Forum Comments

Federal Law Enforcement
In The US and North America
Patrick McGivern
Summer 21 Cohort
Jul 13, 2021
This article brings up a good point that many people do not understand when it comes to terrorist groups within our country. When an attack happens and a terrorist group that is based overseas, people are confused as to how these people got into our country. What they do not realize is the recruiting power of these radical groups. The article mentions how they are utilizing the internet and social media to recruit people into their terrorist groups. That means that the people committing these acts of terror in the our country could never have had physical contact with other members of this terrorist group. However, because they have connection with them through the internet and they were encouraged to commit this act by their ideologies, that terrorist group can now claim responsibility for the attack. Putting a stop to radical group recruitment would make a big difference in our domestic terrorism levels, as well as our issue of terrorism overseas. Terrorist groups being able to claim credit for an attack in a country like the U.S. when they did not have to do any of the ground work is a huge win for them. They gain attention in the media which builds their reputation and spreads their message as a terrorist group. Taking away recognition from these terrorist groups would slowly suffocate and defeat them, because attention is what they want. They want people to pay attention to them so they listen to what they have to say and to spread their ideologies among other people. Ultimatley, if we can keep terrorist recruitment levels low, then that will result in a lower domestic terrorism rate. If people are not given the opportunity to radicalize, it is less likeley they will go out of there way to join a terrorist group.
International Organizations
In Global Matters
Patrick McGivern
Summer 21 Cohort
Jul 06, 2021
After reading this article I am concerned about how in-depth the IMF looks and their reliability. The article says that the IMF promotes policies designed to foster economic stability, reduce vulnerability to economic and financial crises, and raise living standards. The United States may look economically stable, but our national debt is very high and has been since our country was founded. Since then, there has been very little effort to pay off the debt. To me, that make the United States vulnerable to an economic or financial crisis. That is exactly what the IMF says it is trying to prevent, but I do not hear of anyone coming after the U.S. to repay their loans. We just keep spending as if the money is imaginary, and the U.S. is not alone in this. Many countries have astronomically high debt and the IMF claims to not lend to countries with unstable debt. So, my question is, where is the IMF in all of this? If countries debt is over 50% of its GDP, but still eligible to receive a loan, what constitutes unstable? When the global economic crisis in 2009 hit, the IMF strengthened it lending capacity and when the pandemic hit in 2020, loan resources to LIC's sharply increased. I understand the IMF is there to provide financial aid to countries when they fall on hard times, but when it is a global event, where are they getting this money from? The IMF seems a little too relaxed and easy going, when it is dealing with global economies.
Patrick McGivern
Summer 21 Cohort
More actions