War On Terror Analysis

1405 Words 6 Pages
The relationship between U.S. foreign policy and terror during the late Cold War, gives a historical understanding to help make a more informed political analysis of the “War on Terror” today. The “War on Terror” today is demonstrated through terrorism. Targeting civilians, political motives all have direct involvement involvement in the root of all terrorism. Acts man be direct or indirect but terrorism is defined as, “An act or acts designed to provoke an overreaction from a stronger power”. Through the historical understanding of the relationship between U.S. foreign policy and terror during the late Cold War; a more informed political analysis can be developed on the “War on Terror” today while using; Americas attitude toward political …show more content…
Terrorism is defined as “an intentional act or acts of violence of sabotage targeting individuals or groups, especially civilians”. Terrorism nearly always has “political motives” and the primary targets almost always being civilians. Certain kinds of violence horrify the “modern sensibility, while others do not. “The modern sensibility sees most political violence as necessary to historical progress”. Looking back, the French Revolution brought terror, along with bringing a citizens’ army. The men of the army were “willing to die for a cause of greater value to him than life itself”. Mamdani notes that it should be added that, “man is also willing to kill for such a cause”. The modern sensibility of can not be measured by progress as Mamdani states, “the modern sensibility is not horrified by pervasive violence. The world wars are proof enough of this. What horrifies our modern sensibility is violence that appears senseless, that cannot be justified by progress”. For obvious reason certain kinds of violence do horrify the “modern sensibility” but just symbolize pure evil. Such as, “the violence of the Holocaust, for example, is explained as simply the result of evil”. The reason the Holocaust does horrify “modern sensibility” is due to the link …show more content…
For instance, Mamdani uses “Culture Talk” to “suggest a different way of thinking about political Islam”. Mamdani also explains that Culture Talk “assumes that every culture has a tangible essence that defines it, and it then explains politics as a consequence of that essence. Culture Talk after 9/11, for examples, qualified and explained the practice of “terrorism” as “Islamic””. There are two versions of Culture Talk, “It claims to interpret politics from culture, in the present and throughout history, but neither version of Culture Talk is substantially the work of a historian”. Hollywood has a stereotype of Arabs portrayed throughout some of their films. In the short film “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People”, Dr. Jack Shaheen makes an effort to point out their shameful stereotypes, he comments saying they are “portrayed as sub-humans”. Ranging from adult films all the way to “Aladdin”, a children film, directors go out of there way to portray Arabs, with most of these movies having nothing to do with the Middle East. Hollywood releases a mass amount of movies and “nearly 25% of all Hollywood movies” portray Arabs as either a joke or reference a stereotype about them. In cartoons, they are portrayed as “stock villains” and used for “comedic relief”. Some of the light stereotypes show “magic carpets” or “programming snakes in and out of baskets” (Dr. Jack Shaheen).

Related Documents

Related Topics