Respond to the following discussions from classmates (X6) Write how you would respond to their discussions) with approximately 100 words or more each. Include a reference to each response if possible. Be thoughtful and insightful and it must demonstrate critical thinking and analysis.

1. Here is an excellent article. Do you believe this could happen:

Could ISIS and Al Qaeda, Two Giants of Jihad, Unite?

Protesters carry Al-Qaeda flags during an anti-government protest in the town of Marat Numan in Idlib province, Syria, March 11, 2016

Photo by Khalil Ashawi/Reuters

by Brian Michael JenkinsLinks to an external site.

This commentary originally appeared in the opinion section of FoxNews.comLinks to an external site..

There are both similarities and differences between Al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Both are bloodthirsty terrorist organizations bent on jihad, sworn enemies of the infidel West and the United States in particular. Could they one day unite in an international jihadist merger to create an even more potent regional and global threat? It is possible.

For the moment, at least, the two groups are rivals for the mantle of jihadi supremacy and neither side's leadership has shown much interest in a union. The situation is extremely fluid, though, so it is not inconceivable that at some point in the future, beyond the current leadership perhaps, the two organizations could become one.

Al Qaeda has morphed several times since its emergence in the 1990s and its recognition as the global leader in terror with the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

ISIL or ISIS did not emerge as an international rival to Al Qaeda until 2013. Since then, ISIS challenged Al Qaeda's central leadership, engaged in hostilities with Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, expanded its areas of control and influence in Syria and Iraq, declared the existence of an Islamic State, and received pledges of loyalty from various jihadist fronts, including factions within Al Qaeda's affiliates in Africa and the Middle East.

Though they are rivals, there are many similarities between the two groups. Both enterprises comprise a central leadership and an array of affiliates who, while pledging their loyalty to one or the other, have their own interests, capabilities, and modus operandi.

Individual fighters may also have their own agendas, and loyalties may continue to shift according to which group is perceived as dominant. In addition, both organizations appeal to self-radicalized individuals, who help the groups build their respective brands through terrorist acts carried out in other regions, including in the United States.

2. Enders, Sandler, and Gaibuiloey (2011, p. 3) defined transnational terrorism as having distinct characteristics such as that it involves more than a single country, constitutes of perpetrators that have a different nationality from its victims, concerns attacks made across international borders and against foreign diplomats, operates with sponsorship from abroad, and engages terrorist events that start in one country and end in another.

The al-Qaeda greatly fits these descriptions. The group advocates Salafi jihadism and does not have its own country; rather, it is composed of Muslims from different countries (Stout, 2009). The group also has operated in different countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (Stout, 2009). Today, it continues to operate and have members in the said countries in addition to Yemen and Iran (Gerges, 2016).

They've also made attacks by crossing international borders. The first one was in 1992 when they bombed a hotel where U.S. humanitarian troops had been staying (Windrem, 2005). In 1993, they operated their first attack on the World Trade Center; they also attempted to assassinate then the Jordanian Crown Prince Abdullah (Windrem, 2005). In October 1993, there was a clash between U.S. Special operations and Somalis in the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia that led to the death of eighteen Americans by Somali reportedly trained by al-Qaida (Windrem, 2005).

This group continues to be a serious threat to America because it still continues to exist. Zimmerman (2016) noted that they continue to the al-Qaeda continues to receive sponsors and donations. This group should not be underestimated because although the Islamic State has vast swathes of land now, they only control the population through fear and coercion.

Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, doesn't control the population, but rather, has their support (Zimmerman, 2016). Stout (2009) also noted the continued threat that this transnational terrorist group has the ability to use weapons of mass destruction and create humanitarian dystopias such as those in Iraq's Inbar Province. Thus, they should not be ignored or underestimated in present times.

3. Boko Haram is an Islamist group that went from being a local insurgency in Nigeria to brutal militant group. The Unites States has classified the group as a terrorist group. They also fit the definition of transnational terrorists, as well.

According to the module notes on Transnational Terrorism and Johnson, B.S. (2013), several factors define what transnational terrorism is. First, it involves more than one nation. While Boko Haram is established in Nigeria, it is responsible for committing acts of violence in other African countries such as Cameroon and Chad.

This also covers the defining elements that states the nationalities of the terrorists usually differ from most of the victims of the venue country and that perpetrators cross an international border to commit their attacks. (Johnson, B.S. (2013). Although Boko Haram has been active primarily on the continent of Africa, analysts have begin to recognize similarities with al-Qaeda.

I believe Boko Haram can present a serious threat to America because they are tied in with al-Qaeda and America is a sworn enemy of al-Qaeda.

Also, as of 2015, communication between Boko Haram and the Islamic State were intercepted, per testimony from the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. (Sergie and Johnson, 2015). Boko Haram also bombed a UN building in 2011. Now that they are in with two of the biggest foreign threats to America, who's to say that they won't target an embassy next plot an attack on American soil somewhere else.

4. Kevin Johnson and Tyler Lang were arrested for the 2013 raids they conducted on Fox and Mink farms across the Midwest.

They were charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which was passed in 1992 to protect pharmaceutical companies who did research on live animal subjects, as well as agricultural and fur companies which depend on animals for their enterprise. While they have not yet been sentenced under the AETA, and in fact, no one has successfully been sentenced for any similar crimes under the act, its constitutionality is in question.

The reason for this specific industry to have such a heavy handed specific law on the books to protect it, is in my opinion, questionable at best. These two men, in releasing thousands of foxes and mink, did commit several crimes, that's not in question. Were the crimes truly a crime of terrorism though? I would argue they were not. Their actions can and should be covered with laws already in existence.

Trespassing, theft, vandalism, all of these actions they carried out can be addressed by standing laws. Why should one industry be able to label criminal activity against it as terrorism? The issue with this law, it has Constitutionality issues, as applied. It's terrorism label, only impacts people who are exercising their free speech right, protesting the mistreatment of animals, even though they have committed other related crimes.

5. Sentencing enhancement is a means in which a prosecutor can argue that additional penalties could and should be added to a current sentence.

As we saw in the video "Earth Liberation Front" (If a Tree Falls, 2011), Daniel McGowan was the subject of this situation. The justification by the government for this enhancement was that, it was an attempt by the defendant to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion.

McGowan ultimately settled on a deal where he was charged with arson and conspiracy to commit arson, this was after he learned that he would be facing a life sentence if he chose not to cooperate and serve as an informant. The deal brokered by McGowan's lawyers stated that, he would remain "noncooperative" with the state regarding his role as an informant for their investigation and in return, he would plead guilty to arson and conspiracy to commit arson.

If the hope of the prosecutor was to increase the sentence by the terrorism enhancement, than it was ineffective in my opinion. If the prosecutions attempt was to send a message to other activist groups, that this is how the government views this type of behavior, then I believe they were successful. Since the targets of the E.L.F. were private businesses, I do not believe that there was any attempted influence of government and I did not see the necessity to brand a person as a terrorist.

6. Stanislas Meyerhoff and Kevin Tubbs received stiff prison sentences after a guilty plea in their trial regarding arsons they were a part of as members of a special-interest terrorist group known as the Family. The Family commonly used arson and vandalism as their means of trying to achieve their goals. Meyerhoff even testified that "offenses ... were clearly calculated to influence the conduct of government by intimidation, coercion and retaliation" (Goldman, 2007).

The definition of terrorism provided by the Department of Defense is "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological" (DoD, 1999).

Comparing the definition of terrorism provided by the Department of Defense and Meyerhoff's direct statement, it is undeniable that the acts committed by Meyerhoff and the Family are acts of domestic terrorism. The sentence, while harsh, still pales in comparison to the amount of damage they caused. They are very fortunate in a sense that they planned out their attacks as carefully as they did to ensure that nobody was killed while committing those acts. Had someone been killed, they would be in a hurt locker.

It is hard to argue in the Family's favor and claim that they did not commit acts of terrorism when one of their members provides such a detailed description of their acts and the intent behind the acts that directly corresponds to the definition of terrorism. One can only hope that others contemplating acts of terrorism against property do their homework and read up on cases like this and see just how serious these offenses are.