Answer:
The world was introduced to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization, al’ Qaeda on September 11, 2001. Millions gathered around their televisions in shock at the devastation this terrorist organization created. Thousands of innocent civilians lost their lives after al’ Qaeda operatives devised and carried out their plans to hijack planes and divert them into key U.S. landmarks. Osama bin Laden praised the work of his followers and the United States realized just how serious of a threat al’ Qaeda and Osama bin Laden really were. Al’ Qaeda had been around for over a decade prior to 9/11; and bin Laden had declared his hatred for the West, specifically the United States, during his fatwa’s in 1996 and 1998 when he declared a Holy War.
During this time, Islam became more than just a religion to bin Laden, he began to adopt a more radicalized view of the world and extreme his religious ideals began to shape his political views. By the late seventies, bin Laden was actively involved with the extremist group and joined in “the jihad” (holy war) against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Bin Laden used his connections and wealth to help finance and support recruitment and training of jihads against the Soviets, in addition to developing a “Golden Chain” of financiers that helped fund recruits into Afghanistan. During this time, the United States and Saudi Arabia were spending billions of dollars of assistance into training rebels in Afghanistan in order to fight against the Soviets. It was during this time that bin Laden and his associate Abdullah Azzam created Al ‘Qaeda (the base). The U.S. was unaware that they were providing training and secret assistance to a future enemy.
Explanation:
Hope this helped! Good luck! :)
<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be "in disarray", since the empire at this time had no strong, central leader or power. </span></span>
Answer:
The correct answers are A, B and E.
Explanation:
The War of 1812 was a military conflict between the United States, on the one hand, and Great Britain and its North American colonies in present-day Canada, on the other, which took place from 1812 to 1815. The war started after President Jefferson - President of the US - wanted to stay out of European conflicts. He wanted to devote himself to building the new nation, doubling US territory under his rule. The United States also wanted to continue to trade unhindered with Napoleon Bonaparte's France and with other Napoleonic-controlled countries in mainland Europe. Britain did not want to recognize this neutrality right, in response to which Jefferson declared a trade embargo in 1807.
In 1812, Jefferson's successor James Madison declared war on Britain with the primary objective of breaking the Indian-British coalition and liberating Canada. During this war, on the night of August 24-25, 1814, Washington was occupied by the British and several public buildings, including the White House, were burned to the ground.
This war was finally ended with the Treaty of Ghent, which was drafted in 1814 and ratified by the Americans in 1815. English supremacy at sea was not curbed. Nor did the US succeed in conquering Canada. However, the British stopped supporting their Native American allies so that the colonization by the Americans of Native American territory could no longer be prevented by the original inhabitants.
Answer:
At the end of "Samuel's Memory, Samuel's feelings change from confusion and fear to anger and hate because his mother dies and he feels that he is all alone (C).
Explanation:
I fully approve the idea of creating a legislative branch with two houses. First if we'd had only one house how would the states have been represented? By population? In that case the states with the largest populations would have all legislated solely in their benefit and often to the detriment of the states with smaller populations. Ok so we create a legislative branch with one house based only on equal representation of each state right? But the problem here is representation would then be of the state but we the people for of and by whom the government was being formed would have no direct voice in the legislative branch. A government that is directly responsive only to the people can devolve into rule by the mob such as we saw happen in France following their revolution. They had a unicameral legislative government the house of deputies and it was directly responsive to the people giving way to rule by the mob and the horrors that bred the reign of terror with thousands of people beheaded including children accused of being counter revolutionaries. There was no senior house to temper if you will the will of the people or take a longer view if you will of whats best for the nation as a whole. Our House of Representatives is suppose to be more parochial in its view they represent our will (or rather they are suppose to) the Senate is given a longer term and originally they were not elected by the people of their states but rather depending on the state either elected by the state's legislative branches or directly appointed by the state's Governor. US Senators as that house was originally constituted were suppose to be somewhat more independent from the people although not completely independent because they worked for the state not the people but the people to whom they were accountable were elected by the people of the state. During President Wilson's term in office he pushed for and got an amendment that made the US Senate (to his way of thinking more democratic). I personally think it reduced the US Senate to being more political by making the Senators more directly accountable to the people. More democracy is not always desirable as we can see from the experience of France and her reign of terror.
I read a biography of John Adams this past summer. John Adams was the man who first pushed for a written Declaration of Independence and then after the Revolutionary War was over and he was a commissioner/ambassador from the United States to France and then England while the United States was operating and failing rapidly under the Articles of Confederation he pushed very hard for a bicameral legislative branch so the will of the people could be balanced by the long term good of the nation in the Senate. He was excoriated by Thomas Jefferson whom he'd been friends with if Jefferson ever really had friends for using the English parliment as his model for a legislative branch of government. Jefferson was in love with everything French and only disavowed the French Revolution long after the horrors of madame le gillotine and the reign of terror made it clear that the will of the mob needed to be tempered by cooler more rational minds who yes tended to be more conservative in their actions.
I come from West Virginia we have barely 3 million citizens. We have three congressional representatives. New York for example has what forty six congressional representatives how could we feel comfortable knowing that we depend soley on the good will of larger states when questions before congress are being decided by large states only and the consequences of those decisions might fall soley upon the smaller states simply because they have essentially no voice in congress because of their small congressional delegations? A bicameral government not only protects the nation from being whipsawed by a very parochial house of representatives but the small states are protected at least somewhat each state being equally represented in the US Senate which is charged with being more concerned with what is best for the country than they are about what may be temporarily best for the citizens in their own states.
