Modern+Terrorism

Modern Terrorism


__** My own definition of terrorism **__ Terrorism is an act of unlawful violence or danger committed by a country, group, or people onto another area to cause fear and widespread terror. The act is unjustifiable even if they try to use race, philosophy, ideology, religion, or any other type of state to justify the act. The act of terror will usually cause harm to civilians, non-combatants, and even the government. The act could be a rebellion against the government or to cause terror among the people. The United States has standards for what an act of terrorism includes which is hijacking any vehicle committing any crimes, endangering the public, and using any weapons or dangerous devices. Terrorism is hard to define because it is all about perspective. A popular saying to help define terrorism is "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." Terrorism is a very broad subject to define specifically due to the many perspectives that can see terrorism.

In Class Definition of Terrorism
 * Violence against non-combatants
 * Instill fear in people
 * Goal to make a religious or political point
 * Terrorists may be rebelling against the government
 * Terrorism can be deceived differently in many different countries
 * An act to promote a criminal agenda
 * Intimidation (against people or government)
 * An attempt to impact life, liberty, and property.
 * Terrorism can be state sponsored- supported by government

U.N Struggles To Define Terrorism Video
 * One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
 * Some groups are seen listed as terror groups but to them they are fighting for themselves
 * Terrorism can never be justified under any circumstances

__** Crocodoc on Various Definitions of Terrorism **__ media type="custom" key="23769540"

__** Video Notes On What Scholars Think About Terrorism **__

__** 9/17/13 Class Opener **__ The types I saw were plane hijacking, bombings, chemical warefare, and kidnapping. The one that seemed to be the most common was bombings, especially sucide bombings. Most of the citizens were in fear of their lives and beleived they were still in danger. In the events with the plabne hijacking many people were nervous to go on a plane. Also, for example, the Tokyo subway attack had people nervous for going on to trains.The terrosit attacks affect the citizens becasue it makes them nervous that something might happen to them. Most terrorism attacks create fear in people. Another example is people may not be able to fly again or people won't be at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. On the other hand it gives American a sense of pride. These events got world attention because people around the world were in fear that something like this may happen to them. Terrorist groups were starting to rise and people feared that these terrost groups could attack them next. Also, when an event has so many deaths its important for epopel around the world to know.
 * 1.) Explain the types of terrorism used in the events iudentified in your timeline?**
 * 2.) How did these events impact ordinary citizens?**
 * 3.) Why did it get world attention?**

__** My Terrorism Timeline **__ [|https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WVEKwqTYMP9ZSyT54QgYzKZa2ZG1aKrnh0sp0XlO5k0/edit#slide=id.p]

__** Revolutionary or Terrorist Article **__

media type="custom" key="23871416" Questions from article: When is it justified? -In my opinion, it is only justified when a terrorist is considered a freedom fighter. I believe if you are fighting for your freedom and independence from a country or someone ruling you then you are not a terrorist but instead fighting for your own rights.

What is a terrorist? -A terrorist is someone who commits an act of violence just for the sake of violence to create intimidation and panic among the civilians. How does a terrorist differ from a freedomfighter?

-A terrorist differs from a freedom fighter because a terrorist is causing violence for violence but a freedom fighter id fighting for freedom, independence m and their rights. Who decides? -A believe countries outside the two or more countries involved should decide what they are since they are not involved in the situation and won't be biased to one side. I think this because the places involved in the event are going to side with what it is to them; the country will see he attacker as a terrorist but a terrorist will see themselves as a freedom fighter.

media type="custom" key="23873800" __** Case Study Questions **__

Northern Ireland 1.Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not? -I do not because the British were not trying to control them in any demeaning manner and the attacks were towards civilians and not the government. 2.Was the way in which the force was acceptable? Provide evidence from the reading to agree or disagree. -I do not agree that this force was acceptable. They said that they "claimed responsibility for bombing a shopping center". Bombing a shopping center is targeting civilians and non-combatants and that is unacceptable. 3.What is your view of the response of the state to use force? -I do not believe their use of force was right. hey should've protested and gone through the government to fight for what they want and not attack and kill people to try and become free.

__** Position Paper **__ Rough Draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cq6WvtoQLywlEBcgDhVCLyB3Q9wXGGz9cC7bUHF_cF8/edit Final Copy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lLZwM0lYh540n5ttxKZUBX_EAOe_15N4PeTQx6_mwl0/edit Visual Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BlnAFdHgOp-Cp07Ozx_lunx-UPMGtCu2VMc3lwmHapo/edit#slide=id.g11adc7a57_020