in the world as well as the neighboring countries in the Middle East. Major countries in the western world have always branded Hamas as a terrorist organization. Japan for instance froze all Hamas properties within its jurisdiction in 2005. Jordan has in turn outlawed it due to its terrorist activities. All this animosity is directed to a political and terrorist organization that according to polls conducted in 2007 enjoys over 65% of popular support of Palestinians.

The wide public support it has received stems from how it has initiated reforms in morale dilapidated country. It is rooting out massive corruption entrenched in the bureaucracy and order is being restored in the disputed territories. The bloody counter retaliations between the Hamas and Israel however continue, with both sides maintaining their hard stance.

With grim prospects for a peaceful co existence, the issue of Hamas leadership in the Palestine state remains a headache for the western countries. Hamas has initiated a number of attacks this year killing a handful and maiming many in the region. It has perfected the art of guerilla warfare employing it tactfully against Israel. It is also accused of executions within its file and rank and also against its key rival, the Fattah.

The United States however has been categorical in its stand even in the face of possible political realignments in the Palestine state. One state department spokesman said that the United States still maintains Hamas in its terrorist organizations’ list. The election has not changed this unless Hamas denounces its atrocious acts (Michael P. Arena, Bruce A. Arrigo, 2006).

It is more than apparent that the United States is dismayed by the results but was quick to praise the temporal peaceful coexistence of people in Palestine. It is interesting to note that the Bush administration was non committal of the elections in Palestine as the prospects of Hamas loosing seemed grim.

All this however is in the midst of reports in the media that the United States government together with president Mahmoud Abbas had planned to oust the Hamas leadership from the government. This was in an effort to overturn the gains made by Hamas. Hamas has been largely blaming the United States for funding and arming the Fattah combatants in its bid to water down its recent reigns (Tiebel, Amy, 2007).

Some nations in Europe are caught between a rock and a hard place. There is a need to legitimize the democratic process that brought Hamas to power but also these countries are wary of an organization that has been labeled a terrorist group. Europe is divided. Berlin and the United Kingdom are adamant that they will have no relations with the Hamas. Russia however on the other hand welcomed Hamas leaders in Moscow, Turkey has also followed suit.

Since its formation in 1987, Hamas has grown massively and seems to have stricken a chord with most Palestinians as evidenced in the latest elections. The greatest supporter of Hamas and financial bankroller is Iran. This is its vocal supporter but it has always denied claims of providing finances as alleged by the United States. The coming to power of the Hamas was met with elation from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who vowed to back the country financially.

The United States claims that Hamas is funded by some Arab countries as well as private businessmen. Most of these countries maintain anti United States stand and are in support of any group that is likely to maintain hostility against Israel. The elevation of Hamas into power legitimizes the relations that Hamas may have had with those countries (Andersen, Mark, 2004).

Iran has vowed to commit funds to help the democratically elected government in Palestine. Most of those countries that support Hamas are doing so on the claims of strengthening democracy and seeing it as a solution to the disputes in Middle East.

It is obvious that the coming into power of Hamas has complicated the relations that most nations have had with it. Many are in a dilemma on whether to initiate diplomatic contacts with its members or to deal with the president directly. However putting into consideration what Hamas has always stood for, the stand by America and Germany is the way to go, no negotiations of any sort or diplomatic relations should be instituted until Hamas denounces its acts of terrorism and its stand against Israel.

References

Levitt, Matthew, 2006. Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, Yale University Press.

James L. Gelvin, 2005. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press.

Lynfield, Ben, December 27, 2004. Hamas gains grassroots edge, Christian Science Monitor.

Andersen, Mark, 2004. All the Power: Revolution Without Illusion, Punk Planet Books.

Tiebel, Amy, November 27, 2007. “Analysis: Tough Mideast Bargaining Ahead”, Associated Press.

Mark Weitzman, Steven Leonard Jacobs,2003. Dismantling the Big Lie: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, KTAV Publishing House.

. Michael P. Arena, Bruce A. Arrigo,2006. The Terrorist Identity: Explaining the Terrorist Threat, NYU Press.

Was Mandela a freedom fighter or a terrorist? Nelson Mandela was born on July 18, 1918 in the Eastern Cape of South Africa (Williams and Hermann, 2012). After hearing the stories of his ancestor’s bravery, he was inspired and he dreamed of making his own impact to his people for freedom. (Venter, 2012). I believe that Nelson Mandela was a freedom fighter and not a terrorist. Sometimes the definitions of those two words may get mixed up and it is quite hard to identify the difference between the two, especially in this case.

A terrorist deliberately targets the lives of innocent people for political reasons whereas a freedom fighter takes part in a violent struggle to achieve freedom, they do not aim at the lives of the public. If you were to look at the two definitions, I believe that Nelson Mandela should be classified as a freedom fighter as he did not target the lives of people; he fought for the freedom of the people of South Africa. In 1944 he joined the African National Congress (A political party made to unite all African people and give everyone equal human rights) (Unwembi, 2011) and was the leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the rebellious part of ANC.

Even though Umkhonto we Sizwe set up a series of attacks, they were fighting for equal rights and freedom against apartheid as apartheid had dived South Africa into races and eventually had given the ‘White South Africa’ control over the whole of South Africa. They also made new laws to create segregation. (Brain, 2011) Umkhonto we Sizwe said “The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa.

We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom. ” This quote shows that they were fighting for freedom; they had sacrificed everything, knowing the consequences that could occur they still fought for the rights for their people. Bibliography – Unwembi (2011) African National Congress, URL: http://www. anc. org. za/show. php? id=172 Accessed: 18/11/12 -Marshall Brain(2011) August 5: Mandela Was Arrested, URL: http://history. howstuffworks. com/african-history/nelson-mandela. htm Accessed: 18/11/12 By Becky Jones

Global Terrorism Terrorism is a big issue all around the world. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. Also are violent acts which are intended to create fear, are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal and deliberately target or disregard the safety of civilians. Terrorists use murder, kidnapping, hijacking, and bombing to pursue a political agenda. Terrorists are not just subject in the United States, it happens all over the world. Primary reason for terrorist’s actions is to force a change in their nations’ government.

If terrorists are not pleased with their government political positions they may consider taking the issue into their own hands. In which can cause harm to many people. Also terrorists may cause harm because the difference in race, nationality, or religion. Major terrorist groups are the Palestinian Liberation Army, Hezbollah, and Al- Qaeda. Al- Qaeda is best known from being under leadership of Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden was behind the hijacking of the planes that flew into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and also the attack on the USS Cole.

Many innocent lives were taken on that horrifying day, people lost their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends. It was an emotional time for everyone and till this day it still causes pain to people’s lives that were affected by it. The terrorist’s main objective is to free all Muslim holy places like Medina, Mecca, and Jerusalem from Western influence. Al Qaeda members are considered true believers and strive for Martyrdom, and that they are ready to die. They are trained to be ready to attack and to know that they are going to die.

It is basically committing suicide but killing many other people while doing it. Terrorism is not cheap, government funding oil and other goods are a big part in the Middle East. One of the major ways terrorists make money is the development and exporting of illicit drugs like cocaine and heroin. The Taliban which operates out of Afghanistan was responsible for eighty percent of the world’s production of heroin. The Taliban, the Italian Mafia, and Russian Mafia are constantly in the drug arkets that helps finance terrorists. The good thing is that there has not been a major foreign terrorists attack in the United States since September 11. Although terrorism has become a fact of life we should not stop fighting for our country. We have to try to stop them from forming more attacks and killing thousands of innocent people. Stop them from causing more pain and heartache to our country and to the people who suffer from it. Terrorism is all around the world and it will not stop unless we fight back.