Terrorism In The Ghettos Essay
The ghettos played a major role in the ‘Final Solution’ because these areas were the beginning of a major method of separating the Jews from society. Previously Jews had lost citizen rights such as having a say in the government decisions. The ghettos lacked space for all the Jews to live comfortably and in luxury. The ghettos lacked schools, any form of news, there was no form of entertainment such as theaters or concerts. The Jews living in the Ghettos were forced to work where they would make equipment and clothing for the armies. After all mistreatments, such as beatings, and abuse afflicted on the Jews, the conditions worsened because after the ghettos came the transportation of the Jews children and adults to extermination and concentration
…show more content…
How does Chirac define Terrorism and the dangers it poses to the public?
Chirac defined terrorism as “blind, and spares no one, not you, not me or anyone….”. The way I interpreted Chirac definition is that terrorism is everywhere and sometimes even unseen with no precautions in place. Also, meaning that no one is safe or immune to these actions that take place against the government and its citizens. Terrorism is a danger to the public because a terrorist attack with ‘packages’, things that seem harmless but are explosive or destructive to the public areas and people in those areas.
3. Do you see any tensions in these measures between maintaining security and protecting individual rights? What does this suggest about the particular threat terrorism poses to democratic societies?
I think that tensions will rise with the idea that citizens and visitors will be checked for and need visas to be in the country. This would be creating a tension between the government and the citizens because of random and in-depth searches. This creates a threat to democratic societies because many citizens lose rights such as having the right not having unnecessary searches. With these precautions being put into place it overrides the freedom aspects of the democratic
How does Chirac define Terrorism and the dangers it poses to the public?
Chirac defined terrorism as “blind, and spares no one, not you, not me or anyone….”. The way I interpreted Chirac definition is that terrorism is everywhere and sometimes even unseen with no precautions in place. Also, meaning that no one is safe or immune to these actions that take place against the government and its citizens. Terrorism is a danger to the public because a terrorist attack with ‘packages’, things that seem harmless but are explosive or destructive to the public areas and people in those areas.
3. Do you see any tensions in these measures between maintaining security and protecting individual rights? What does this suggest about the particular threat terrorism poses to democratic societies?
I think that tensions will rise with the idea that citizens and visitors will be checked for and need visas to be in the country. This would be creating a tension between the government and the citizens because of random and in-depth searches. This creates a threat to democratic societies because many citizens lose rights such as having the right not having unnecessary searches. With these precautions being put into place it overrides the freedom aspects of the democratic