TERRORISM: World's Major Current Event

Terrorism: Hatred & Disturbance of Peace

by Neal R. Karski

Terrorism, as a very significant contemporary issue, appears to be one of today’s most discussed topics in the media. As of recent, the U.S. government has connected with other governments of the world to encourage them to fight any sort of terrorist growth and activities. The U.S. officials along with the major allies against organized crime have even invested funds into the prevention and containment of the homicidal and suicidal felons. America is now dealing not only with lack of political compromises, weakening economy and record-low temperatures, but with life threatening security breechings. It seems to me that nine years after the 9-11 attacks, Al-Qaida along with other terrorist groups have not been satisfied with the results; their mission is barely close to being fulfilled.

One can also ask him or her self – When is this going to end? When will the terrorists cease to attack their neighboring nations and the American soil, or rather when will their mission be fulfilled?

Some of the following thoughts have arisen from recent conversations I’ve had with my good friends. Terrorism is a concept of evil, but to some it may deceptively appear as a religious obligation. This may easily be accomplished by massive brainwashing and training that creates a channeled perception where to kill someone or a specific group of people is the only ultimate goal one has. I believe it is a direct opponent of charity – helping those disadvantaged by their circumstances, underprivileged and in need. It demoralizes humanity, as it implements terror to take away human life in massive numbers. I wonder how satisfactory it really is for terrorist leaders when their attacks are successful; what kind of a human being can really experience happiness from showering in the blood of others?

It is not arduous to figure out that many Islamic groups in the Middle East and Africa have proclaimed jihad on the American soil. Now, let’s attempt to analyze the reasoning of such an act.

The teachings of Mohammed, the great ruler and initiator of the Muslims, are not so different from any other global-existing religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism. They require believers to obey the commandments, love one another and respect fellow human beings, as well as to maintain chaste and pure souls. The religion of Islam does not necessarily hold any intent of destroying other religions, killing members of distant nations or even notions of jihad as an excuse for terrorism.

Therefore, we must now further explore the motif of terrorism. I am starting to firmly believe that the Islamic religion was either misconstrued in the earlier times or purposefully used by terrorist leaders as a pretense for hatred and disturbance of peace. From a religious standpoint, one [who recognizes spiritual presence and may possess relative theological knowledge] may label terrorism as a “Devil’s weapon” to cause chaos and derail the international equilibrium (given that it still exists). ­­But if the Islamic religion has not and is not teaching hatred toward Americans or Christians, the preceding wars of the past seem to be continuing on until this very day. The battle of ethnicities and diverging religious and political views has been dragging on centuries, yet in different form due to the technological advancements, or has something else been fueling the hatred terrorists utilize in a form of mass murders and attacks?

These questions may really wreck the mind of an individual concerned with resolving the current issues. What if the answers to these questions were really at the core of the conflict – the root of all hatred and constant wars between all parties involved? These answers could potentially save thousands of thousands of lives, and consequently prevent terrorism in an effective manner, rather than continuing to fund anti-terrorist militias and armies to hunt down the criminals and lacking the basic forms of communication. One would think that the U.S. Homeland Security along with the British Secret Service and other great powers could communicate with the terrorists to seek means of agreements or white-flag arrangements, or even essential information to understand the true motives behind such inhumane operations. All I see is fire-power of the World Police going out of bounds to seek the concealed, search-and-destroy. I am assuming that this has something to do with the trends of history, as well.

In any of these cases, one may think that I’m wrong, and that is more than fair. Yet most will agree that releasing terrorists and suspects of wrong-doings back to Yemen and other nations will not fix or generate answers, rather trigger more hatred, which in turn will cause terrorists to stir more disturbances into the weakening peace of the world.

God Bless

Tackling Terrorism with a Humane Face and a Strong Strategy, Part I
by George A. Miu

We live in dangerous times. Every single day, we must go about our business with the knowledge that, halfway across the world, or even closer, we have enemies who are consistently plotting to kill innocent Americans.

In light of this newfound insecurity, the United States must adopt a policy to protect itself and ensure our continued safety. However, there are several issues that must be factored into the tailoring of an overarching counterterrorism strategy, the most important of which pertains to upholding the moral standards to which we subject ourselves.

As a civilized nation, we cannot indulge in radical knee-jerk reactions reminiscent of, say, the Spanish Inquisition or the Holocaust. On the other hand, we need to address the very-human temptation to use underhanded tactics in combating an enemy that does not hesitate to exploit our ethical reservations with regard to human rights.

In other words, we cannot waterboard everyone in sight and expect to receive no backlash from the international community and from concerned, upstanding American citizens. Yet, we cannot employ good faith in dealing with suspected terrorists and naively take all pleas of innocence at face value.

As a turbulent decade was drawing to a close, two major intelligence slip-ups flooded the news and highlighted several blindspots in our seemingly-elaborate defense mechanisms.

The first of these heinous acts occurred on Christmas day, on a Detroit-bound plane, when 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate plastic explosives that had the capacity to reach the fuel tank above which he stood and consequently blow up the whole airplane, killing all 289 people on board. Fortunately, the attack was foiled and none were harmed.

The second occurred when a double agent, Humam al-Balawi, managed to gain access to FO Base Chapman and detonated an explosive vest, killing seven people associated with the CIA, which constitutes the single most lethal attack on the agency since 1983.

The greatest shame is that both Abdulmutallab and al-Balawi were known to be potential terrorists. Abdulmutallab had been reported by his own father, who was worried about his son’s religious views, to the US embassy in Nigeria. Al-Balawi had been captured by Jordanian forces, but released due to incomplete evidence pertaining to his terrorist links.

A condensed model of the algorithm required to prevent terror attacks looks fairly simple:

1. Gather information on suspects through the use of our intelligence services.

2. Rely on a variety of law enforcement mechanisms in order to ensure that suspects on whom we have information are in no position to commit mass murder.

Last month, it was the second step that failed us – twice. The natural solution, therefore, is to dedicate a greater number of resources to the processing of all information that relates to terror suspects. Right?

Unfortunately, the problem runs deeper. It is impossible to create an individualized report for all of the million-plus people on our Terror Watch List. We cannot take every single tip that we receive, everyday, and consult a specialist. Simply put: there is too much information to process correctly, unerringly.

Therefore, arbitrary tactics must be employed. These rely on large numbers of people, and are more guided by common sense than any single security measure. Ideally, they combine the mechanics of airport security (i.e. full-body scanners, pat downs) and the unparalleled potential of human perception, whereby people who act in a suspicious manner are reported.

This avoids the eternal problem of “profiling”, where certain ethnicities feel discriminated against on account of misgivings levied against them simply because of physical appearance.

Whilst this may improve the situation, the true progress, both in information and in processing, needs to be made at a higher level, with more high-ranking detainees. How exactly we can achieve this, and stay true to our beliefs while doing it, is the topic that I will tackle later on this week.

Stay tuned!