An Analysis of the Ineffectual Strategy of Non-Violent Resistance and the “Purpose of Violence” in the Age of Terrorism This study will examine that various ways in which non-violent resistance is not an effectual way in which nations can strategize resolutions to international conflicts in the Age of Terrorism. While it appears the nations, like the United States and its allies, often rely on violent aggression via unilateral war, trade protectionism and sanctions, these acts ultimately stop the terrorism they wish to extinguish as a result of the attacks of 9/11. This type of non-negotiable violent direct action can help create non-violent diplomatic events, which can help stop the terrorist violence being committed against America. In...The end:
.....pefully set the foundation for negotiations. Until there is sufficient evidence that religious fundamentalists can be controlled, however, non-violent resistance is simply not an option at this time in the Age of Terrorism. Works Cited “Bush: 'The World Finds Itself at a Critical Moment.” 2002. CNN.com. November 23, 2010. <http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/04/04/bush.transcript/> Gandhi. (Customer, please fill in bibliography for quotes used from your text). King, Martin Luther. (Customer, please fill in bibliography for quotes used from your text). Note: Since the professor liked the customer’s quotes so much, I used them. They provided an important rationale by “peacemakers” as to the necessity of violence under certain circumstances.