Modern+Terrorism

Terrorism: One's use of violence and threats to intimidate others in order to get what they desired, especially for political reasons to the government. > > > > One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Hence,the difficulty in defining TERRORISM. >
 * "denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality"
 * "provoke a state of terror in the general public"
 * "seeking to jeopardize national resources."
 * "committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages"
 * "compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”
 * "seriously destabilizing ordestroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization."
 * "mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping"
 * "threatening, conspiring or attempting"
 * "unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment there of, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
 * "acts of terrorism conducted by governments or terrorism carried out directly by, or encouraged and funded by, an established government of a state (country) or terrorism practiced by a government against its own people or in support of international terrorism."
 * "(1) the threat or use of violence; (2) a political objective;the desire to change the status quo; (3) the intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;(4) the intentional targeting of civilians."
 * four characteristics: (1) the threat or use of violence; (2) a political objective;the desire to change the status quo; (3) the intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;(4) the intentional targeting of civilians.
 * "Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violence to punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes"
 * Definition undermines what the UN is doing to combat the problem
 * Upcoming UN meeting specifically focusing on the route causes of Terrorism rather than the definition.

media type="custom" key="23769856"

Class: Personal: Added:
 * One country attacks another because of lifestyle choices.
 * Indiscriminate acts- wide range of people
 * Violent acts- such as murder, arson, kidnapping
 * Cause people hysteria and fear
 * To make a political point.
 * 1) Threat of acts against non-combatants
 * 2) Terror against community or nation
 * 3) Terrorism has no clear definition "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
 * 4) Depends on perspective
 * 5) State or non-state sponsored
 * 6) Intimidation- attacks on life, liberty, and poverty



media type="custom" key="23848152"
 * __ Terrorist Timeline __**



__** Revolutionists vs. Terrorists. **__ media type="custom" key="23872336" height="42"

__** Case Studies. **__ media type="custom" key="23872532" 1.Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not? 2.Was the way in which the force was acceptable? Provide evidence from the reading to agree or disagree. 3.What is your view of the response of the state to use force?

North Ireland 1. Yes, I believe it was reasonable but not to that extent. I feel as though the cause wasn't that reasonable for the number of killings and injured though. 2. I believe the Omagh bombing was a bit too much due to the fact that the warnings led to more killings rather than less. With "3,341 people killed and more than 47,000 injured", it was just way too much death from just one event. 3. I feel as though the response to these attacks were fair to what was done to them.

Chechnya 1. The decision was reasonable again, yes, but it being military style, is just way too much. Russia is huge, so many civilians will easily be killed so I feel as though it's a bit too much. 2. Having the whole attacks being military style is way to much. I mean even the response was having 10,000 people dead and half-a-million away from their homes in Chechnya is not something that they would want for themselves, so it was unreasonable in thing way. 3. The response was equal to and a bit greater than the first attack. I mean, why can't there just be something in the middle that makes them both happy and to not have so many people die to prove a point.

Chiapas: 1.I believe poverty, injustice and the rights are great causes to fight for and try to gain back from the Government. 2. It seems like the cause wasn't great enough for actions. I mean attacking military bases when you're just fighting against poverty and injustice just seems uneven or unbalanced to me. 3. It is said that they tortured villagers to get information on the rebels. I don't believe that is the right way to gain information. For one, these villager never did anything against them and ,two, there are other ways to get information on these rebels.

South Africa: 1. I believe that their cause is something that everyone should be fighting for. I mean, it was so long ago that the segregation rules in the United States disappeared, I think that it shouldn't be around anymore. So I understand the cause and although it means nothing, I support this. 2. At first, they used no violence in order to make a change in the policies. After years without a change, they decided to finally just attack the Government and let the people stay safe. Harming the innocent won't really do much except cause more chaos. 3. I think what they had did was awful. I mean these people never harmed anyone greatly, but just because they support this cause and are against the Government, they are assassinated. That's just not okay at all. Especially since they are a non-violent group.

media type="custom" key="23981714"Chechen Rebels Rough Draft

media type="custom" key="23981708"[|Chechen Rebels Final Draft]

media type="custom" key="23981564"