Counter Terrorism in Comparative Perspective Essay - 1

Counter Terrorism in Comparative Perspective - canvass ExampleAs a measure to retaliate to and prevent terror attacks, America and its allies squander initiated several counter-terror operations in perceived geo-political hotspots. But differentiating between what comprises an go of terror and what can be classified as counter-terror is never straightforward - the official use of these labels is often purely a consider of rhetoric and self-serving bias. As ren avered public intellectual Noam Chomsky succinctly points out, if it is done by our side, the act is counter-terror if it is done by the enemy, it is terror. (Chomsky, as quoted in Bowden, 2003, p.51) A glance at the presentation of conflicts in mainstream media sources bears out this point. Depending on who the consumers of news information are, notations of terror and counter-terror are conveniently swapped. Hence, conceptions and definitions of these two opposing damage will have to begin by dispelling rhetorical exagger ations, intrinsic biases and other barriers to truth. In this context, it is not move that the volume terrorist act has become so subjective as to be without any concrete meaning. Nevertheless, the discussion has a frightening resonance, be amaze people tend to believe that it does have meaning and to use and abuse the forge by applying it to whatever they hate as a way of avoiding rational thought and discussion and, frequently, excusing their own illegal and immoral behaviour. (Whitbeck, 2002, p.52) The vagueness of the term is evident from the range of verbal formulations (signifying diverse acts) to which it is applied mound murder, assassination, arson and sabotage are available (to all of which the phrase politically motivated can be added if appropriate). such crimes, moreover, are already on the statute books, rendering specific criminal legislation for terrorism unnecessary. Such precise formulations, however, do not carry the overwhelming, demonizing and thought-de adening impact of the word terrorism, which is, of course, precisely the charm of the word for its more cynical and unprincipled users and abusers. If someone commits politically motivated mass murder, people might be curious as to the cause or grievances which inspired such a crime, but no cause or grievance can justify (or even explain) terrorism, which, all right-thinking people agree, is the ultimate evil. (Whitbeck, 2002, p.52) The best reading material of difficulties in defining terrorism is the fact that some of the most inspirational public figures of the twentieth atomic number 6 such as Nelson Mandela, Menachem Begin, Yasser Arafat and Gerry Adams were all regarded as terrorists at some point during their public life. This classification of them existence terrorists co-existed or transformed into more respectable classifications such as statesmen and peacemakers indeed, Mandela, Begin and Arafat, have been awarded the Nobel Peace calculate and Mandela is viewed today by many as the leading moral authority of his time in the world. (Tsoukala, 2004, p.417) Such examples typify the hazard of defining terrorism and terrorists. It also shows that these terms are easier to talk about than to define. As noted political commentator, Nissan Horowitz, points out in the major Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the meaning of the term terrorism is all in the eye of the beholder. To give a concrete example, he asks