Comparison Of Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda

Cronin’s work is laid out as comparative case study analyzing multiple terrorist organization in their final months of existence. Her research has identified six possible pathways that a terrorist campaign will end. In the first six chapters of the book, she examines these six pathways. In the final chapter, she attempts to figure out which lessons from the ending of previous terrorist campaigns can apply to a possible ending for the al-Qaeda terrorist campaign. Most of the book outlines specific case studies of terrorist groups from around the world. Each case study directly supports one of her six pathways for the end of a terrorist campaign. These case studies provide an overview of the demise of multiple terrorist organization and provide what she believes is a consistent interlocking pattern that can be utilized in dealing with current and future terrorist group threats and how they can be directed to an end. The six pathways or patterns that Cronin has identified are decapitation, negotiation, success, failure, repression, and reorientation (Cronin, p.8).

During ISIS’s rise to power, there have been several key players, which have influenced the growth or decline of its movement. The center of Gravity (COG) for ISIS has been its ability to recruit volunteer foreign fighters from around to engage in its caliphate. In addition, local people from Iraqi, Syrian, and other Nations have been key players because of ISIS’s efforts promote fear and violence against their family or communities. Sunnis and Shia countries focused on regional power and security. Furthermore, the U.S. and its 70 Allies through Operation Inherent Resolve Campaign aim to defeat ISIS and promoting regional stability. The last key players are rival terrorist franchises or organizations like AQ, Taliban, Al Shabaab, and Hamas

Bin Laden’s letter toward the United States exemplified the idea of radical Islam to convert the world into Islam. This radical idea clearly disregarded the justness of any other ideologies and religions without any elaborations. While the West widely criticized this radical religious idea, Bush’s speech post 911 had actually shown a similar disregard for any dissent. In his speech, Bush stated “night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack,” (Bush) The quote implicitly put the universal world “freedom” into a domestic level, but failed to acknowledge that the freedom for the United States or the Western society may not apply for other countries. Both Bin Laden and Bush failed to realize the possible coexistence

This paper will talk about the largest terror group called Al Qaeda. Stating the facts on when this terror group formed, their motives, and graphs on numerous innocent lives. The most notorious Islamic terrorist group is Al Qaeda. Its pioneer, Osama Bin Laden, issued a fatwa (a religious decision) in February 1998 requiring an overall Islamic sacred war to slaughter Christians and Jews. Laden's key targets seem to be U.S. property. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group that was established by Osama Bin Laden in the late 1980s. It started as a strategic system to help Muslims in Afghanistan battling against what was then the Soviet Union amid the Afghan War. Individuals were enrolled all through the Islamic world standing Al-Qaeda's roots and connections.

In the past weeks we have explored what makes up the mind of a terrorist by considering various psychological and behavioral factors of terrorism. Another factor we discussed was Osama Bin Laden: Terrorist CEO and the evolution of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. I will summarize categorizing the means of communication and influence they have upon advancing terrorist narratives, the psychological and behavioral factors within Al-Qaeda leadership and affiliate groups, compare and contrast his ability to communicate and exert influence upon these various audiences from the years preceding 9/11 until his death. All these factors play a part with one another in order to understand the big picture.

The American invasion of Iraq in March 2003 led to the collapse of Saddam Hussein, yet unleashed a huge partisan war. The instability has led to many terrorist organizations feeding on the chaos, most notably, Al-Qaeda and, now, ISIS (Daesh). The Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq was not successful in stopping the spread of terrorism and has led to strained relations with many countries.

The government’s response to the September 11, 2001 events was quick and decisive. Government officials attributed responsibility for the attack to Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization. One result was an announced policy shift from deterrence to preemption, generally referred to as the “Bush Doctrine.” (National Security Strategy, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html].) Given the potential consequences of terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction, government decision makers felt that the nation could not afford to sit back, wait for attacks to occur, and then respond. The nation was mobilized; combating terrorism and crippling Al Qaeda became top national priorities. The use of military force against different terrorist groups and infrastructure gained increasing acceptance in Government policy circles. In addition, a February 14, 2003, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030214-7.html] gave more emphasis to the role of international cooperation, law enforcement and economic development in countering terrorism.

“Muslims, Bin Laden argues, must reverse a series of humiliations that they’ve endured since the Ottoman Empire, the last Muslim great power, was dismantled after World War I. Al-Qaeda’s 1998 declaration of a jihad, or holy war, against ‘Jews and Crusaders’ urges Muslims to attack ‘the Americans and their allies, civilian and military,’ supposedly as a response to U.S. policies that al-Qaeda feels oppress Muslims: the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia; the backing of U.N. sanctions against Iraq; support for repressive Arab regimes; support for Israel; alleged complicity in Russian attacks on Muslims in Chechnya; and interventions in Bosnia, Somalia, and other Muslim regions that bin Laden sees as attempts to spread America’s empire. These Western policies, according to al-Qaeda, add up to a ‘clear

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding

In this essay I am going to discuss whether Al Qaeda still poses a threat to the United States. The essay will discuss the current state, since 2013, of Al Qaeda and its affiliate groups. It will use the information to lay out claims and facts that show Al Qaeda is still remains a threat. Although the threat has diminished some since the 9/11 terror attacks it still remains. The threat has gone from huge major attacks to smaller, lone wolf, attacks on the mainland of the United States. Al Qaeda still poses a threat to U.S. embassies in the Middle East, troops stationed abroad, and U.S. aid workers abroad. Al Qaeda also poses a threat to the financial welfare of the United States. The

After years, the US must withdrawal troops from Iraq, but leaving behind is a shattered and exhausted country with no longer a war land but peace has not seen. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was not only destroyed the regime, but also destroyed the internal security and order. It has been promoted the rise of the forces of al-Qaeda terrorists and the sparking an outbreak of conflict ethnic conflicts, sectarian. The Bush Administration rested its public case for war against Iraq on two putative threats – Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda. In hindsight, the Bush Administration should have planned much better such as strategy of exiting, released convincing evidences about Iraq’s possession of WMDs, whether Iraq was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks or maybe, ultimately stayed out of the

Al-Qaeda and its leaders, Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri are frequently popular world news subjects. (Piszkiewicz, 2003, p. iii) The world seems to want to be constantly aware of the goings on of these people and their organization. There is no secret to the desired need for this information. As most people know Al-Qaeda is a significant and ongoing threat to the world, with regard to terrorist activities and continued fundamentalist extremism with regard to jihad, or what these extremists see as a holy war against the rest of the world, but mostly the Western world. This work will begin with a short introduction to the threat that Al-Qaeda poses to the world as a way to develop a full profile of the organization,

The Canadian Center for Intelligence and Security Studies report explains that, “Al Qaeda 's propaganda portrays the current socio-political system as one that oppresses and discriminates against Muslims, who are the victims of an international world order dominated by the West – the aggressor and enemy of Islam.” (ITAC

Al Qaeda is an international terrorist organization that was founded by Osama bin Laden in the late 1980s in Peshawar, Pakistan. The name is Arabic for “The Base of Operation” or “method” (Burke 2004). However, many experts agree that al-Qaeda is more dangerous as an ideology than as an organization. As an organization, it has been weakened by fragmentation, arrests, and deaths of the top leaders. This has caused the structure of the organization to be destroyed, resulting in the lack of a central hub for the militant group. One thing that remains is the ideology, which is

“My testimony today will focus on comparing Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. I argue that Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain a threat to the U.S. homeland, while the Islamic State’s danger is more to the stability of the Middle East and U.S. interests overseas. Much of their rivalry involves a competition for affiliates, with both trying to spread their model and in Al Qaeda’s case to ensure its operational relevance. For now the Islamic State’s focus is primarily on Iraq and Syria and to a lesser degree on other