The Threats from International Terrorist Groups - Term Paper Example

Al-Qaeda, an International Terrorism Group International terrorism is one of the topics that have garnered a lot of attention in the global arena. The increase in the number of terrorism groups has led to mixed reactions within the public domain. While some perceive acts of terrorism groups as an expression of genuine issues, the consequences of terrorism acts make it an unjustified ways of pushing for the rights of the people. In the US, terrorism attacks have caused the death of many people and immense destruction of property. The claims of terrorism groups are in many times ungrounded and present a selfish approach of handling issues. Al-Qaeda is one of the terrorist groups that have become a big problem from the US after commissioning attacks and issues persistent threats to the government. While the US has redefined its terrorism action plan, there is evidence the systems are still weak and are inadequate to guarantee the safety of the people from Al-Qaeda. On this ground, the US government still faces a big challenge in prevention of future attacks as part of its commitment to provide the people with the right to safety. Al-Qaeda is one of the fierce terrorism groups that came into being between 1988 and 1989. Osama Bin and Abduall Azzam are the well-known masterminds of the groups who founded the group with other militants. The Al-Qaeda network comprises of multinational, stateless army and Islam extremists who worked closely together during the Soviet War in Afghanistan. In its history, the Al-Qaeda has attacked the US in September 11 attack and US embassy in various countries has been a priority target for the group. The death of Osama Bin Laden after the American invasion left the group under the leadership of an Egyptian Muslim extremist. Currently, Al-Qaeda attacks are characterized by suicide bombing and repeated simultaneous bombing of different targets. The increase in Al-Qaeda related attacks across the world made the United Nations Security council (UNSC) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) declared this group an international terrorist group. Since then, the AL-Qaeda has become a big threat to the world peace, attracting attention from all over the world (Atwan, 2008). It collaboration with other terrorist groups such as Al-Shabaab has worsened the situation as they collude to become sources of terror across the globe. The motivation of the Al-Qaeda group has been a controversial issue and often each attack has its own peculiar motivations. One of the sentiments of the Al-Qaeda group is that they fight to restore the position of the Islamic way of life that has come under great threat through social influence. The governments in different states have undermined the Sharia law which threatens the survival of the Islamic way of life. Therefore, the Al-Qaeda is champion for the rights of Muslims in the world that ignores their position. Secondly, the Al-Qaeda, as Osama Bin Laden put it, is a channel for retaliation against the attack of their country by non-Muslims. The terror group was formed during the time of Afghanistan war, when the Israel’s, supported by other countries such as US, attacked the country. For instance, in repeated US attacks, the Jihadists have claimed that they are motivated by the US cooperation with their enemies during past wars. Therefore, any country that supports Israel, one of their enemies, is a priority target for the terror group. In other situations, the Al-Qaeda members have completely put selfish reasons such as use of the holy war in pursuing balance in the world (Atwan, 2008). From this perspective, the Al-Qaeda has different motivations that are specific for every attack they make. The Al-Qaeda attacks have been fuelled by immense financial and non-financial support that they have acquired during their major operations. One major source of finances is Osama Bin Laden personal property that he has dedicated fully to the group. As one of its pioneer leaders, he committed his wealth to the use of this group as part of his commitment to ensure that the purpose of the group is accomplished. Other donors to the group include Afghan based Egyptians and Saudi Arabia that has actively worked with the terror group. Besides, the terror group is suspected to be involved in heroin trafficking as part of their income generation projects. Since 2001, the complexity of the Afghanistan politics has led to increase in financial and non-financial supporters of Al-Qaeda as the group becomes a tool for perpetuation the political interest of some leaders in the country. Jihadists are always available to participate in the attack either are suicide bombers or in setting up the attacks (Atwan, 2008). Since they believe in the holy war, the human resource has never been a challenge for the terror group; hence the persistent increase in their participation in international terrorism. The terrorist groups’ use of the media has been a common issue in international terrorist attacks. The Al-Qaeda group uses the media as a mean for communication to justify their actions. The terror leaders come out in broad day light claiming that terrorist attacks will continue until when countries such as US will stop inhabiting Muslim territories. Therefore, the media is a channel for the Al-Qaeda group to communicate their sentiments. Secondly, the terror groups come out to claim attacks as one way of asserting the cause for the attacks. This way, they are able to pass their grievances and show their motivation for the war. Additionally, Al-Qaeda and other groups may use the media to divert attention from the regions that they intend to strike. For instance, they may claim to launch attacks on a specific building, while their primary target may be elsewhere (Atwan, 2008). This makes their work easy as the government beefs up security within areas that are not priority for the group. Therefore, the terrorist groups use the media in various ways but their main goal is to ensure that their attacks are severe and that they intimidate the target government. From a critical point of view, the motivation of terrorism is unjustifiable and a crime against innocent people. The idea that terrorism is channel for pursuing religious rights is a selfish approach to solving the problem. Their primary aim is to create dominance of the religion across the world through a wrong initiative. While Muslim is facing the risk of dilution by social changes, it is crucial to understand that changes are inevitable in the globalized society. The war against Muslim liberals by the terror groups shows that their motives are primarily based on personal motives rather than religious motives. Often, the Al-Qaeda have misinterpreted incidence when the holy Quran prohibits killing of innocent lives. Therefore, their motive is to force other Muslims to dance by their tune when they understand that they use biased interpretation of the religion to chase their own ambitions. However, the Al-Qaeda retaliation against the US has become a subject of controversy. The US invasion attack in Iraq was highly criticized as international bodies condemned US for overreaction over rumors that Iraq was building Nuclear weapons that the Al-Qaeda would use to attack the country. Some scholars have justified the Al-Qaeda attacks citing the unfair invasion which led to loss of innocent lives in Iraq. However, it is evident that retaliation actions of the Al-Qaeda are unjustified since their attacks target innocent lives rather than the US government (Gunaratna, 2002). For instance, Al-Qaeda bombing of US embassies in different countries led to the death of innocent lives. Therefore, Al-Qaeda motives are unjustified as they seek to fulfill selfish needs while ignoring the plight of innocent people. In the recent past, the United States has had friction with hostile groups such as the Al-Qaeda, resulting into new threat of international terrorism. International terrorism is a greater reason to worry than domestic violence due to the severity of these attacks. For instance, in 11th September, 2011, the Al-Qaeda attacked the twin towers in United States killing over 3,000 citizens. Although various efforts have been launched to end the tension between US and Al-Qaeda, it is clear that there is likelihood of a revenge mission following the US involvement in the war in Iraq. The US president Barack Obama has put efforts to apply diplomacy in neutralizing the threat but since Al-Qaeda is a violent group, international terrorism remains a major threat whose solution is yet to be found (Gunaratna, 2002). The economic impact of terrorism activities is crucial for the country. In the US, terrorism has become a major threat for economic stability as investors fear to risk implementation of major projects. For instance, the bombing of the twin towers has reduced the incentive for investors to develop the real estate sector as fear such attacks would undermine their investment plans. Thus, the activities of Al-Qaeda have far reaching effects that the US government cannot ignore. The US government has been keen to launch various strategies to combat criticism as one way of ensuring security in the country. The Patriot Act is one of the strategies that the government implemented to reduce terrorism soon after the emergence of the problem. The Patriot Act was launched in 2001 as a response to the increased tension of terrorism attack (Lum, Kennedy & Sherley, 2006). The main purpose of the act was to intercept the obstacles that made the process of detecting terrorist attacks difficult and slow. The Act granted the FBI the right to make urgent searches and arrests without having any arrest warrant or even a court order. This was to facilitate speedy action against suspects of terrorism. While this approach was crucial to ensure that the government would respond to intelligence in a prompt manner to prevent attacks, it came under sharp criticism as soon it was imposed. The Patriot Act contradicted the provisions of the constitution on the rights of the US citizens. The constitution provides the public with the right to privacy in their houses, papers and effects, which the new law violated. The Act allowed the FBI to conduct a search without any probable cause, which is against the people’s right to have searches in their houses only after warrants describing the reason for the search are available. Since this violated the rights of the citizens, the government failed to engage the citizen actively in the war against terrorism (Wedgwood, 2002). As a result, the act became a mere paper plan that did not contribute to terrorism reduction in the US. The US invasion in Iraq in March 2003 as a response to Al-Qaeda attacks was inefficient and attracted a lot of criticism. The invasion signified the US government trust in their own power of war rather than diplomatic strategies in conflict resolution. The attack lasted for about 20 days, a time which involved serious war and the eventual occupation of Baghdad by the American forces. The attack was triggered by the persistent terrorist bombing in US, which the US government termed as an act of war. The US government suspected that the Iraqians were manufacturing dangerous weapons of mass destruction, which would be dangerous to the world. An urge to conduct an investigation in Iraq emerged when the Iraq government attacked US in the year in 2001 (Gunaratna, 2002). The US government felt vulnerable, especially after this attack that is believed to have been an operation of Al-Qaeda, one of the rogue groups in Iraq. The US government felt vulnerable and feared that the Iraq government would use the weapons of mass destruction against the US government. Another fear was that with these weapons available in Iraq, the Al-Qaeda group would access them and conduct a more severe attack than one of 2001. Thus, the US felt the need to launch an effective operation to inspect and disarm the Iraq government of any weapons of mass destruction that they could be holding. For the first time in the history of the world, NATO refused to support US in the war against Iraq. When NATO was asked whether they “continued to serve the interests of the United States,” they declared that this was not a time when war could resolve such a conflict. They explicitly stated that “There is still an alternative to war. The use of violence can only be the last resort” to hint on their trust on diplomacy. In this effect, NATO took the initiative to protect Turkey from the effects of the war that America was planning to launch against Iraq. The idea that NATO seems to hold is that the pre-emptive action of US was an overreaction that undermined the power of diplomacy and was even questionable. In short, NATO was against the coalition organized by the US in support of the operation against Iraq. The Ramifications of the US invasion were negative especially to the innocent public. There is evidence of excessive use of force that lead to the death of about 30 people per day in Iraq and others suffered rape and torture. In total, over 100 thousand people died during the time of invasion and occupation, an issue that has led to the criticism of the US attack in Iraq (Lum, Kennedy & Sherley, 2006). Therefore, the use of war was an ineffective way of reacting to terrorism and in one way it contributed to heightening of the tension as Al-Qaeda planned revenge for this invasion. The government is responsible for the development of a terrorism response plan by ensuring the participation of all its relevant branches and the public as well. The US National Security Staff interagency Policy and Coordination Subcommittee for Preparedness and Response to radiological and nuclear threats recognized public awareness as one of the most important dimensions of a terrorism response plan (Gunaratna, 2002). The government should work closely with the public to detect when such threats emerge. The public forms a crucial source of intelligence that the government can use to prevent crime (Sandler, 2005). Secondly, the public must know how to respond when a terrorist attack occurs to take personal responsibilities in case of such an incidence. In this light, the government should develop an awareness team to educate the public on the necessity of acting responsibly during a situation of emergency. The awareness team should provide the public with strategies to minimize the risky behavior that elevates the death rate during such an attack. This kind of knowledge should also be provided at the fundamental education levels to ensure that the public are aware of the way to respond in time of needs. The media channels should also include programs on response to nuclear detonation as part of their role of sensitizing the public on issues pertaining to their welfare. In conclusion, the Al-Qaeda is one of the rogue terrorist groups that pose a big threat to the international security and more seriously to the US. While the terror group justifies their war as a strategy to reinstate religious balance and to respond to unfair treatment by non-Muslim countries, it is clear that their activities pose danger to safety of the people and economic stability of the US. Previously, the Al-Qaeda attacks have been blood-letting in the US and many people have lost their lives while scores have suffered material destruction. However, the US response on Al-Qaeda has raised questions as it has contributed to low outcome as far as containing terrorism in crime. The Patriot Act, launched in the wake of terrorism suffered criticism as it failed to garner enough public support due to its over-riddance of the public rights. Secondly, the trust of US in its power in war has resulted to increase in Al-Qaeda attacks as these terrorism groups seek revenge after such US attacks in their country. Therefore, it is crucial that the US government focuses on dialogue as conflict resolution tool by engaging international bodies in restoring peace. Secondly, the US government must use an integrative approach by creating awareness to the public to ensure that they work together with the public in preventing as well alleviating the consequences of terrorism attacks. Efficient terrorist response programs in the US will restore security and promote economic stability in the country. References Atwan, A. B. (2008). The secret history of al Qaeda. Univ of California Press. Gunaratna, R. (2002). Inside Al Qaeda: global network of terror. Columbia University Press. Lum, C., Kennedy, L. W., & Sherley, A. (2006). Are counter-terrorism strategies effective? The results of the Campbell systematic review on counter-terrorism evaluation research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 489-516. Sandler, T. (2005). Counterterrorism a game-theoretic analysis. Journal of conflict resolution, 49(2), 183-200. Wedgwood, R. (2002). Al Qaeda, Terrorism, and Military Commissions. American Journal of International Law, 328-337. Read More