0
Terrorism
Terrorism includes acts of violence to spread a political or ideological message and create a state of terror among people. al-Qaeda, responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, is the most well known terrorist group.
1,289 Questions
What does the US classify Hamas as?
Foreign Terrorist Organization Hamas, the Gaza based Palestinian movement, is both a political party and a terrorist group known for its history of suicide bombings. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan. Australia and the United Kingdom list only the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. The United States and the European Union have both implemented restrictive measures against Hamas on an international level.
What is the origin of terrorism?
Terrorism, as we know it today, is rooted in frustration, anger, fear, and feelings of helplessness. It is easy to convince a group of very angry, fearful people that violence will get them power, especially since terrorism can pay off in the short term. It rarely, if ever, brings about a positive change. It usually ends with the terrorists dead or so damaged that they will never have a life they strived for and many more people dead and damaged. Needed changes can't be brought about by terrorism.
A good description of a terrorist mentality was described byTamim Ansary, in his book "West of Kabul, East of New York", as being shut in a box lined with mirrors and any ideas that might slip in are reflected off those mirrors.
It is certainly possible for those kinds of assaults to take place (they do not violate the laws of physics), but it is highly improbable that they would be successful. There are numerous safety protocols that protect the White House and the area in Central Washington D.C. For example, the plane that launches the initial strike in "Olympus Has Fallen" is operating in a no-flight zone for any civilian aircraft. After sending a warning, a missile would have already been on its way to intercept and local troops would be mobilized on the ground. Conversely, the security that each person needs to pass through would likely prevent the kind of bombing that occurred in "White House Down". There is a reason that no terrorist group has yet tried to attack the White House; it is one of the most secure locations on Earth.
What caused terrorist attacks after the Six Day War?
Poor losers.
For a more specific answer, it depends on what is being considered a "terrorist attack".
On the Egyptian front, there were numerous cross-border missile attacks on Israeli military and civil positions on the east bank of the Suez Canal. These were caused by Nasser's desire to continue to put pressure on Israel and force Israel to relinquish the Sinai Peninsula and the spate of attacks from 1967-1970 is often called the War of Attrition.
On the Jordanian front, Palestinian fedayeen continued the types of cross-border raids that they had previously performed when the West Bank was under Jordanian control. These attacks were performed with the intent of destabilizing Israel. Israel retaliated with an incursion into Palestinian controlled areas of Jordan in the Battle of Karameh in 1968, which led to Palestinians redirecting their violence against the Jordanian government and the attempt to create a Palestinian State in Jordan. (This was soundly destroyed by the Jordanians in 1970 in what is known as Black September, the bloodiest war in Palestinian history.)
It should be noted that nothing causesterrorist attacks; they are perpetrated through a conscious free-will decision by the terrorist.
There are things that provide motivation for terrorists, but that is by far not the same thing as a cause.
Why did people welcome the Taliban?
The question as written is nebulous and difficult to answer because "people" does not give a specific regional grouping, religious grouping, or time period. Note, that not all of the reasons below represent statistical facts, but are based on people's perceptions of what occurs. Typically, when the Taliban has been well-received, it is for the following reasons:
1) Order and Control: Afghanistan is one of the most difficult to control regions in the world with arid deserts, high mountains, many rural areas, and limited infrastructure. This makes it very similar to the American concept of the Wild West, but even more difficult to manage. The Taliban are similar (in a way) to cowboys in that they dispense rough justice wherever they see a problem. As opposed to Western Law, which is seen as slow and ineffective, the "shoot and ask questions later method" actually helps to lower crime.
2) Anti-Western Sentiment: Since the American Invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban have become the poster-boy for the "We hate America" movement the world over. (Note: For most people who see themselves as part of this group, the American Government and Foreign Policy is at fault, not the American People.) As a result, when the Taliban are able to retake a region or arrive in a region, for many, it is synonymous with liberation from American Imperialism.
3) Indigenous Powers: The Taliban were overthrown by a Coalition of Warlords and Tribal Leaders called the Northern Alliance with American Assistance. Many of these warlords are barely better to the Afghan people than were the Taliban and can only maintain power with a strong American military presence. This makes them look like puppets of the American government as opposed to an independent sovereign power. The Taliban, however, represent an indigenous group of Afghans who ruled the country for nearly 10 years in spite of foreign interference from Iran.
4) Islamic Law: Many Moslems in Afghanistan are deeply conservative and would not wish for a country like the United States where religion and state are separate. Islam, for them, should be a constituent part of the State apparatus and the Taliban made a commitment to that whereas Hamid Karzai and the Northern Alliance Government have not made a religious commitment. (Note: There is are a vast number of Afghans who are not interested in a state as religious as the one put forward by the Taliban, but those who do still make up a large segment of the population.)
What was life like for women before the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan?
Better than AFTER the Taliban took power, but even before then, Afghanistan was a pretty miserable place. Go back to 1978 or so, before the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and you could see Kabul (the capital city) looked prosperous and relatively liberal. Women dressed in European fashions and attended college, and the scenery looked entirely "normal" and European.
That was in Kabul; the rural areas hadn't changed all that much for the previous 1500 years.
What are the aims of the religious organization Hezbollah?
Hezbollah has published three main documents that list its objectives.
In 1985, Hezbollah published a Manifesto which outlined its objectives.
First, Hezbollah sought to expel the United States, France, and their allies from Lebanon.
Second, Hezbollah sought to bring all Lebanese who perpetrated crimes against Muslims and Christians to justice.
Third, Hezbollah called for a popularly elected representative form of government, preferably Islamic.
Fourth, Hezbollah called for Israel's destruction.1
In 2009, Hezbollah published a second Manifesto, which outlined new objectives but did not retract the old Manifesto.
First, Hezbollah renewed its call for a representative political system.
Second, Hezbollah renewed its call for resistance against Israel, but stopped short of demanding its destruction.
Third, Hezbollah called for better relations with Arab states.
Fourth, Hezbollah called on the Arab world to recognize Iran as the leader of the Muslim world.2
Finally, in 2010, Naim Qassem, Hezbollah's Deputy Secretary General published a lengthy book outlining the organization's objectives. The book supported both the 1985 and 2010 manifesto and added some new objectives.
First, resist Israel.
Second, provide social services for Lebanon.
Third, assist the Palestinian's resistance movement against Israel.
Fourth, create a representative form of government.
Fifth, create unity with Lebanese Christians and other religious sects.3
From these three documents, one can readily see that Hezbollah's highest priorities are to defeat Israel and create a representative government. Hezbollah continues to increase its military strength but it remains inferior to Israel's powerful military. During the 2006 War, however, Hezbollah did demonstrate that it could challenge Israel's military and inflict substantial causalities.4 Hezbollah also continues to gain political power in the Lebanese Parliament and now controls the cabinet. Nonetheless, Lebanon is bitterly divided amongst religions and a truly representative government that divides power fairly between Muslims and Christians remains in the distant future.
1. "An Open Letter: The Hizbollah Program," The Jerusalem Quarterly 48 (1988).
2. "Hezbollah's New Political Document," Syrian News Station (November 11, 2009).
3. Naim Qassem, Hizbullah: The Story From Within, (2010), these objectives are scattered throughout the book.
4. Shai Feldman, "The 2006 War: A Preliminary Assessment," Crown Center for Middle East Studies 10 (2006).
Why do women still wear burqas even if the Taliban are gone?
It has more to do with Islamic custom than on the Taliban enforcing it. The Koran speaks of men and women dressing modestly and mentions the head scarf (hijab) as something women should wear. The full body Burqa being a fairly conservative form of that.
Also even though the Taliban are now gone many Warlords in the South of the country still enforce it. Around the capital Kabul they have declined heavily but still religious women wear in particular continue to wear it voluntarily.
Is the Taliban a communist group?
No. The Taliban is a Fundamentalist Islamist Group. They actually fought against the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s and the puppet Communist Government of Afghanistan.
In terms of politics, they are much close to European fascists of the middle of the 20th century without the corporatist aspect of the fascists' policies.
First, it is worth distinguishing the US government from the acts of independent American citizens. The US government has not supported the IRA in any serious capacity, but Irish Americans have. Additionally, the United States has listed the RIRA (the militant successor to the Provisional IRA in 1997) as a terrorist organization and has blacklisted them. Irish Americans supported the IRA for sectarian reasons, namely to free Ireland from British rule.
In the case of Hamas and Hezbollah, there are far fewer Americans of Arab descent to support these organizations, but there is such support. This has ended up in a number of court cases concerning the money-trails that lead to these organizations, most notably the Holy Land Foundation Trials. The reason that the United States government goes after supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah is that both organizations are directly hostile to the United States.
As a final note, Hamas and Hezbollah are not "pals" of the IRA. Not all paramilitary/terrorist groups have warm (or even extant relationships).
What would happen if we captured a terrorist?
Check out some science fiction moves.
Me, I'd shake his/her/its hand (or whatever they use) and say "G'day!".
sinn fein and the IRA are two sides of the same coin, same differing methods but each implicitly supports the other.
AnswerA quick note -Sinn Fein has not always supported the IRA, and was not at first implicitly involved with them. For example, when the IRA was the IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) at the time of the Easter Rising of 1916, the IRB/A did not even inform Sinn Fein that it was to take place, and the two did not work together. However, Sinn Fein gre infamous because they became somehow implied with the rising and so were benefitted by a reputation of hardline actions for independence.
Sinn Fein does not rule or give orders to the IRA, and is a different organisation. I personally do not condone the measures which the IRA take in their attempts at a complete Irish Republic, but Sinn Fein is nowadays a political party, who represents the views of many members of the IRA about the need for a republic, and independence throughout Ireland etc, but does not represent terrorist views. In short, Sinn Fein has little control over the IRA, and though I'm sure many members are involved in bothg roups and believe in both idealogies, Sinn Fein has always publicly condemned acts of Terrorism from the IRA.
AnswerAs a matter of fact, it is only in recent years that Sinn Fein has condemmed a few, SELECTIVE acts of violence by the IRA. Omagh in 1998 was the very first time in their existence that they did so. They refused time and time again to do so in the past, and to this day still refuse to call IRA acts of violence criminal; they merely state that they are wrong.And seeing as the President, Vice-President of Sinn Fein (Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness) as well as T.D. Martin Ferris have not only being members and commanders of the IRA for decades, as well as sitting on the IRA Army Council for several years, it can be said that Sinn Fein does in fact dictate to the IRA.
AnswerI have never heard Sinn Fein condemn any act committed by the Provisional IRA. Recently they have said that one or two should not have happened. They did indeed condemn Omagh but that was carried out by the Real IRAWho were enemies of the Provisional Irish Republican Army?
It seems like the enemies of the Provisional Irish Republican Army would be the British. That's what the research that I did on this topic.
Which ethnic group claims to have been the most brutalized under Taliban rule?
the Hazarajat near Kabul
What were the months called during the french reign of terror?
The Reign of Terror (27 June 1793 - 27 July 1794), also known as the The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of violence that occurred for one year and two months after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution."
Answer 1
In Iraq alone, it is published that 1 million Iraqi were killed during the American war in Iraq. In addition, thousands were killed in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine territories, and other countries. Most of non-Muslim people know little about Islam and they just rely on Media of US, Israel, and Europe. Some don't even know the difference between the two words Islam and Muslims and they the followers of Islam by Islam or Islams and not by Muslims. It is a pity that a US Bishop calls to burn the Quran in a world day celebration and when asked did you read the Quran? he says no.
Answer 2
Factually, Answer 1 is a bit of a mess. The latest estimates are that somewhere around a half-million (500,000) Iraqis have been killed either in the initial invasion, or in the sectarian violence since the war ended (the majority in the later). In addition, approximately 4-5 million Iraqis have become refugees. The numbers in Afghanistan/Pakistan are significantly lower, but still substantial (no reliable numbers have been published for that conflict by any reputable source). The War on Terror does not generally involve specific military operations outside the above areas, though I'm certain that the various Intelligence agencies conduct clandestine operations globally against perceived threats.
Besides the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the War on Terror has to include the conflicts elsewhere specifically concerning terrorism (or, at least, one side's definition). That would include a variety of attacks in India, the UK, Japan, Spain, the Philippines, and several other places, plus much of the ongoing civil war/conflict in Yemen and neighboring areas. No good estimates of the death tolls in Yemen exist, while rough numbers for the death tolls in various explicit terror attacks sits at around 3,000. Much of the death in Yemen, et al is Muslim, while only a small minority of the deaths in Spain, India, et al are Muslim.
As to the second part of the question: unfortunately, as with most topics, the American public almost exclusively uses the major mass media as its source of information. Which means that their opinions of Islam are generally shaped by newscasts, newspapers, and (increasingly) by radio/TV personalities. The latter are particularly poor sources of factual information, as they have no reason to present a balanced viewpoint, nor correct misinformation or mistakes. However, even the former two media sources are no longer considered very good sources of information, as the quality of reporting has significantly degraded in the past three decades.
While the pro-Israel lobby has significant influence and the US has a stanch history of being a solid Israeli backer, it would be a mistake to say that the Israeli government itself has any significant impact (or influence) on the general US public opinion. It has non-trivial impact on Congress, however, as there exists a very strong pro-Israel lobby.
One final note: as an aside, the questioner makes the assumption that the US is battling Muslims. Not all Iraqi or Afghani peoples are Muslim. In fact, a notable minority are NOT. In addition, most of the current crop of terrorists are as much Muslim as Timothy McVeigh was Christian - it is not terribly relevant, since their true motives are political, not religious. While they might dress it up in religious speak, a closer look at them reveals that they're just in it for political ends, and religion is a cloak to fool the masses. The War on Terror is really a political war, not a religious one. And, of course, none of this speaks to the effectiveness or appropriateness of the conflict, which is a completely different topic.
Answer 3ORB calculated 1,220,580 deaths since the 2003 invasion. From the poll margin of error of 2.5% ORB came up with a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths.Jared M. On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007. In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths. On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken September 20 to 24, 2007. As a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000. See related links below. Answer 4The difficulty and wide range of estimates above indicates the problems in definitions: the ORB survey includes ALL deaths of non-natural causes in Iraq between 2003 and 2007, and is hampered by problems with accuracy due to refugee status. It has also received criticism from peers as to poor methodology leading to less than reliable results. The Lancet study had related, but not identical problems, though it is generally well-accepted by peer review. In both cases, it's hard to categorize who was killed in the War on Terror, who died as a result of direct combat, who was killed by partisan and sectarian infighting, who died due to hardships of being refugees, etc. The truth is never simple, and putting an exact number to the casualties (and cause of those casualties) in the Iraq War is going to be pretty much impossible, especially since the region doesn't conduct frequent accurate census of populations, and the overall fluid movement of people makes identification of casualties difficult. This is doubly true for places like Afghanistan, Yemen and portions of Africa.A side hint: The war is to implement undeclared political and economical agendas of the invaders in the invaded countries rather than war against terror. Even the sectarian war in Iraq was fueled by the invaders to keep the country away from possible political and economic revival. Otherwise, how do you explain the absence of this sectarian wars before the US invasion of Iraq.
Apart from the Iraqi victims through the claimed war on terror, give a look to the current Iraq political, social, economic status to find that Iraq practically now is partitioned. There are every day victims of violence and opposing fronts. Iraq has neither an established army nor an established police. Iraq lost its leading status in the region regarding social and medical insurance systems. The Iraq oil is almost under control of foreign countries to pay the bill of the war on Iraq. The Iraqi historical museums were destroyed and robbed by foreign gangs. Iraqi one million children died due to sanctions and due to the use of uranium missiles. I wonder how one or a country supports the war against terror while this one or this country is waging terror.
[For discussion of this "side hint" please see the discussion section.]
Related Questions
In addition, please see the Related Question below on the cause of the War on Terror.
What is the best weapon in urban terror?
Probably the car bomb- it is moble:it can be large, limited only by the carrying capacity of the vehicle: it can be driven to a high value target:difficult to stop
narrrrrrrrrrrr the sr8 or the negev is the best
Edit--By Lux : I prefer LR300 with Deagle, HE Grenade, Kevlar Vest, Silencer and Laser Sight
Edit--By Mason: i farted so hard i defecated myself and oh i like the the AK103, the shotgun, the beretta pistol, all with the laser sight
these guns are crap sr8, with the DE, and the kavar vest, lazer and medie kit
First of all you cant get 2 attachments i get the Sr8 with the silencer and HE and the kelvar vest With the Deagle and Mp5k as the secondary or the G36 with Mp5k and i really like the psg-1 or something like that too bad the lazer sight dosent work.
OMG All Of You Are Wrong None Of These Our The "Best"
Mostly Because None Of These Have a Helmet.
Helmets Our Very Helpful In Gameplay Because They Protect Your Head.
Kevlar Vest Arent Helpful All They Do Is Slow You Down.
And Yet, The Best Weapon Is M4 (although i hardly use) It Is Still A Very Powerful Weapon (found out on urbanterror.net)
and The Best "Whole Package" Is M4, H&K Ump45, 50. Desert Eagle, Laser, And Helmet.
What are the social causes of terrorism?
what are the social causes that cause terrorism
by richuroxx:
the socil causes of terrorism are-
terrorism-race-america
if u want to elaborate the points then message me in varmashambhavi@yahoo.co.uk
i hope u like the answer and it will help you.....
There are a number of inaccuracies with your question, which may help to explain why the Israelis did what they did.
1) Hamas is not a Neo-Nazi Party. -- Whatever horrible things can be said about their methods and their politics, their primary interest is political, i.e. the removal of a State, not ethnic cleansing. While it is likely that given the control of the entire former British Mandate of Palestine, mass pogroms against the Jewish inhabitants would ensue, Hamas would not try to further effectuate them. For them it is a question of political power, not racial purity.
2) Israel did not bequeath the West Bank to Hamas. -- Israel, at the Oslo Accords, set aside territory in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to Fatah and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. These two organizations/terrorist groups were exclusive of Hamas intentionally by both sides. These two groups hybridized and formed the Palestinian Authority, which is still the government of the West Bank. The PA has been working very closely with Israel to improve the situation in the West Bank both for Palestinians and Israeli soldiers.
3) Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza was during the PA's control. -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon realized that it was economically unfeasible to maintain settlements in the Gaza Strip because it cost more to defend them and supply them than it the tax revenue and jobs that the region brought to Israel. After a series of failed negotiations, Sharon forcibly removed all Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip, making the territory a contiguous zone completely controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
4) Israel had no control of the Palestinian Elections of 2006 or the Palestinian Civil War of 2006. -- In 2006, the Palestinians had one of the freest elections in the history of the Arab World and elected Hamas over Fatah as the rulers of the Palestinian Authority in a landslide. Realizing that Hamas would worsen the lives for Palestinians almost immediately, Fatah made moves to exclude them from actually taking control. Angered that they were denied the power that they won, Hamas launched a civil war against Fatah and were able to force them out of Gaza. They were unsuccessful in taking the West Bank. In both the elections and the Civil War, Israel played no part in Palestinian internal affairs.
Remnant of Question
On to what remains of your question. Israel cannot devote all of its efforts to removing Hamas from Gaza. It is an entrenched organization with a large percentage of people in its employ. It is not just a paramilitary organization, but it also has a political wing, a welfare wing, a police corps, an educational division, and healthcare division. It is a complete government with a very violent outlook. Israel attempts to toe the line between tolerating madness and combating insanity. For the moment, anyway, Gaza is not even the biggest threat to Israeli Security. Operation Cast Lead led to a severe reduction in Qassam Rocket attacks and so, Israel has needed to focus its attention on solving the Iran Crisis.
Taliban is still their. We are working to train their soldiers to deal with the problem.
Millions of Africans were tortured and murdered to maintain control and to terrorise the survivors. The rubber part comes from the rubber plantations that were the sites of the abuses. Many had hands cut off or were flogged (sometimes to death) for failing to meet their daily quota for harvesting rubber. Others were starved and worked to death.
What are the reign of terror and the republic of virtue?
The "Republic ofVirtue" was a period in French history (1793-1794) where Maximilien Robespierre remained in power.
The Reign of Terror (27 June 1793 - 27 July 1794), was a period of violence that occurred for one year and two months after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution."
