1. Why are suicide attacks primarily the tactic of religious groups?
Suicide attacks are primarily the tactic of religious groups because of the element of the afterlife. The religious groups are able to sell would-be terrorists on giving up their life because there is a promise of a reward. In most cases, it would be hard to get a person to die for a cause. After all, this is the ultimate sacrifice and the person would reap none of the rewards of his actions. Most people simply are not selfless enough to go this route, even if they truly believed in the cause more than anything else in their lives. With religious groups, though, the person is told that by giving up their life, they will receive some reward in heaven. If they truly believe in the religion or the cause, then they have no reason to fear being dead. Rather, they actually believe that things will get better for them when they die. This is why suicide attacks are more a relic of religious groups than non-religious terrorist groups.
2. If no one is killed, such as often been the case in single-issue terrorism, is it really terrorism?
Even if no one is killed, it can still be considered terrorism. While there is no singular definition for terrorism, one of the most common definitions is the use of violence in order to bring about some kind of political change. More than that, though, terrorism has within it the goal of bringing terror to a group of people. The goal is to invoke fear in another population, and when attempted terrorism happens, the fear is still invoked. Even when people are not killed, individuals can still get scared of what has taken place, and they can still fear that things like this will happen in the future. As long as there is an attempt to use violence in order to influence policy or change the minds of people in government, then it can still be classified as terrorism, even without the actual carnage that usually goes along with huge terrorist attacks. The critical element is the attempt, and the intent, of the people doing the terrorism, as well as the effect of producing fear.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Terrorism Questions and Answers".
3. U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, House Member of International Affairs Committee, Chair of Terrorism Subcommittee, introduced a bill in March 2013 to sell natural gas to former Soviet blocks, and thinks U.S. failure to fully produce and sell energy abroad is perceived as being weak against terrorism and does not persuade authoritarian countries such as Russia and China to take adequate action against terror groups. Based on your readings and the lectures, how would you respond?
It is difficult to say that these issues are related. He believes that the American inability to produce and sell natural gas makes the US more dependent upon countries that might support terror. Likewise, he would like for America to have more direct influence on the policies of China and Russia. While this might be true in the long-term, it is difficult to draw a distinct connection between American oil policy and American terror policy. The United States must do what it needs to do in order to stay economically and environmentally supreme over the long run. In some cases, this may make the US appear weak, but this should be a non-issue when considering the proper policy. America’s strength in this realm comes from its resolve militarily, and it has shown around the world that it is not weak on terrorism in any way, shape, or form.
