This paper will explain the causes of the “stickiness” of sectarianism in post-war Lebanon first, by giving an overview of the Ta’if accords which formed the basis of the government and its consequences in creating sectarian links to society. Then the role of the Syrian intervention in solidifying and using the sectarian system. Next, the role of institutions and the political and economic elites will be considered in setting up a network of patronage encompassing the access and distribution of all resources that is dependent on and enforces sectarianism. Proceeding to the function of civil society in preserving the sectarian system, we find that they utilize the system for their advantage, and in the process, are infiltrated by the elites through clientelism. Finally, protests and other ventures that eliminate or blur sectarian lines will be examined along with their failures and consequences.
Several people from different walks of life have extended their own opinions on just and unjust wars. Defencists argue the need to engage in war as an act of defense when there is a threat, such as facing a country what initiated a violent war, overthrowing a cruel and oppressive government, and protecting its people against an invader; the Realists’ belief is similar to those of the Defencists, but that war is said to be just when your moral standards call for it (Orend, 2009). For instance, fighting against the US government after it overthrew your previous dictator, but then proceeded to use Phosphorus shells on civilian targets. As a Realist soldier ordered by the US government to participate in this war, you would call for the right to
If the policy of containment was purely humanitarian, it would be expected that the actions of all US agencies would follow this ethos. However, this is not the case. Perhaps the best example of this would be the CIA’s assistance in a royalist coup in Iran resulting in the expulsion of its then Prime Minister. The coup was primarily organized in reaction to the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry as well as fear of Iran joining the Soviet Bloc. This is a clear example of the dubious nature of facets of the containment policy, after all, there is a strong argument that the coup was arranged in order to secure American access to resources as opposed to halt the advance of communist ideology.
Violence Begets Violence With terrorism being such a frequently used ubiquitous term, it is in utmost consequence to define the term accurately. How we understand the connotation of terrorism can determine how we choose to actively respond to it. Terrorism as defined by the CIA is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. Those who employ terrorism, regardless of their specific secular or religious objectives, strive to subvert the rule of law and effect change through violence and fear.”(CIA) Thus, terrorism is a tactic using violence to achieve a goal usually political or social. Violence is “is force used in a way that is morally wrong or that causes
Right from the start, Marji introduces the Islamic Revolution of Iran which took place in 1979. In the opening page we have the theme of religion presented. This portrays the image that it will be a complex area of the book and this is perceived because it uses the image of several men and women protesting against something or someone which later on we will get to know will establish a cultural change as well as a religion clash because of the different beliefs to the regimen. As Marji is just a child, you do not expect her to know much about
It was the incursion of the West European Crusaders or the Christian warriors of the Cross. They had taken over the kingdom of Jerusalem and threatened to terrorize and pillage other Muslim lands. It was in such circumstances that Al Ghazali had to present a theory to tackle the problems of the divide between the Caliphate and the government, to ensure that the caliphate was the protector of religious authority in the Islamic world backed by armies provided by the Seljuk Sultans, who were equipped with armies to crush invaders to their
Decision about whether to capture or kill a terrorist leaders is dependent upon the goals that the states aim to achieve. Capturing of a terrorist leader depicts the thought that he is a criminal authorised to a legal hearing. On the other hand, killing him is treating him as a challenger to the state’s peace. Thus this settlement depends upon the counterterrorism policies created by national rulers. With the emergence of the topic of decapitation, certain questions occupy our minds regarding the merits, demerits and effectiveness of this method of ending terrorist groups.
A great example of a group like this is terrorist organizations because they typically have different notions of what societies should be working towards, as well as alternative means. Of course, terrorism embodies violence and reform typically in lieu of the then-current political dominance. ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has a mission of putting in power an individual they deem a religious successor to Muhammad, an entity to unite Muslims worldwide. They seem to want simple change for unity and such, but they advocate for themselves in such a way, using social media and fear tactics to promote their violent acts, such as beheadings, etc. to show that there can only be one victor and that they have the means to perform a coup successfully.
One of the principal arguments raised by France for instance, was the attempt to the national security. Thus, that clothing was one of the middle used by the Muslims to express the faith in their religion, it allowed to the enemies of France to commit terrorist acts on the French territory hiding their faces under that clothing. Francois Fillon, French former prime minister claimed that the ban of Burka is one of the urgent measures to take in order to guarantee security to the French population with less case of terrorist attacks. He describes these murders as “suicide bombers hiding under burkas” (Garton). On the other hand, there are the militants of woman rights who claim that the wear of a Burka is a sign of “oppression, submission, and male dominance”.
In addition, this concept defines the fact that the states in anarchical system could not let their national interests left behind and thus their national survival endangered. They must fight and struggle for the better. Regarding its definition, the government of each state must seek the resolution to protect their population from aggression. According to US invasion in Iraq, the US claimed Saddam Hussein obtained weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was close to achieving nuclear capabilities, which was believed to be a national security threat to the US (Riley, 2008), hence, the US used its military superiority to topple Saddam’s regime. As a result, in 1991 the UN and the international community came to support Kuwait, which had been invaded by Iraq, yet in 2003 the US unilaterally invaded Iraq and the UN was unable to stop the invasion.