Consequence Management and Terrorist Attacks Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Dealing with the consequences of terrorist acts, disastrous situations, and emergencies depends on the scale and features of cases. Proper consequence management (CM) activities help to resolve situations as smoothly as possible. This essay will discuss incident response planning systems, core capabilities, and focus of effort in case of an emergency. Further several terrorist attacks will be assessed regarding motives, intentions, and definitions of terrorism by state agencies.

Response planning is an essential part of consequence management actions. It is suggested that the focus of the effort once an incident occurs should be on minimization of the consequences to the society and infrastructure, evoked by the emergency (Lapsey, 2019). It is necessary to develop a strategy to overcome the adverse effects of the event with the help of core capabilities that have to be established by authorities.

Core capabilities can be defined as “homeland security and emergency management capacities at the national level in the areas of mitigation, prevention, protection, response, and recovery” (Flinn, 2018, p. 4). U.S. Department of Homeland Security proposes several core capabilities that need to be accomplished nationally. Among them are planning, public information and warning, operational coordination and critical transportation, health and safety, mass care services and rescue operations, and law enforcement (“National response framework,” 2016). Core capabilities help to assess the situation and plan actions to respond to unexpected events, such as terrorist attacks that will be examined further concerning their motives, intentions, and definitions.

The first terrorist assault that can be investigated is the September 11 attacks. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist group, captured several airplanes and directed them to the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (“September 11 attacks,” 2019). The central motive stated by the leader of the group, Usama Bin Laden, was a mission of “holy war” due to the U.S. invasion in the Middle East and aggression against Muslims.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) defines terrorism as “politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (“A guide to researching terrorism,” 2015, para. 4). The definition suggests the attack should have been considered as an act of terror. Bin Laden intended to attack the U.S. and cause maximum destruction as he disliked America personally (“September 11 attacks,” 2019). Thus, it can be stated that the motive and the intent were consistent, and the growing hatred was the main reason for the disastrous attack.

Another terrorist case was the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebord, two adolescents, came to school with bags of homemade explosives, weapons, and knives and shot 15 people; they also attempted bombing at school (Rosenberg, 2019). Among the motives, bullying at school, mental illnesses, and political terrorism were mentioned; however, the main reason was not defined. According to the CIA definition, the shooting partially cannot be named terrorism because there might be no political motivations behind it. Nevertheless, attempted bombing against non-combatant aims should be considered a terrorist attack.

The intent was to cause “the most deaths in U.S. history” (“The basement tapes”, 2010). It coincides with the terrorist intentions mentioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“Managing the emergency consequences,” 2002). One cannot say what contributed to the Columbine terror more, intent or motive. However, the intention could impact the method of terrorism as adolescents wanted to cause violence.

On November 13, 2015, a series of attacks occurred in Paris, France. Suicide bombers conducted attacks near the Stade de France stadium; popular cafes in the central part of Paris were fired at from guns (“Paris attacks,” 2015).

The Bataclan concert hall was also captured with up to 1.5 thousand people inside. The main motive for killing 120 people was Islamic extremism and revenge after French airstrikes on ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq, and Syria (Elgot, Phipps, and Bucks, 2015). The attacks could be considered as acts of terror based on CIA definition, as there was a political reason to assault ordinary people. ISIS suicide terrorists intended to “inflict indiscriminate mass casualties” (Brisard, 2015, p. 8). In the case of France, the intention could determine the nature of attacks since they were made in various places with unpredictable consequences.

Another attack that happened on June 12, 2016, in Orlando, Florida, caused the deaths of 50 people. Orlando nightclub shooting was conducted by the security guard, Omar Mateen, with the help of a rifle and a pistol (Alvarez & Perez-Pena, 2016). The man alleged to ISIS and named U.S. interventions in Iraq and Syria the central motive for the attack. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) defines international terrorism as “violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored)” (“Terrorism,” n.d., para. 4).

The terrorist attack at the nightclub can be considered an act of terror, as it closely aligns with the definition of the FBI, which investigated the case. The intention of Mateen was first suggested to be anti-LGBTQ murder by the publicity, but then it was reviewed to the desire to commit a crime despite anything (Coaston, 2018). Overall, one can state that motive is a more crucial reason for those who want to conduct terrorist attacks because it may provoke violence and unpredicted behavior.

To conclude, it can be claimed that various emergencies and especially terrorist attacks, require urgent response planning. Consequence management systems resolve situations fast and ensure the quality of safety measures that people get in case of disastrous aftermath. It is essential to determine clear guidance for agencies and authorities to work together and develop incident response steps to protect people from negative consequences and manage the operations efficiently.

References:

A guide to researching terrorism: Definitions. (2015). Web.

Alvarez, L., & Perez-Pena, R. (2016). Orlando gunman attacks gay nightclub, leaving 50 dead. The New York Times. Web.

Brisard, J. (2015). The Paris attacks and the evolving Islamic State threat to France. CTC Sentinel. Web.

Coaston, J. (2018). New evidence shows the Pulse nightclub shooting wasn’t about anti-LGBTQ hate. Vox. Web.

Elgot, J., Phipps, C., & Bucks, J. (2015). Paris attacks: Islamic State says killings were response to Syria strikes. The Guardian. Web.

Flinn, V. (2018). 2018 Core capabilities assessment. Web.

Lapsey, C. (2019). Consequence management more than a strategy, a necessity. Web.

Managing the emergency consequences of terrorist incidents. (2002). Web.

National response framework. (2016). Web.

Paris attacks: What happened on the night. (2015). Web.

Rosenberg, J. (2019). The Columbine massacre. ThoughtCo. Web.

September 11 attacks. (2019). Web.

Terrorism. (n.d.). Web.

The basement tapes. (2010). Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Consequence Management and Terrorist Attacks Analysis

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)