Definitional Model Of State Terrorism

Modern terrorism, as deduced from this literature, is acts to violence strategically used by secular groups spanning international borders with the aim of achieving a desired outcome. Further, it can be seen as organized activity whose genesis can be traced back to the 1880’s. From then to now there are identifiable traits and patterns observed from different (terrorist) groups which have allowed for the conceptualization of the term modern terrorism. This concept therefore, can be best explained in the context of being a wave or having a life cycle. That means it is a cycle of activity demarked by phases from inception and expands along the way then eventually it declines. The world, thus far, has experienced four waves of modern

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

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

This article by Isabelle Duyvesteyn starts off by summarising the objectives that challenge the perspective of terrorism since the last decade of the twentieth century is fundamentally new. In this article certain questions have been debated regarding new aspects of terrorism and they are: “transnational nature of the perpetrators and their organizations, their religious inspiration, fanaticism, use of weapons of mass destruction and their indiscriminate targeting.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)In order to understand the depth of aspects of new terrorism the article talks about “national and territorial focus of the new terrorists, their political motivations, use of conventional weaponry and the symbolic targeting that is aimed in order to achieve a surprising effect.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)

“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

The terms terrorism and domestic terrorism are very similar concepts. There are, however, slight differences in each. Entities that are apart of the Government have slightly different ways of explaining what they believe to be the correct definition of terrorism and domestic terrorism. In this paper the author will offer definitions of the two terms and state which one they agree with the most. The author will also state how the two terms are best differentiated.

Additionally, John Mueller lambasts what he labels as the socially constructed ‘terrorist industry,’ which he attacks for artificially inflating concerns over terrorist attacks. Instead, Mueller confirms that the damage caused by terrorism is not materially significant but stems primarily from the fear that it creates. Violent retaliation is viewed as a form of ‘self-flagellation’ that provides the terrorists with exactly what they want. As mentioned, realist definitions of power, self-interest and rationality lack explanatory prowess when non-state actors are able to subvert states thanks largely in part to the use of suicide-terrorism. The proliferation of terrorist groups and their use of suicide-tactics in many ways defies realist expectations and conclusions.

The act of terrorism, an unlawful use of violence and intimidation, is most commonly seen targeting civilians but can also include damage to property or injury to specific individuals. These malicious acts are used to fulfil political, religious or ideological aims in attempt of intimidating the government or society. Terrorisms’ impact reflects on the government and society extracting various responses, both legal and non-legal. The effectiveness of these responses, aimed at obtaining equal justice against terrorism, tend to vary while considering the concepts of preventing terrorist attacks while not infringing on human rights and the resolution of the ‘war against terrorism’. The evident lack of consistency in these responses has been reflected

Acts of terrorism are typically political oriented and ideologically motivated, ranging from specific goals expressed in terms of the might of political nation-states to more general purposes connected to the dilemma of certain people and groups. Therefore, terrorism can result from demands made by ethnic groups to receive representation in an existing political community or have its own state be formed, while terrorism can also be part of ideological fights for the acknowledgment of diminished expressions of ideas and ways of life. Because of the essentially political ideological objectives of terrorism, the fundamental ideas of terrorism are important to consider as the inspiring forces that fuel terrorist groups and individuals.

In Statecraft, from turn zero it was apparent terrorism was going to be a prevailing issue. In fact, only one nation, per the Bush Doctrine, was not a state sponsor of terror. An important element of the Bush doctrine was the lack of distinction between terrorist and anyone including the states who aid the terrorist. With terrorist surrounding my nation from the west and south supporting terrorist organizations, I advised our nation’s leader to adhere to the Bush doctrine. Unfortunately, my fake nation’s leader focused on other things such as recycling. After our leader continually ignored numerous warnings, our Capital and other cities were continually attacked by OLF and the Typhoon pirates. Not being President, all I could do was the minimal, and otherwise was forced to sit back and watch not only Elferians but the citizens of the entire Statecraft world lose their family and friends from terrorist attacks.

This chapter was all about State terrorism and the different subtypes and examples. State Terrorism can be describe as; when the government is committed to using violence and extreme threats against their own civilians to get them to comply with the same views as the government to the point of submission. A country can involve in state terrorism with the aim of protecting the safety of its borders, guarding sovereignty or to achieving some political goal. The chapter breaks down state terrorism into two categories: internal and external terrorism. The first being internal terrorism, which is when the act occurs as a result against a domestic order, challenge to mainstream values, or internal human rights violation etc. A State may engage in terror acts for a variety of reasons. The main reason behind most state terror acts is to protect the sovereignty of the country. The government safeguards the independence and security of the country. This responsibility

Political terror refers to two separate phenomena, state terror and terrorism. The fundamental difference between the two is that the former utilizes violence to legitimize its repressive structure while the latter utilizes it to oppose (and potentially overthrow) an oppressive institution. In order to understand terrorism it is important to first review the different elements of state terror. Different policies can constitute as active forms of state terror such as government surveillance, apartheid law, media repression, etc. However, special attention will be focused on the apogee of state terror: genocide which generally utilizes and encompasses all other forms. References to genocide in world history can be found

The definition of terrorism has forever been a topic of debate. One thing agreed upon however, is that there are different types of terrorism. For instance, there is religious terrorism, and there is political terrorism. This paper will discuss the question: How do religious and political terrorism differ in terms of their roots, their motivations, and their methods – and it will also briefly discuss how their traits coincide.

“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the

The course of this analysis has moved from an established definition of political violence and terrorism, to a normative framework primarily based off the work of Honderich, and into an analysis of four different cases of terrorism. Two cases were representative of justified terrorism and political violence, where I analyzed the Algerian War of Independence and the liberation struggle in South Africa during the apartheid. The two cases that followed were examples of unjustified terrorism, assessing the global terrorist group, al Qaeda, and anti-abortion militants. My investigation of these four cases yields that the justification of terrorism and political violence cannot be a universally assessed. The justification must be determined on a