Why America should still be on guard against Terrorist Essay

Why America should still be on guard against Terrorist - Essay Example Nevertheless, its attempts to control others, is loathed. Since the 9/11 radical attacks, the war and America’s move changed to mean rather different for the U.S. men in service, which has used up the last decade combating all kinds of unconventional enemies who use guerilla warfare and are more ephemeral than ever. The presidents Bush and Obama have employed new setting to sanction military action in regions most Americans know little of like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen. The intimidations facing the United States are so immense and ever shifting, they entail diverse responses of force and not essentially the endorsement of assembly. The country should still be in the guard for terrorist attacks since the concepts of terrorism are changing daily. The kind of terrorism in the globe today is constantly changing in terms of the strategies that make it more complicated and harder to track. The acts of terrorism are constantly aimed at the public in terms of maiming and cau sing fear to spread across the nations. US has always made it clear that these attacks are not going without response judging by the advances the country has made to counter al kinds of terrorism. The threats on terrorism are changing from the 9/11 kind to more diverse types of terrorism. The fight against terrorism in the country is more evident in the sense that more radical are coming up with better ways to do their bidding. The advance in the technology had made it easier for them to articulate their terrorist acts on the country. The evolution of the terrorists attacks has changed from the normal forms into maritime, cyber, and even the economic biological and outer space terrorism. The initial official response picked up in America after the bombardments in Boston are heartening. President Barack took pains to continue being calm, contravening with the appalling conventions of the Bush management to guarantee reprisal while arousing the rule of law. Obama knows that the United States needs no new terrorist laws, no new regime agencies, no increase of police and intelligence operations and, the majority of all, no more provocative speeches. The staged search for the two bombing suspects was incontrovertibly a manhunt, and the social networks, particularly Twitter, were filled with false allegations and unbearable invective. However, none of this transforms the feature of Obama's actions, whose speech was patriotic in an optimistic intellect, relaxed and packed with assurance in the president's own, usually legitimized general power. This was in line with the act of Queen Elizabeth II who as a role model managed to set a comparable tone after the London attacks in 2005 (Bruce 4). She gave her subjects of her condolences and showed her sadness and compassion for the fatalities, she thanked the crisis services and the population of London, and then she said, shortly and in brief, that those who perpetrate these atrocious acts against blameless people should know that they do not change the lives of the people they hurt. This is what the voice of development sounds like, and it cannot be permissible to fall silent simply because a few cave inhabitants are continually feeling marginalized. At present and in the future, people should always recap the judgment of the Queen's and Obama's calm words each time terror occurs once again. In fact, the message to such killers ought to always be the same they will never change the lives of the ones they hurt. They can propel bombs, but the culture, the values, and the maimed society grow mightier than the desire to annihilate them. These varied attacks are some of the reasons that