marpals
Jan 2, 2010
Writing Feedback / "Terrorism is not new." - can sb help me edit this analytical writing piece? [5]
"Terrorism is not new. What is new is the way terrorists today can take advantage of globalization."- Martha Crenshaw and Maryann Cusimano Love.
Globalization has taken its own tolls. Everything being a click away to gazillions of information on the internet, people can simply take advantage of the luxury and indifference of the service provided. The information range is wide and extends from the very basic to the most crucial of subjects. Just like the way I can google anything that my subtle mind wants to, others may be able to derive a whole lot of information about crucial topics which may include terrorism and/or even bomb making. Hence, the ease of terrorizing the conformist populace right from a bed or any other place through an internet access is simply so convenient and tempting for some people with wrong intentions.
This sounds genuinely intimidating especially when the terror of terrorism has been greatly alarming. With every effort to feel a little bit more secure than yesterday, terrorism should be fought not just on grounds but also amid the internet web which has been one of the major causes of increasing number of terrorists. In 1998 there were 12 terrorist-related Web sites; today, there are over 4500. As government authorities ban terrorist websites, hundreds of successors crop up with mirror postings. Worried that fixed websites are too vulnerable, terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda use more mobile and difficult-to-track postings on bulletin boards, internet storage sites, and chat rooms. It is well known that every government of the world has sought to fight terrorism with all its might. Contextually, I see a dire requisite of having the focus diverted more towards the internet.
As with cyber terrorism, the Al Qaeda training is still available 24/7 cheaply and globally on the internet despite the enactment of U.S. and coalition forces that raided and prohibited Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan throughout 2001 and 2002. It would be an understatement that efforts have not been made to tackle and/or control the websites which have seemingly made the lives of terrorists so much easier than it would have ever been. However, the effectiveness of such approach without having an international body regulate the internet sites to stop terrorism is questionable. Thousands of videos are posted every second in the YouTube from all over the world, needless to mention the millions of threads and posts on Facebook. On this note, it is almost impossible to refine each and every comment that is posted on such social networks. Hence, an international body to legalize the "standard" internet with secured content ought to be initiated.
Then again, internet security cannot be made satisfactorily reliable by plainly scrutinizing the contents of websites and categorizing sites under "trusted". The "networking" game as earlier mentioned becomes even more hazardous when it comes to sharing information through the sites which go unnoticed but are well capable of provoking thoughts. While it is hard to overcome the temptation of flaunting my latest videos into these networking sites, I of course wouldn't like to be kept waiting until the obnoxious phrase "please wait for a few seconds while we review your data for security reasons" goes off my window. Likewise, other business companies would be grieving at their worthless expense of instant accessibility promised to their customers while the very states fighting terrorism would be reluctant to allow their multimillion companies bear the cost of fight against terrorism. Therefore, the pragmatic facets and the tradeoffs that the world is hardly ready to bear while implementing such regulations of an international body make the goal sound impractical.
The internet serves as an easy medium to all; some use it constructively while groups like that of terrorists use it to spread their messages of hate and violence and to communicate with one another and with sympathizers. This ease at many instances has made civilians be the target of terrorists who seek to intensify cyber terrorism by easily exploiting computer networks. Hence, a regulatory body must be prompted through a global effort. Though the complications, tradeoffs and the reluctance might hinder the proposition and give an impression of an unrealistic goal, the idea could stand out as a good bargain if terrorism will be controlled to some extent by the elimination of some offensive sites. Thus, despite the limitations and difficulties, a regulatory international body could be effectual in making the world more secure from the minds that seek ways to terrorize people by misusing the internet.
"Terrorism is not new. What is new is the way terrorists today can take advantage of globalization."- Martha Crenshaw and Maryann Cusimano Love.
Globalization has taken its own tolls. Everything being a click away to gazillions of information on the internet, people can simply take advantage of the luxury and indifference of the service provided. The information range is wide and extends from the very basic to the most crucial of subjects. Just like the way I can google anything that my subtle mind wants to, others may be able to derive a whole lot of information about crucial topics which may include terrorism and/or even bomb making. Hence, the ease of terrorizing the conformist populace right from a bed or any other place through an internet access is simply so convenient and tempting for some people with wrong intentions.
This sounds genuinely intimidating especially when the terror of terrorism has been greatly alarming. With every effort to feel a little bit more secure than yesterday, terrorism should be fought not just on grounds but also amid the internet web which has been one of the major causes of increasing number of terrorists. In 1998 there were 12 terrorist-related Web sites; today, there are over 4500. As government authorities ban terrorist websites, hundreds of successors crop up with mirror postings. Worried that fixed websites are too vulnerable, terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda use more mobile and difficult-to-track postings on bulletin boards, internet storage sites, and chat rooms. It is well known that every government of the world has sought to fight terrorism with all its might. Contextually, I see a dire requisite of having the focus diverted more towards the internet.
As with cyber terrorism, the Al Qaeda training is still available 24/7 cheaply and globally on the internet despite the enactment of U.S. and coalition forces that raided and prohibited Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan throughout 2001 and 2002. It would be an understatement that efforts have not been made to tackle and/or control the websites which have seemingly made the lives of terrorists so much easier than it would have ever been. However, the effectiveness of such approach without having an international body regulate the internet sites to stop terrorism is questionable. Thousands of videos are posted every second in the YouTube from all over the world, needless to mention the millions of threads and posts on Facebook. On this note, it is almost impossible to refine each and every comment that is posted on such social networks. Hence, an international body to legalize the "standard" internet with secured content ought to be initiated.
Then again, internet security cannot be made satisfactorily reliable by plainly scrutinizing the contents of websites and categorizing sites under "trusted". The "networking" game as earlier mentioned becomes even more hazardous when it comes to sharing information through the sites which go unnoticed but are well capable of provoking thoughts. While it is hard to overcome the temptation of flaunting my latest videos into these networking sites, I of course wouldn't like to be kept waiting until the obnoxious phrase "please wait for a few seconds while we review your data for security reasons" goes off my window. Likewise, other business companies would be grieving at their worthless expense of instant accessibility promised to their customers while the very states fighting terrorism would be reluctant to allow their multimillion companies bear the cost of fight against terrorism. Therefore, the pragmatic facets and the tradeoffs that the world is hardly ready to bear while implementing such regulations of an international body make the goal sound impractical.
The internet serves as an easy medium to all; some use it constructively while groups like that of terrorists use it to spread their messages of hate and violence and to communicate with one another and with sympathizers. This ease at many instances has made civilians be the target of terrorists who seek to intensify cyber terrorism by easily exploiting computer networks. Hence, a regulatory body must be prompted through a global effort. Though the complications, tradeoffs and the reluctance might hinder the proposition and give an impression of an unrealistic goal, the idea could stand out as a good bargain if terrorism will be controlled to some extent by the elimination of some offensive sites. Thus, despite the limitations and difficulties, a regulatory international body could be effectual in making the world more secure from the minds that seek ways to terrorize people by misusing the internet.
