Press "Enter" to skip to content


.. l other countries. Some governments secretly support certain terrorist groups by providing weapons, training, and money for attacks in other countries. Most terrorist groups fail to achieve their long-range political goals. Governments fight terrorism by refusing to accept terrorist demands and by increasing security at airports and other likely targets.

Some countries train special military units to rescue hostages. All terrorist acts are crimes under international law. 4History of terrorism. Terrorist tactics have been used for centuries. An American group, the Ku Klux Klan, used violence to terrorize blacks and their sympathizers in the late 1800’s and the 1900’s.

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

Get your price

In the 1930’s, the dictators Adolf Hitler of Germany, Benito Mussolini of Italy, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union used terrorism to discourage opposition to their governments. 5Another wave of terrorism began in the 1960’s. Terrorist groups included the Red Brigades in Italy, which was active until the late 1980’s, and the Red Army Faction in West Germany, which was active until the early 1990’s. Both groups sought the destruction of the political and economic systems in their home countries and the development of new systems. Before the independence of Israel in 1948, a Jewish group used terror to speed the end of British rule in Palestine and create a Jewish homeland.

Since 1960, Palestinian groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, have carried out campaigns of terrorism aimed at establishing an independent Palestinian state. 6In Northern Ireland, Roman Catholic and Protestant extremists have used violence to push for, respectively, the end of, or the continuation of, British rule. Terrorists from other parts of the world, especially the Middle East, continue to set off bombs and commit other crimes. In 1993, a bomb exploded in the parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. The next year, a federal court convicted four men, including two Palestinians, of planning the bombing (see NEW YORK CITY [Recent developments]). Another major terrorist bombing occurred in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Two Americans were convicted for their role in the attack Conclusion In my opinion terrorism is a growing form of violence in which a party tries to achieve a political goal and it must be fought against. The U.S. must decipher a clear cut way to deal with terrorist acts instead of acting on individual situations in an unorganized way by either using military force or ignoring terrorist demands all together. This approach obviously does not work, as shown in the above in my Summary and Evaluation, and it is in the U.S. best interest to change the non-negotiation system, which includes violent revenge, into a system of peaceful negotiation.

This change may seem drastic and complicated but it is actually very simple, the U.S. only has to follow a few short and concise rules when dealing with a terrorist event whether it is a hostage situation or a horrific bombing. To begin, one must first fully understand what terrorist negotiation means before they can attempt to apply it. When negotiating with a terrorist it is not like negotiating for a used car that is you are negotiating against your interests. To better explain the U.S. would rather there weren’t terrorists at all even if we have a good way to deal with them.

This form of negotiation is known as negotiation under duress. Now that the difference between negotiating and terrorist negotiating has been established three questions must now be answered. They are as follows: What do the terrorist parties say they want, what do they really want, and what are they willing to settle for. These questions must be answered in order for the negotiation process to move forward in an objective manner. Although individual terrorist cases require their own examination there are six flexible rules that must be followed in every case. The first rule states that a dialogue must be established and maintained with the terrorists.

This keeps communication constant, open and honest. The second rule says that the U.S. must respond to routine demands, such as food, water and supplies. This keeps the terrorist content for the time being and makes them increasingly willing to settle for less. The third rules projects that the U.S.

must always show strength and maintain the upper hand. If this is lost the terrorist may not be willing to settle for anything less than what they demand. The fourth rule states that the U.S. must be patient. Negotiation takes time and patience so the only way to ensure a fair and peaceful negotiation is to move slowly. The fifth rule is avoiding discussions of demands you do not want to meet. This rule helps the terrorist lessen his focus on that demand and onto something the U.S.

can grant. The sixth and final rule states that the U.S. must negotiate with terrorist to win. This essentially means that we must get hostages back and prevent further attacks with out making any unexcitable concessions. In all, a system of negotiation would work to the U.S. advantage by making terrorist situations more manageable and easier to solve in a peaceful manner.

It was difficult doing research on this subject for me. I was a victim of the 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist act in Dhahran Saudi Arabia. When you experience something like that, you can’t begin to understand why anyone would be so cruel to do such an act. I will never forget what I experienced @ 2200 hrs, on June 25th 1996. The American public will never know the truth about what really happened that night, because the media left out the many horrors I saw with my own eyes that night. The many disfigured and burnt victims I looked hopelessly upon.

I was in a state of shock for many months after. I couldn’t function as I had before the incident. Even today there are deep buried scars from that terrorist act. I have to continuously remind myself of the truth of what really happened that night. Because if I don’t, I will be twice the victim, once from the terrorist act on that night, and twice from the American media who would want me to believe that only one bomb, only 19 dead, and only a few wounded were victims that night.

But I know differently. Bibliography Bibliography Laqueur, Walter. The Age of Terrorism. Little, 1988. Terrorism within a historical perspective. Long, David E.

The Anatomy of Terrorism. Free, 1990. Analysis of the different types of terrorism, “support for terrorism,” “strategy, tactics and victims,” “meeting the threat” (contents page). Wright, Joanne. Terrorist Propaganda: The Red Army Faction and the Provisional IRA. St. Martin’s, 1991.

Case study analysis of the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the IRA. Terrorism, international.Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Anderson, Sean, and Sloan, Stephen. Historical Dictionary of Terrorism. Scarecrow, 1995.

Seymour-Jones, Carole. Terrorism. New Discovery Bks., 1992. World Book CD-ROM 2001 Emerson, Steve, and Brian Duffy. Fall of Pan Am 103: Inside the Lockerbie Investigation. Putnam,1990.

The terrorist bombing of a passenger jet. Constantinides, George C. Intelligence and Espionage On Terrorism: An Analytical View. Boulder,CO: Westview Press, 1983. [Constantinides Wilcox, Laird, comp. Political Psychology, Propaganda, Espionage, Intelligence Operations, Terrorism, and Assassination. Kansas City, MO: Laird Wilcox, 1980.

Sociology Essays.


I'm Lily

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out