The Fiasco Over Finding a Confident Resolution Against Terrorism, Essay Example

Rationale: Presenting the confusion over how upcoming leaders ought to handle terrorism is issues that the world faces at present; from basic to drastic options, this seems to be a losing game even for the powerful.

Is it a fight between nations or a fight between the Gods?

The argument over terrorism being a war among humans or war among the Gods [with Muslims on the other side and the non-Muslims on the other; this is indeed one of the modern versions of old crusades of bloodshed… only that it takes on the Islamic version this time].

After the massive November 13, 2015 attacks that occurred in Paris, the world has become less confident about the way terrorism is handled. The whole world was in the state of shock and everyone became paranoid of becoming the next target of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). With Muslim communities leading the different pattern of attacks, their identity has been carried out of tracks and they were then labeled as terrorists [no matter what gender and what age group they belong to].

It seemed that the world intends to play safer this time and no one is supposed to come out clean if they do belong to the said religious affiliation.

It’s like… if you’re a Muslim [even when you’re just 10 years of age], there is no doubt you are a terrorist.

Although the Muslim communities confer that they have different factions and that each faction has a different goal and perspective of the Islamic basic values of religious connections; a distinct percentage of the world’s population is convinced that the said members of the community ought to be trusted.

With this issue in mind, another problem arises: Syrian refugees are being labeled as among the terrorists [especially that the Paris bombers allegedly came through the borders as refugees]

With all the panic and the social commotions going on, the upcoming elections in the United States have made use of these topics to create a more extensive pattern on knowing who among the candidates would best be able to create a more expansive and more efficient process of resolving issues of terrorism and how homeland security could be improved.

In the republican’s side of the story, Trump and Cruz are among the top contenders.

In this case, it is safe to say that the usual approach of would-be leaders to such form of crisis is to calm the community down; as if assuring them that everything would be alright and that the situation would be resolved soon. This, for them, is a better way of helping the people get on with their lives and be able to move on from the fear and anxieties that they feel and be more productive so as not to lose track of what is actually happening in comparison with being too concerned about what is yet to happen.

While some others intend to control the fear, Republican candidates have been dubbed to use SOCIAL FEAR to their best advantage.

True, the Republican Party though is taking a different step. The image below suggests more of such strategy:

Laughably, as described in this image, Republican candidates are doing all they can to feed the fear of the public and engage them in creating a more definite appeal to taking account of how they view their fellowmen [especially considering immigrants].

The theme America for America is relatively being progressed by the Republican Party, as if pointing out that the American community should protect what it owns first before it carries into account the welfare of others. Trump and Cruz, being the front-liners of the party have presented their resolutions accordingly.

Trump’s all to expansive application of the National ID with high concern for the recognition of religious affiliation of an individual presented a direct disappointment towards the Muslim communities residing in America, as if pointing out that they ought to be excluded and labeled because of their religious beliefs. Trump points out that this is merely a response to security; they will not be set aside, but they would be watched.

It’s like saying:

Hey! It’s alright that you’re a Muslim. But my eyes would be on you… You’re being watched.

It would a form of indirect terrorism that affects not the breath of a person but the consideration on the social labeling he gets which is almost the same as being killed.

Ted Cruz on the other hand calls for a carpet bombing on the ISIL territories. Not necessarily pointing out that he would be open to killing the innocent ones; but instead, he considers them part of the ‘sacrifice’. Seems like he sees them as a relative payment to the lives that were lost in the bombings and the expansive attacks that were taken against the west during the past few years apart from what has happened in Paris. What makes this call rather questionable is that it hails the death of innocent ones even much further; as if pointing out that for life to be preserved, some lives ought to be lost in the process.

For Ted Cruz, although he might not directly say, it would be an option of engaging in social annihilation: the innocent ones would die as collateral damage; that would be convenient.

Nevertheless, it should be admitted that among anyone who is running for presidency in the United States, terrorism is indeed a tough problem to resolve.

Putting the mind, even of the smartest ones, in peril, this issue has lead towards creating drastic moves that creates more problems than solutions. At this point it could be understood that some have given up and realized that there is nothing that can be done besides hoping that a greater power could intervene; ironically, this comes even from the least religious individuals in the world. In a way, everyone tends to try to turn back to that “supreme being”; a god who a lot have been denying to recognize.