From Terrorism and Counterterrorism (Chapters 1-3) (Nacos, 2012) States and governments are ill prepared to react

to the type of psychological warfare that terrorists wage against their citizens (Chapter 1, Page5) (Nacos, 2012) I believe the reason this statement rings true is because most states and governments prepare and train their militaries for conventional strikes and battles against a known adversary, instead of some faceless, nameless, semi-organized terrorist and terrorist groups. Conventional warfare deals with a known enemy with a clear objective, policies and guidelines, and a known battlefield. Military forces are usually under the control of states and governments and receive their orders from such. The states and governments are the ones responsible for dictating to the military what their objective, policies and guidelines are and they must adhere to those orders. Terrorists and terrorist organizations operate in a totally different spectrum than those of conventional warfare, employing tactics that usually go against clearly defined set of rules, regulations, laws, treaties or boundaries. Terrorists and terrorist organizations operate in the unconventional, such as targeting civilians and children to instill fear and potentially gain the upper hand in their so-called cause. Terrorists and terrorist organizations usually seek out civilians and children for the greatest effect to cast a light on their cause or plight. Terrorists kill people senselessly because a spectacular terrorist attack gets them noticed (Greenfield, 2013). It is the killing of innocent civilians and children grabs more attention in the headlines and in the media. They thrive for the attention it brings and they know the rest of the civilized world detests these types of atrocities, especially when children are involved, so they attempt to maximize a response on a global scale. Images of maimed and dead children sends a chilling message to all those that see it, whether they are right there or seeing on television or in the newspapers. At the same time, these citizens feel that their state or government cannot protect them against these types of campaigns. Due to terrorists and terrorist organizations operating in the unconventional realm makes it more difficult for states and governments to organize, prepare and train against an entity that is anything but conventional on any front as they are irregular in their attacks, methods and rationality. Anything can be a target; at any time, at anywhere. This is why states and governments are ill prepared to react to the type of psychological warfare, because they have no idea where the next attack will happen, who will be the perpetrator(s) or what their reasoning will be. news organizations were accused of applying a double standard when it came to deciding when to use and when not to use the t word. (Chapter 2, Page 27) (Nacos, 2012)

Freedom of the press is one of the basic tenants that America was founded on and we have enjoyed this freedom since the inception of the United States. Freedom of the press allowed the most common citizen to gain insight to not only what was happening locally, but within their state, their country and the world. It was and is the capturing of history not only locally but abroad, as well. If a politician spoke ill of someone or some law that was attempting to pass legislation a newspaper reported would take down what was said, reform and frame the incident for their audience and hand it off to the guy working the printing press. As with all thing they evolve, much like both the printing press and the journalist. Today we are bombarded with what appears to be cacophony of news and media outlets vying for our attention and patronage in an ever growing material world. News and media outlets run on ratings or how many people they can get to tune in at a given time. The more sensational the story, the more viewers they get watching or listening the higher their ratings go. It is this very formula that has led so many news and media outlets to sensationalize the most mundane and morose information or rumors on an ever increasing scale. It is this very type of so-called journalism that often blurs the lines between fact and fiction in order to make their reporting sound so appealing to their potential audience and to be the first to report it. Heresy, unchecked facts and quotes taken out of context are being sold as solid, bleeding-edge journalism to the public. The reason the quote above is so true is that there are no real, set standards in the news and media. While I am sure each news and media outlet has their own set of standards, they do not all have a basic core or standards that they build upon. It is because of a lack of these types of standards, that the public hears eight different versions of the same story from twelve different news and media outlets. Each one putting their own spin on the story to make is sound more magnificent than it really is. This is where the labeling of individuals and or groups can become a messy situation as one news outlet calls them terrorist and another news outlet says that they are freedom fighters. While these two labels are essentially at each end of the spectrum, it depends on the point taken by the journalist; which side they have chosen to represent through their outlet. We see this type of choosing sides in the news and media outlets every day. Remember the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case in the news not too long ago? While there were a few news and media outlets that seemed to be in George Zimmermans corner, the vast majority were in Trayvon Martins corner. Instead of presenting just the facts of the case in a balanced and unbiased medium, where the public would be left to make up their own minds, the news and media outlets chose to make up the publics mind for them. This is why you hear of news [and media] organizations being accused of applying a double standard when it comes to deciding when to use and when not to use a label or fact.

The terms revolutionary and terrorist were used interchangeably (Chapter 3, Page 38) (Nacos, 2012) By nature, and even on ideological grounds, I am firmly opposed to political murder and, more generally, to terrorism. Nevertheless, unlike many others, I do not confuse revolutionary violence with terrorism, or operations that constitute political acts with others that do not (Iyad, 1983). This quote came from Abu Iyad, a deputy of Yasser Arafat and one of the leaders in both Fatah and Black September Organization; he was also responsible for a number of lethal attacks, including the killing of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. Abu Iyad attempts to present terrorism and political violence as two different and unrelated singularities. His statement suggests that a political motive makes the activity acceptable; therefore the end justifies the means. Revolutionaries state they what they doing is for the better of something, a change or a push towards a different type of outcome. Vladimir Lenin was a revolutionary with visions of advancing Marxism and Communism and advancing a socialist system on society. But as Lenin looked at the working class closer, he felt that they did not understand their own social-economic plight enough on their own; someone needed to be the catalyst if his visions were to come to fruition. "The longer he [Lenin] observed the behavior of workers in and out of Russia, the more compelling was the conclusion, entirely contrary to the fundamental premise of Marxism, that labor was not a revolutionary class at all: left to itself, it would rather settle for a larger share of the capitalists' profits than overthrow capitalism... (Pipes, 2001). Obviously, Lenin felt compelled to undermine the Russian government on behalf of the working-class, while at the same time the Russian government was busy attempting to win World War I and beat the Germans and Austrians. Lenin believed he knew better than anyone else what Russia really needed when it came to governing and society. Others would follow in his misplaced footsteps and they would eventually fail. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination (What is Terrorism?, 2013). Terrorist, much like revolutionaries believe that what they are doing is for the better of something, a change or a push towards a different type of outcome. In the case of terrorists, it is for the world to take notice of whatever their agenda is. Take the killing of the 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics by the Black September Organization, to highlight the plight of the Palestinian refugees. They used the Olympics to stage and carry out their operation to a captive audience who were only tuning in to see the best and the brightest of athletes from each country. Instead, they were given front row seating to the live execution of 11 unarmed athletes on a global stage. But, I can see where people would interchange the terms revolutionary and terrorist

From The Ultimate Terrorists (Chapters 1 & 2) Violent Islamic extremists have already recognized that they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war (Chapter 1, Page 5) (Stern, 1999) This is why they employ terroristic tactic against civilian targets most of the time. Again, they target the unarmed and innocent civilians and children in the hopes of striking fear in their adversary. For the most part, they are limited in what they can do and how much war they can cause. They lack the proper organization needed in order to pull off a full scale assault. Also, there structure is different from that of a normal military, which falls under a hierarchy model as opposed to a network model terrorist follow. Terrorism as a network model differs from those of a hierarchical model, where a hierarchical model have a single authority structure that operate within a chain of command, the network model has divided authority among the network. Also, the hierarchical model has clear, well-defined goals, where the network is often ambiguous and ever-changing, making the network model harder to predict. However, a network also has the ability to change quickly to dynamic situations and environments as they have the ability to bring in experts and professional to help solve specific problems. Although the Department of Homeland Security was established primarily to prevent another terrorist attack against the United States, since it has a shared responsibility between itself, Congress, state and local governments, the private sector, nonprofit organizations and the American public, it lacks a certain dynamic ability to be flexible and quick to some situations (Kamien, 2012). The Civil War inspired terrorism on both sides (Chapter 2, Page 17) (Stern, 1999) The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was born out of resistant Southerners whom were determined on fighting the Reconstruction after the Civil War. The KKK was angry that the Civil War had ended and that meant the South had lost the war. It also meant the Blacks had won their freedom from slavery, which meant there were no more slaves. So the KKK was created as a way to retaliate against the same Blacks that had won their freedom in the Civil War and out of fear the Blacks would gain power. Noted historian Clarence E. Walker stated, The Ku Klux Klan... is an original American terrorist organization. And it is through its violence and the violence of a number of its cohort organizations that the Reconstruction process was undermined and overthrown in 1877 in the South. Historian Eric Foner said the White Southern Republicans are also victims of the Klan. He went on to say, if there is going to be a race war, then all whites must unite and whites who have been with the Republicans are traitors and all whites must now unite in opposition to this Republican government.

Like any terrorist group, the Klan attempted to justify their violent actions by claims that it is trying to restore order in what they consider as chaos caused by blacks noted Foner. And by the way, they probably killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden did. And they use all sorts of justifications. Part II - Research Assignment I researched the Patriot Act as it related to this weeks reading assignment found in Chapter 8 titled Counterterrorism Legislation and found that Congress extended three provisions that were expiring for another four years on May 26, 2011 with not much altering to the act whatsoever. In fact, they reauthorized it in a very straightforward manner, much to the chagrin of people such as the American Civil Liberties Union. The three expiring provisions were as follows: 1. Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities (ACLU, 2012). 2. Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped (ACLU, 2012). 3. Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called "Lone Wolf" provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization (ACLU, 2012). I found it very interesting, especially in the wake of the whole NSA leaker, Edward Snowden, and his revelation concerning the US Governments collections of cellular meta data, which I am pretty sure everyone suspected but really was not sure. Since its revelation, there has been a lot of debate on this meta-datas collection, use and storage along with speculation about what else the NSA or other US government agencies are collecting on its own citizens. The Patriot Act is a very expansive law of which some it deal with things in a secret world, which in itself has its pros and cons. This debate is far from over, so we will see what happens during the six weeks of this course. References ACLU. (2012, March 15). Reform the Patriot Act. Retrieved from American Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act Greenfield, D. (2013, October 3). Why Terrorists Kill. Retrieved from Canada Free Press: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/58330 Iyad, A. (1983). Without a Homeland. Tel-Aviv: Mifras.

Kamien, D. (2012). Homeland security handbook: Strategic guidance for a coordinated approach to effective security and emergency management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nacos, B. L. (2012). Terrorism and Counterterrorism. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc. Pipes, R. (2001). Communism: A History. New York: Random House LLC. Stern, J. (1999). The Ultimate Terrorists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. What is Terrorism? (2013, Jan 23). Retrieved from Terrorism Research: http://www.terrorismresearch.com/