Terrorism and Security IRL3516 L, Niyazbekov Nurseit

Thoughts on ted-talk terrorism.I have watched the TED talk by Zak Ebrahim, I am the son of a terrorist. Here's how I chose peace.

Since I have a previous degree in Peace and Conflict research, sadly the TED talk for me did not arise any new information. I do believe that his story was very beautiful and inspiring in the sense that it is a strong and difficult move to turn your back to everything you’ve ever known. It was also interesting how exposure and integration seemed to be the “easy answer” for him to change his previous beliefs. It was a very short TED talk, and I would’ve wished for it to be longer. I wished he would’ve gone into more detail about how much personal work it was to change a whole worldview. Another thing I was a bit disappointed in was the title. Since the title says “How I chose peace” I had the thought that maybe before he had some non-peaceful thoughts. Which he did agree to, but never voiced out loud to which degree or how they materialised/if they materialised into actual physical behaviour. The choice of peace is very interesting to me, so I just would have wished to have gained a more nuanced explanation of it. But for an 8-minute talk, it was good! Very moving!

I watched “The surprising way groups like ISIS stay in power” by Benedetta Berti

I really liked the speech from Benadetta, first of all for its objectivity. She has never used the words “terrorist”, and there are reasons for this. Speaker describes a modern type of conflicst between state and non-state actors, a so called hybrid war. Benadetta focuses on understanding the full picture of non-state actors and how they act outside of fight. The thing is that non-state actors are more complex organizations than people think. These organizations multi-tasking by investing in infrastructure, social and military fields. They fill the gap that the state cannot handle, making people trust them more. From that view, state and non-state actors are so alike, we can barely see the difference in their violent methods. Speaker seeks for peaceful resolution and how to encourage non-state actors to non violent methods. That TED talk is almost 10 years old, but it stays relevant, as it expands the understanding of the context behind non-state actors that people should pay attention to. I personally don’t like the word “terrorist” and this speech was really nice to listen to.

My thoughts about Aaronson T.'s speech about "How this FBI strategy is actually creating US-based terrorists".
So firstly, I want to accentuate that the speaker did a really good job on the research of case files and statistics that he used in his speech, which made it trust-worthy, and one can understand that the conclusions made were not because of pure bias and hate towards the USA. As he states, he was researching this topic from 2010 by looking into the court files, database of terrorism prosecutions, etc. He criticizes FBI on being noneffective in catching terrorists, and rather being effective in creating them by unjustly putting the blame on the innocent people, who were either mentally ill or in financial need and couldn't protect themselves from those false allegations, which were actually from convicted criminals who were informants recruited by FBI and paid more than 100,000 dollars to "find terrorists", mostly in Muslim American communities. From 6 actual terrorism cases that happened after 9/11, FBI arrested more than 175 people (relevant in 2015). The scheme of those criminal informants was to force those people who were economically desperate to pose as terrorist for some sum of money and convict them for the crime they did not/or were forced to commit.
The most inhumane and obvious part is that according to the existing evidence that was covered up, even the FBI admitted in records that they were basically putting a show, and moreover, the Federal judge went as far as ignoring those facts, ridiculous "evidences" and prosecuted the "victims" - more than 175 people, for many years in prison.
The thought-provoking part is that The war on terror, as author emphasizes, is just a show, a national security theater, which is violating human rights. I recommend for you to also watch it, because Trevor definitely has a point. I mostly knew that the War on terror was farcical from the show that was put by Bush's administration and how this policy is enormously beneficial for many countries, because it gives the legitimate right to intervene in citizens' lives and other states' business just because of "terrorism threat", which could be artificially created or sponsored by another country(even China accepted this policy, what creates some suspicions, y'know).
By my little curious research, according to FBI, from 2015 to 2019, citing: "Number of Federal Charges with a DT Nexus: From FY 2015 through FY 2019, approximately 846 DT subjects were arrested by or in
coordination with the FBI"(2021) https://www.google.com/url?esrc=s&q=&rct=j&sa=U&url=https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJo5vxmseIAxVXDxAIHa_XITsQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw3q0a7y4Le6GzosGVDHRO9N

I have chosen to watch a TED talk called "The link between unemployment and terrorism" by Mohamed Ali.

The story of the young man from a small village near Mogadishu becoming a suicide bomber highlights the deep connection between terrorism and unemployment.
And now it’s even more clear to me that it is not thee poverty alone that causes terrorism, instead it’s the lack of opportunities, especially the economic ones, that create an environment where the radical groups can find recruits easily. The “waithood” concept, when younger people are left stuck in extended periods of both social and economic stagnation, demonstrates how frustration and hopelessness can lead them to join groups or organizations that give hope of purpose and belonging. I think that it’s important to be understood that countering terrorism does not just involve implementation of security measures, it also calls for policies and initiatives that create jobs, encourage entrepreneurship (just like the talk’s author), integrate youth within they communities, making the appeal of radicalization less attractive.

I watched the TED Talk "How This FBI Strategy Is Actually Creating US-Based Terrorists" by Trevor Aaronson. In this talk, Aaronson dives into the FBI's counterterrorism tactics, particularly focusing on how they use sting operations. He explains how the FBI often targets vulnerable individuals, sometimes even those with no prior connection to terrorism, and essentially pushes them into committing terrorist plots. These people are typically poor, mentally unstable, or otherwise easily manipulated.
Aaronson argues that, instead of stopping terrorism, these tactics can create more terrorists by setting up situations that might not have happened naturally. He raises important questions about the ethics of these strategies and whether they are really keeping the country safe or just making things worse.
I found this talk to be eye-opening. While I understand the FBI's intention to prevent terrorism, it was surprising to learn how some of their methods could actually lead to the radicalization of people who otherwise wouldn't have been involved in terrorism at all. It's a tricky balance between protecting national security and not crossing ethical lines.
It made me think about how important it is for counterterrorism strategies to focus on the real threats, rather than creating new ones. Aaronson's talk is definitely worth watching if you’re interested in how law enforcement handles these complex situations.

I have watched "How governments respond to terrorism" by Dr. Max Abrahms.

throughout the ted talk he was sharing his experience in Palestine the west bank and Isreal where he was wondering around both location to figure out how and why those attacks from both sides were viewed by the citizens. He discovered the difference in the point of views where Israel's construction of the separation wall was presented by the government as a defensive measure to protect against Palestinian attacks, The Israeli government argued that the wall was necessary for security, as ongoing attacks left them no choice.

From the Palestinian perspective, the wall is seen as a form of humiliation, restricting movement and cutting people off from work opportunities and family visits in Israel.

Hamas and other groups have used terrorism to pressure governments. Terrorism is often viewed as a way to compel governments to accommodate their demands. 

However, the speaker in How Governments Respond to Terrorism disagrees with this notion, seeing the wall as a symbol of Israeli occupation and questioning whether Palestinians’ use of terrorism has truly led to political success. He also discusses al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who issued political demands for the U.S. to withdraw from Israel and stop attacking Muslims globally. Instead of conceding, the U.S. responded with military action, strengthening ties with Israel and intensifying attacks on Muslim populations worldwide.

The speaker argues that no terrorist group has successfully pressured a government to make significant political concessions by targeting civilians. While terrorism may be deadly, it is politically ineffective in achieving long-term goals. Governments tend to resist terrorist demands and often label dissenting groups as terrorists to gain political favor. This underscores the idea that terrorism, in the speaker’s view, is a losing tactic.

In my point of view it was a really interesting ted talk he has pointed out all the facts that he discovered as well as his point of view which was convincing for a watcher like me, personally i do agree with the speaker that terrorism does not create any good, instead all people get out of these actions is pain it is rarely that the terrorist organization get what they want and even if they do at what cost is it. i have enjoyed the examples he has stated, and it was pretty simple to watch and understand overall i agree with the speakers on how terrorism is ineffective and government tend to ignore the political statement.

I have watched the TED Talk by Jason McCue "Terrorism is a failed brand".
The interesting thing about this speech is that the author views terrorism through a marketing lens. His discussion revolves around the idea that terrorism is a "brand" that seeks to use fear and violence to communicate its message and achieve political goals. I have never thought of terrorism in such perspective, but Jason McCue supports his idea with valuable examples, data and comparisons. He states that the supporters of terrorist actions are in fact their achilles' heel and that in order to fight terrorism, governments have to resort to the help of the victims of terrorism. That is explained by comparing terrorists with Coca-Cola and innocent people with Pepsi: when a Pepsi brand makes a statement against Coca-Cola, no one believes it, but everyone is listening to the feedbacks of the product's users. To support his idea he mentioned the Omagh bombing when the victims' families played an important role in resolving the case and condemning culprits. Overall, McCue advocates for proactive, modern approaches beyond military force, emphasizing dialogue, civil action, and addressing root causes like poverty and injustice.
As I have been watching the TED Talk, the examples and real-life stories that the author provided made it easy to understand the main points. I enjoyed looking at the concept of terrorism from a different perspective and delving into the aftermath of terror actions from the point of view of the victims and their families. There also have been some powerful and catchy statements from the author that altered my perspective towards terrorism.

In his TED Talk "Terrorism is a failed brand," Jason McCue suggests a fresh strategy for battling terrorism: seeing it as a brand, for example he talks about 9/11 as of Al Qaeda's marketing day. He contends that terrorism may be damaged much like a poor brand would be compromised. McCue compares terrorism to something being sold to potential recruits. He says this product is defective and usually falls short of its promises. McCue argues for revealing the shortcomings and paradoxes of terrorism so as to undermine its brand, and that victims are the best weapon against terrorism. Legal efforts, public campaigns, and stressing the bad effects of terrorist activities help one to do this. He talks about, as one the examples, civil action brought by victims in 1998 after Omagh Bombing. Despite it was won only in 10 years, it was effective measure against Real IRA and other terrorist groups, as he said victims became ghost that haunted the terrorist organization, so they were embarrassed and stopped bombing.

Although, his method was beneficial in some cases, I personally have doubts about it's general effectiveness as some terrorist organisations may not react as we expect them to. It probably could have the opposite effect because, as it was said on one of our seminars, terrorists need media and audience to spread their ideas.

So, McCue advocates for a nuanced approach to countering terrorism, emphasizing dialogue and understanding. He acknowledges the risks but emphasizes the benefits of self-education, trust building, and proactive engagement. He suggests addressing root causes of terrorism, such as poverty and injustice, through dialogue and engagement with terrorist groups, as some of terrorist acts are wake up calls from those in struggle as he said. At the end, McCue challenge us to rethink our perceptions of terrorism and consider its potential as a catalyst for positive change, which I find a bit dangerous to say due to possibility of misunderstanding and getting it as a call for action.

I have watched a speech of Mohamed Ali on the link between unemployment and terrorism, I would like to share my thoughts on this. First of all, the author correctly emphasizes that unemployment is mostly inherent in the youth, especially those living in villages, and if the state does not include the youth in urban growth, if it does not provide them with opportunities, the story of "Waithood" is the gateway to terrorism = violence. Waithood in the minds of the youth include jobs, wealth, etc. The speaker even wondered himself what would have happened if he had not left his city of Mogadishu which was already bombed when he arrived, he doubts in his answer to the question whether he would have become a terrorist or not. In my opinion if he had stayed there the probability of becoming a terrorist is high, as again these hopes that a person builds are not always realizable, hence the dark path to evil begins. Furthermore, Mohammed tells about a guy who lived all his life in Mogadishu and the fact that he initially despaired of unemployment, poverty, but did not give up his strength and began to conduct entrepreneurial activity, and this is what the speaker emphasizes “entrepreneurship can be the most powerful tool against expectations. This is absolutely the right idea, because running a business is an interesting endeavor in itself and the profits from it are the main motivation. The conclusion of the video is the idea that people sometimes live in ignorance without seeing the opportunities around them, so it is important to inculcate knowledge and turn young people into entrepreneurs, to nurture and develop their innate innovations that in the future will help not only them but the whole society.

I chose "How this FBI strategy is actually creating US-based terrorists", and here's what I've learnt and came up with!
In this TED Talk, investigative journalist Trevor Aaronson argues that the FBI’s counterterrorism tactics post-9/11 are creating more terrorists than they are stopping. He explains that the FBI uses sting operations to entrap individuals, often targeting vulnerable people who otherwise would not have been involved in any terrorist activities.
Aaronson claims that the FBI’s focus has shifted from preventing real terrorism to creating fake terrorist plots, which they can then "solve" to show they are effective. In many cases, these plots involve the FBI providing the weapons, financing, and even the motivation for the crime. He criticizes this approach as counterproductive, as it doesn't address real threats but rather creates a facade of success.
Aaronson highlights the psychological and socio-economic vulnerabilities of many of the individuals targeted, noting that some were financially struggling or mentally ill. He concludes by calling for greater oversight and accountability in how the FBI conducts its counterterrorism operations.

Feedback
Aaronson presents a complex case, backed by data from his investigative journalism, that raises important questions about the ethics of counterterrorism tactics in the U.S. His talk is eye-opening, especially in how it sheds light on government agencies’ practices that may be hidden from the public. One strength of the talk is the way it humanizes those caught in FBI sting operations, showing the blurred line between actual threats and manufactured ones.
However, it’s important to consider that Aaronson's argument focuses primarily on the negative outcomes, leaving little room to discuss the legitimate successes of FBI counterterrorism efforts. While the talk exposes potential abuses of power, a balanced view might also consider the challenges law enforcement faces in preventing real terrorist threats.

This TED Talk provokes thought and discussion on whether the current strategies protect national security or undermine the very freedoms they are meant to safeguard.

In today's diverse society, the importance of peace and mutual respect cannot be overstated. Regardless of religion, nationality, or sexual orientation, each individual contributes unique perspectives that enrich our communities.
From his own life example, we can see how upbringing and environment influence our opinions and worldviews regarding everything, including other people and religions. We can also note that he is a vivid example of why we should not justify aggression and hatred by claiming it is due to our upbringing. Instead, he shows that we are all human and can choose our own roles and paths, and that we are responsible for our statements, decisions, and actions. Yes, family plays an enormous role in shaping us, but if we dislike certain beliefs or understand that they are wrong, we always have the choice to say no. I do not want to live this way because I am DIFFERENT, and I want to live differently.

That’s why I consider that community engagement is also important,participating in inclusive activities can strengthen bonds and promote harmony. Supporting the rights of every person guarantees that they can live in freedom and without fear. And that is why by promoting respect for each other, humanity, empathy and understanding we can come to love and peaceful tranquility in the world.

I have watched the speech delivered by Benedetta Berti who made a strong point about how groups like ISIS keep control by providing basic services in areas where the government has failed. I agree with her because simply fighting them with weapons isn’t enough. To stop them, we need to fix the root causes, like poverty and weak governments. Berti's idea that these groups gain support through social services shows how complicated the issue is, and why military action alone won’t work. It's a deeper problem that needs long-term solutions.

Hello dear friends,

I watched the video “The surprising way groups like ISIS stay in power” by Benedetta Berti, and I was really impressed by how much I didn’t know about these groups. I used to think groups like ISIS or Hezbollah were just violent and only focused on fighting, but I was shocked to learn that they actually do a lot more, like running schools, hospitals, and even providing security. Well, I knew about how they use media and businesses to fund their activities. But, I didn’t realize they use these services to win the support of local people, especially in areas where the government is too weak to help. Before this, I didn’t think much about how complex these groups are and how hard it is to fight them. By the way, I used to believe military force was the solution, but now I think, just like the speaker said, that governments need to focus on improving their own services and filling the gaps these groups exploit. This video really opened my eyes, and I think the long-term solutions she talked about like "helping governments get stronger and provide more for their people" are necessary if the state leaders in Middle East want to stop groups like ISIS from gaining more power.

Feel free to leave your commets,
Best regards.