Cheat Sheet Exercises

The phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a view terrorists themselves happily accept. i.e. America. Terrorists do not see themselves as evil, they see themselves as rebels paving the way to a better future, protecting their values and their lives. So, then, what defines a victim? Are there any winners? They believe they are legitimate combatants, fighting for what they believe in, and using whatever means possible to achieve their goals. Sound familiar. Which is why, so often the stories are at odds; victims of terrorism see the terrorist as a criminal with no regard for human lives, while the terrorist see themselves as a shining symbol of traditional values and freedom. The majority public’s view, however; is what defines a terrorist. Terrorists often try to foster a “Robin Hood” facade or image, in the hopes of swaying the majority of the public towards their goals. Towards their ideals. Sympathetic views towards terrorism act as the most integral part of a terrorist organizations psychological warfare, and despite being countered vigorously by the government and the media, if sympathy and support are sustainable, then terrorist organizations will continue to thrive. Terrorism is largely both tactic or strategy; crime or holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression or an inexcusable abomination. But doesn't it depend on those whose point of view is being expressed? So whose view matters? The people who write

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

For our purposes, we will use the Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), to define terrorism. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Examples of terrorism persist on a near daily basis around the world. Unstable countries, such as Afghanistan and Syria, deal with terrorist attacks on a constant basis. The common thread of these attacks is deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political objectives. The best known and largest example are

Terrorists deny the authenticity of states, the rights of people , the unique importance of individual human beings and ultimately morality. Terrorists for one reason or another, loathe our freedom and our way of life. (Zupan, 2004)

“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather

The second Part of Jonathan R. White’s ninth edition Terrorism and Homeland Security deals with the national and ethnic movements of international terrorism, their emergence as well as well as motifs. Ideological terrorist and ethnic separatists are hard to differentiate since they use the same procedures and tactics to get their demands. Although both fall under the definition of terrorism, there is a difference in the definition of their goals and demands. While separatists have defined, achievable goal, religious terrorists have a nihilistic ideology that are from a rational point of view not feasible. Therefore, it is impossible for satisfactorily negotiation

This week in Lamy terrorism and human security were covered in chapters nine and ten. LAmy describes terrorism as the use of violence to bring attention to a “grievance”, to get a certain “response”, or to weaken someones moral to elicit “political change”. Lamy explains that terrorism can be done as a result of infractions on culture, economics, and/or religion. One example the book gives is Al Qaeda which is a religious based terrorist group that fight due to an oath of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. This group became recognized as a terrorist group after the incident of September 11. These terrorist acts were done on the premise of the belief in jihad. Like most terrorists, Al Qaeda fights for the beliefs for which there is no compromise;

Although terrorist can be labeled into different categories, it is important to remember that even though a group of terrorist may fall under different labels that they have distinct similarities. In McEntire, there are five similarities that are noted. The first similarity is that terrorists see the world simply in the terms of right and wrong. The second similarity is that terrorists are disturbed by their current situation. What this means is that terrorists are saddened with current problems in the society and know what they would like to see differently. The third similarity is that terrorists have a unique image of themselves. McEntire elaborates further on this by stating that terrorist consider themselves to be more entitled than others,

If your vehicle is in need of some body work after an accident, the bills can start to add up really quickly. Here are three ways you can save money on auto body collision repair needs.

They focus on the traits of terrorism that cause most of us to view the practice with deep moral repugnance: (i) violence (ii) against non-combatants (or, alternatively, against innocent people) for the sake of (iii) intimidation (and, on some definitions, (iv) coercion). In highlighting (ii), they relate the issue of terrorism to the ethics of war and one of the fundamental principles of just war theory, that of non-combatant immunity. They help distinguish terrorism from acts of war proper and political assassination, which do not target non-combatants or common citizens. It does not matter very much whether the victims of terrorism are described as “non-combatants” or “innocent people”, as each term is used in a technical sense, and both refer to those who have not lost their immunity against lethal or other extreme violence by being directly involved in, or highly responsible for, (what terrorists consider) insufferable injustice or oppression. In war, these are innocent civilians; in a violent conflict that falls short of war, these are common

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.

Think of the word terrorism. What is the first thing that comes to mind? One might think of kidnapping, assassination, bombing, or even genocide and guerrilla warfare. Because it is such a broad and complex issue, an all-encompassing definition is hard to formulate. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as…