Terrorism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Terrorism - Essay Example One thing which is common in all the terrorist attacks is the involvement of the political motive. It is the action on behalf of a political cause. Sometimes the cause was on national grounds such as the separation of Russia from Chechnya or the separation of North Island from Great Britain. Sometimes the cause was the grievances against the American government which led to the World Trade Center attacks or Oklahoma City bombing. There is no private motivation of the attackers of all these incidents. There is always a political agenda which is accomplished by means of these attacks. The two many factors of terrorism are publicity and the game of psychology. The aim is to capture the attention of all the people around the globe by making the attack more dramatic i.e. killing a large number of people to politically motivate violence. According to Peter Kropotkin, a ninth century anarchist, terrorism is ‘propaganda by deed’ by which groups particularly small in number recei ve the attention for a cause. In this paper, the quote of Noam Chomsky which says ‘Terrorism is simply what our leaders declare it to be is discussed with its implication for law/ lawyers. Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and political activist. He has been writing on politics and language for the past forty years and is one of the most prominent and original social critics of his times. He is the eight most cited authors and is known as the ‘most cited living author’. The first question that must be answered is that whether an event is declared as terrorism just because the most powerful leaders declare it as terrorism or there are other factors that lead to this conclusion. 1 There have been many instances where the politicians make clear predictions about an event just because they are some hidden goals in such goals and simple declare an events as a form of terrorism. If nothing happens as such they say that it is because of the tight security conditions that made it unsuccessful whereas if a leader is on a shaky ground then all types of events are expected to be blamed as terrorism attacks. It is also the responsibility of the media that provide such inadequate and wrong assumptions regarding an event. All the happenings are a repetition of the same tasks and different reasons are given to make the people fool about it. These protocols are backed by honourable leaders who just condemn such acts by their strong words of cowardice. The usage of queen’s language in public speaking is just a method to gain trust of the people to make them sure that the nation is in the safe hands. Who are the real terrorists? Is it the leaders or the terrorists who should be called as the real terrorists in the interest of the common man? When a leader declares war on terrorism, we don’t look beyond the terrors that are systematically placed upon the humanity. When hundreds of people are just killed for th e sake to counter the issue of terrorism then it is considered as enforcement efforts. The leaders claim that they are in a position to combat these evil acts. My question is same as Noam Chomsky that when a leader doesn’t promote terrorism then why one should participate to make it worse. This means that leaders are not less culpable. Here are a few examples to support my argument: In 1980’s, a former leader of the CIA in Central America informed on record about his