The same website states that there were attacks with fatalities in both Europe and Eurasia that year. Even if we suggest that different individuals from the Middle East alone are responsible for each act, it is clear that the number of terrorists among immigrants is much less then 0. Thus, the population helps terrorists to achieve their goal and to cause global changes with the least effort.
Inadequate responses to terrorist attacks are one of the goals that aggressors try to achieve. Emotional and biased reactions destabilize the social balance and bring a wide range of negative consequences, such as the spreading of stereotypes, aggressive attitudes, and irrational political behavior. Thus, society has to maintain dignity, help the victims and their families, seek objectiveness, and show no fear in the face of a threat.
- Top 5 Ways Terrorism Impacts the Economy.
- France’s International Action Against Terrorism!
- peter skrzynecki hsc essay.
- very short essay my family.
- Counter-Terrorism Questions for Technology Companies.
- Essay Terrorism Topics to Write About;
Thompson, Loren. Our essay writers implement individual approaches for each student and the tasks they have. Your paper will be organized exactly as you want it. Moreover, our writers stick to academic standards while writing papers. Get accompanied in your writing by a professional writer! Our aim is to help you solve any writing problem! Hi, thanks!
What is better to include in the essay? They also offer the police an option between arrest and doing nothing. Prior studies have shown that for three out of four persons who go on to commit violent attacks, their family or friends knew that something was seriously awry, but they did not get help, call the police or stop the attack. This is often because they do not know whom to call other than the police and are often reluctant to make that call and potentially risk heavy law-enforcement action. Many of these programs rely on psychologists, religious leaders or former extremists to help individuals, whether associated with right-wing or jihadi groups, to disengage from violence.
Many of the ecosystems of programs enacted by U. Yet the United States has become the outlier. Even before President Trump, U. Those on the political left tended to see CVE efforts at home as too law-enforcement oriented and raised concerns about the targeting of American Muslims and the violation of their civil liberties.
These stakeholders felt that CVE programs did not sufficiently take into account their broader concerns, which often were linked to rising levels of Islamophobia and broader feelings of discrimination and stigmatization. The polarizing and politicized debates in the United States around CVE efforts have not allowed the space for a serious, practical discussion about how best to prevent extremist violence at home that is informed by the existing data and evidence.
France’s International Action Against Terrorism
A more serious approach should incorporate good practices and lessons learned from U. The current spotlight on right-wing extremist violence in the United States—and the widely available data showing that it, and not jihadi-inspired violence, is a much greater threat to cities and communities around the country—creates a unique opportunity to move beyond the unproductive CVE debates of the past few years. A smart, comprehensive and sustainable national framework to prevent violent extremist attacks is long overdue. A better approach must go beyond investigations, prosecutions and arrests; involve more than just removing extremist content from social media platforms; and rally the support of the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education, alongside the federal law-enforcement agencies, and state, local and community-level actors and organizations.
Just as platforms vary in their utility for various functions, terrorist groups vary in the value they place on specific functions. Al-Qaeda has always conceptualized itself as a smaller, more elite organization than ISIL, thus it was slow to abandon the use of web forums that were well suited to community maintenance and brand control, even after the rise of social media networks.
ISIL, by contrast, long aimed to build a broad social movement and encourage so-called lone wolf attacks. Compared to al-Qaeda, it historically risked its brand control as a result of focusing so heavily on audience development and content hosting, relying on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
The New Face of Terrorism in 12222
Over time, ISIL came to understand the importance of brand control and has embraced Telegram as a core tool for achieving that goal. For example, platforms used for content hosting should prioritize mechanisms to identify terrorist propaganda — various techniques for content matching are likely to prove useful.
For those platforms, identifying behavioral signals or information-sharing with partners may be more important. Platforms that support numerous functions will need to develop a variety of techniques.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem and the counter-terrorism policy community must not make the mistake of suggesting otherwise. Tech company decision-makers are well aware of the differences between platforms and, in a very different way, so too are the terrorist groups that use them. Companies developing a counter-terrorism policy need to build a strategy that is adaptable enough to keep pace with changing dynamics in the real world and evolving technical realities.
They must consider the tactical implications both to terrorists and to their far more numerous benign users. They also must consider how their choices will impact more traditional counter-terrorist actors, whether in government or nonprofits. The purpose of this section is to focus on some of the key challenges counter-terrorism policymakers at technology companies face. It is crucial for counter-terrorism policy experts to understand the variety of factors that shape how a company responds to terrorism on its platform. These factors vary widely, and include the following:. Against this backdrop, online platforms must make a series of strategic policy choices and operational decisions for addressing terrorist activity online, with far-reaching policy impacts.
The purpose of describing these issues is not to argue for any one particular solution. Rather, it is to illustrate how these choices may manifest for policymakers within tech companies so that the traditional counter-terrorism community can consider and, hopefully, better advise this new crop of policymakers emerging within tech companies.
- eng201 midterm solved papers;
- pastoral setting essay.
- How Tech Companies Are Trying to Disrupt Terrorist Social Media Activity.
- cristiano nisoli thesis.
- Explore Topics.
This list of questions, and potential solutions, is not intended to be comprehensive. However, it is illustrative of the key strategic and operational issues and potential solutions facing technology companies as they construct counter-terrorism strategies. One of the most fundamental policy decisions technology companies face is how to determine who is a terrorist. There are several options, each with its own pros and cons. One option is to rely on international designation lists, such as those maintained by the United Nations or European Union.
The problem with this approach is that international organizations, and the lists they generate, in reality reflect a politicized consensus developed after much political wrangling. Moreover, the lists are updated very slowly, and often reflect a lowest-common-denominator approach.
This generally means that such lists include the most prominent global terrorists but exclude militant groups that receive less global attention or are only relevant in specific locales. Companies that want to address a wider range of terrorists using their platforms might instead decide to rely on designation lists maintained by various governments around the world. This approach avoids the lowest-common-denominator issue and can align a company with legal authorities around the globe. A company may try to rely only on terrorism lists from specific governments, for example, from their home country or from other democratic states.
But this approach forces companies to determine which countries are suitably democratic. In addition to risking that a government will block a particular service from operating in its jurisdiction, this approach would also mean that companies, not political institutions, would be making key decisions globally about which governments are legitimate. A final option is that companies can designate terrorist organizations themselves.
This approach offers companies a mechanism to resist government pressure to crackdown on peaceful opposition groups, but it requires companies to do extensive analytical work, come up with a clear definition of terrorism, and assert a designation role traditionally reserved for governments. Companies must, for example, determine whether to construct restrictions at a content, account, or user level, as well as what sort of engagement with terrorist content or groups is acceptable and what is not.
Content-level restrictions proscribe support for terrorism within individual pieces of material online. Even at the content level, companies must determine what sort of material violates their rules. One mechanism is simply to prohibit formal propaganda produced or explicitly designed to advance the message of a terrorist or terrorist group.
Old and new ideas
This is a powerful approach against groups like ISIL that produce a high volume of branded formal propaganda, but it is less valuable to counter informal propaganda, which is common among a range of terrorists, including white supremacists and localized ISIL supporters in some areas of the world. However, targeting informal propaganda may create implementation challenges as this material is more difficult to identify. Removing content produced by terrorist organizations may seem straightforward, but companies must also determine how far to take that approach.
Removing such support from social media will tend to produce more equity across organizations, including those with less formal support structures, but it also generates ambiguity. Does it apply even when the terrorist group is doing something seen as positive for a community — for example, providing disaster relief or negotiating a ceasefire? This approach may also implicate regular users in complex political situations who may express support for a group widely understood globally as a terrorist organization, like Hezbollah, that nonetheless maintains local political legitimacy.
Companies must also determine whether to allow some content from terrorist groups on their platforms in specific circumstances. This might come in the form of political campaigning by groups like Hezbollah or the Milli Muslim League, or Sinn Fein during an earlier time period. Platforms may also choose to allow terrorist content when it is shared for purposes of counter-speech — pushing back against the narrative of terrorist groups — or by mainstream media or academics. Content clearly condemning terrorism, raising awareness about terrorism, or advancing the study of these groups has obvious social value, but allowing even this content carries risks.
Related stopping terrorism essay
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved