According to Wiktorowicz, “All Salafists share a puritanical approach to the religion intended to eschew religious innovation by strictly replicating the model of the Prophet Muhammad.” (Wiktorowicz, 2006) Since 9/11 there has been more interests in Islamic and Muslim sects and religions. More research has been conducted on how some groups within the cultures are formed and the different trends that arise from political and social unrest. In particular with Jihadi Strategic Studies. (Brooke, pg. 201, 2008) Many are familiar with Jihadist and the Jihadi Salafists in the other side of the world as they are generally referred to as the modern Islamic movement. However, what is quietly represented is one of the growing trends in Salafists that refer to themselves as “Purists.” Purists Salafists usually are the sectors of the Salafists that do not like to engage in political problems or encourage violence as a way of dealing with political problems. On the other hand Jihadi Salafists, some famously known, Al Qaeda, opt for violent action in making a political or social point that combat corrupt Muslim leaders. Purists unlike the Jihadist, specifically seeks to combat Sufi and heterodox movements. Although both sectors reject the Western Society, they might disagree with the current government, but Purists do not seek to destroy it, including their own governments. The differences in tactics that Purists Salafists sees is that people are strictly created for the religious purpose of obeying Allah, and the moral and judicial commandments outlined in the Qur’an and Sunna. Purists rely on the strict teachings and adherence provided by community chiefs to prevent chaos and anarchy within Muslim communities. Their disagreement in tactics stem from their views of the Prophet Muhammad would not condone the violence associated with sit-ins, demonstrations, and revolutions. Their tactics include discussing problems in private. Jihadists see violence as an embodiment learned on the battlefield mainly uprising during the Gulf War. These tactics are then brought back to others where they indoctrinate the youth and other followers to revolutionize against the enemy. The Jihadist see the Purists as lackeys for the government and other disparagement terms that show that they do not have the same perspective in mind for the betterment of the Muslim communities. Jihadist see the attacks on Muslims as automatic justification for the violent acts that they imposed on Western societies. In both trends, they see other religions and the West as the eternal enemies that are bent on trying to pollute Islam with their warped morals and values. However, they combat them in a different way.
The way that these tactics are combatted is with the West and other societies trying to embrace the Purist Salafists perspectives and groups with trying to bridge resolutions to the violence enacted by the Jihadists. The Jihadists have a growing stranglehold on the Islamic countries. There are certain tactics that can be taken in order for the spread of the influence of the Jihadist to not reach extreme international levels including, educating the Purists on international affairs and politics. The purists have the ability and knowledge to address the issues that are pressing within the Muslim communities. Jihadist is the alternative to many citizens seeking help with the corrupt government and issues. To counteract the growing influence of the politicos and jihadist, the purists need to become better informed about politics and current affairs. These tactics include more training and seminars in Islamic education institutes, and “more sophisticated contextual insights and allow them to effectively counteract the political analysis of bin Laden and others.” (Wiktorowicz, pg. 28, 2008)
The War of 1812 between the United States and the British, lasted roughly over two years and ended in a stalemate. However what it did establish once and for all was the steps towards American Independence. Although there have been several reasons given for why the two went to war again since the American Revolution there are four main reasons outlined. First, The British interfered with the trading between the French and Americans by introducing trade restrictions that the United States imposed went against international law. A big reason that Britain interfered was because France was also at war with Great Britain. The second reason given is that the impressment or forced recruitment by the British of the Americans to join their Royal Navy. The British tried to do this by forcing the U.S sailors to serve on their ships. The third reason given for the War of 1812 was that many felt that the British was invoking the Native Americans to attack the United States, in addition the British military supported Native Americans joining their army to fight against the United States. The fourth reasons are that many in the House of Representatives pushed for more claim of Canada’s territory. (Learning Through History, 2008)
The republicans were generally in favor of the war as they favored a break from Britain government, preservation of slavery, and invasion in Native American land. While the Federalists vehemently opposed war with Britain as they wanted more ties with Britain and a centralized government. The Republican Party that was generally based in the South and West wanted war with Britain because they wanted the Canadian and Spanish Florida territory. The Federalists felt that going to war with Britain would raise taxes and tariffs imposed by Britain, and force men to join in the militia. The War of 1812 exposed the regional tensions, between the South and between the North. The South and Wests states wanted more land to expand into Native American territory and expand slavery. The tension between the northern states were that they wanted a more industrial society that offered work for urban shippers, merchants, and workers. Due to the war, the northern states couldn’t achieve these goals due to the refusal of northern merchants to lend money to the federal government. The overall result of both tensions was that they did not gain any additional territory, and things generally remained the same after the war.
The term Modus operandi is translated as “method of operation” for the specific crime. According to Buckley, “The method of operation includes all aspects of how the crime was committed and what happened at the crime scene, including time, date, and point of entry, tools or weapons used….” (Buckley, pg. 88, 2007) The method of operation additionally covers how these weapons or tools were used if anything was taken or damaged during the crime, type of techniques and special skills used to carry out the crime, information about the victim, and the means of attack. When a crime is committed Modus operandi serves as an essential tool in helping with the criminal investigation. Most notably in crimes that are committed with the same MO and are more serious such as gang murders, burglaries, robberies, and serial murders. These crimes usually are committed by the same motive or means. Modus operandi can also be useful when the MO changes, and the criminal seem to evolve with every crime. The scene of the crime can help with determining the different weapons, techniques, and means of attack that the criminal took in committing the crime in hopes of confusing the police. The 5 W’s and the H are the same as when it was taught in grade school, the Who: who was the victim, what: what happened, when: when did it happen, where: where did it happen, why (which can have several questions): why did it happen, and how, how did it happen? In the event of a crime, there are several questions that need to be asked, just as equally several that need to be answered. In an effort to provide answers to these questions, the term M.O.M is used. M.O.M stands for, Motive, Opportunity, and Means to a criminal committing the crime. The Motive generally answers why the criminal committed the crime, the opportunity presents answer as to the availability of how the crime was able to be committed, and the means are to how the crime was done, among other questions as to how the particular crime was committed. (Buckley, pg. 88, 2007) In the instances of these crimes, burglary, robbery, arson, crimes against children, sexual assault, or homicide investigations, the M.O.M is essential in determining the motive of why these crimes were committed in hoping to know how to deter them, the opportunity like in crimes against children and women, knowing how to protect them, and the means (weapons and techniques) in homicide investigations.
The concept of staging a crime scene is “is the intentional altering of a crime scene to mislead the investigation.” (Buckles, pg. 89, 2007) This is usually done by criminals in order to redirect or confuse law enforcement on the investigation of the crime. One of the most famous examples, is that of the Drew Peterson case, in which the murder of his second wife was thought to be an accidental drowning in the bathtub, but instead, Peterson killed her by strangulation and placed her in the bathtub afterwards. In the event of the disappearance of his third wife, Peterson told the police that he was on a fishing trip, and his wife was walking the dog when she disappeared. He joined in on the search party while a neighbor found the dog on the street where they lived. (Buckles, pg., 91, 2007) Other examples of staging a crime scenes include murder that was covered up by arson or the staging of a suicide.
The evidence law, “is a body of rules that helps to govern conduct and determines what will be admissible in certain legal proceedings and trials.”(Buckles, pg. 112) It influences the crime scene investigated process by the evidence and the witness during the criminal trial process. The laws help to determine how much evidence is generally needed in order to prosecute a criminal, when law enforcement gather information and evidence at a crime scene that must provide the burden of proof, and the elements outlined in determining the method of operations. The evidence must be admissible in court, information gathered would have to relevant and reliable in proving the case in a criminal court, making sure that it is not prejudicial, unreliable, or confusing. “The solvability factors are items of evidence, either testimonial or physical, that individually or in combination with other factors may lead to the identification of a suspect.” (Brown, pg. 115, 2001) When answering the questions of the case the police can generally determine if the case will need to follow up by a detective, through the methods of reports made by police officers.
Brooke, Steven. “Jihadist Strategic Debates before 9/11,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 31, No. 3 (2008): 201-226. Web. 24 May 2013. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1080/10576100701879612
Brown, Michael. Criminal investigation: law and practice. (2001). Butterworth-Heinemann.
Buckles, Thomas. Crime Scene Investigation, Criminalistics, and the Law. (2007). Cengage Learning. Pg. 81-121.
“Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).” n.d. AllGov.com. 24 May 2013. http://www.allgov.com/departments/independent-agencies/securities-and-exchange-commission-sec?agencyid=7357
“Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2013. SEC.gov. 24 May 2013. http://www.sec.gov/
“The War of 1812.” N.d. Learning through History. Web. 24 May 2013. https://www.learningthroughhistory.com/newsletter/archives/12009.php
Wiktorowicz, Quintan. 2006. “Anatomy of the Salafi Movement,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 29: 207-239. Web. 24 May 2013. http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tsh&AN=20189664&site=ehost-live