Terrorism Is The Act Of Using Violence

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

Another element of the strategy is untwisting the “spiral of violence”. The classic mechanism, which assume the existence of cycles of suicide terrorism activity in a “action-repression-reaction” it is aimed at lowering the public support for the government, and increase it for the terrorists. By curried out the suicide terrorism attacks, the intension and aim of the terrorists is to hit the repressive actions of the authorities not only in themselves but also in the group indentified with them and/or their supporters (a specified ethnic group, religious, social or the entire society). As a result, this process has lead to massive social explosion directed against the government. Such a model of strategy for terrorism has been used by most of the leftist groups in Europe in the nineteenth century, and in the

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)

Step 1: You will use what you have heard about or know about terrorism to create a “rough draft” definition of terrorism. You may not use any resources other than your brain for right now. Write your definition in your notebook or tablet. NOTE: if you are using your tablet or PC to record your notes, create a word document titled “WebQuest Notes" and save it to your OneDrive or Livegrades.

“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

This paper is aimed at outlining the events of the Terrorist attack against America, the results and actions taken by the United States Government in retaliation to the attacks. There is no way to legitimize terrorism, although deeply rooted in religion; there can never be a valid excuse to victimize innocent people. Terrorism is never easily defined and many individuals have an obscure idea of what it really is. Terrorism is a premeditated act of violence, geared at bringing about political change by intimidation; it is disruptive in nature and is intended to have an impact outside of its intended targets. Acts of terrorism are responsible for thousands of deaths, increased security measures and negative impacts to the budgets of many countries including America.

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

I believe that each of these agencies have a different definition for the term terrorism, because they each have different priorities, and focus on different jurisdictions. In my opinion, I feel that there is no universal definition of terrorism, because they do not want to involve any racism in it, they prefer to just blame, whichever person, or group is suspected of terrorism. However, the most common definition of terrorism is, “The deliberate, unlawful use of threats, force, or actual violence to inculcate fear” (Taylor & Swanson, 2016 P.8). For this reason, I do believe that by not having a universal definition for this term, it does limit the capabilities of countering terrorism, because it causes miscommunication. One agency might

Research into terrorism is another challenge in defining terrorism. According to James Rinehart, “those who write about terrorism, tend to possess a preconceived bias of a ‘problem-solution’ orientation in which he or she is simply attempting to justify a set of counterterrorist prescriptive” (4). This research is unreliable at best because as mentioned previously, preconceived biases and stereotypes tend to become involved. Furthermore, there is little research into the why of terrorism, and also very little research into the psychology of terrorists by actual psychologists. The scarcity of primary, first-hand research and due to the private nature of data that is out there, the challenge to defining

Violence is in many cases is either dorment and or active within a soicety, threw violence it creates fear and distrust within a community. By having this fear being a constant in citizens lives it allows for these indivudals, who are commiting these acts of volence, to manipute the public into beleiving what they want them to believe. Within the film “The Offical Story” and book A Lexicon of Terror written by Marguertie Feitlowitz, they present us with examples of what society has become during the fall of the dictoroahip in Argentina and how state terrorism is becoming “normal” in society—people not taking intrest because it occurs constently within a society.

For these reasons, historians of terrorism normally work with a wide definition, and social scientists do so much of the time. But philosophers may well prefer a narrow definition. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of (what one considers) an unjust and oppressive government, and planting a bomb in a tea shop and killing a random collection of common citizens, including children. While both acts raise serious moral issues, these issues are not identical, and running them together under the same heading of “terrorism” will likely hamper, rather than help,

The French Revolution’s aftermath during the 18th century sparked a vicious campaign against nobles who were seen as enemies of the newly formed state. The post-revolutionary government because of their series of mass executions was referred to as terror. The terror concept differs from the modern use of “terrorism” because the perpetrators are not usually governments and are instead nonstate actors (Lacquer, 2001). The word terrorism can be like the word globalism because it can be difficult to define because of the diversity of its meanings among different individuals and different groups. The continual transformation of the contexts in which the term is used causes difficulty in forming a distinctive meaning, but does not make it impossible to study the phenomenon as a distinctive form of political violence. Terrorism may differ from media outlets, governments, cultures, scholars, and readers. Examining the usage of the term thorough-out history will be a useful way to come to a conclusion as to the true meaning and definition of the term. Even though examples of terrorism can go back several millennia, studying the history of it will make it seem considerably new at this time and

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines terrorism as, “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal” (Terrorism, n.d.). The various definitions of terrorism are typically close in comparison but can carry a slightly different tone when used by a government for purposes of the law.

In the 20th century, terrorism continued to be associated with a vast array of anarchist, socialist, fascist and nationalist groups, many of them engaged in ‘third world’

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.