Terrorists Or Felons: What Is A Criminal?

Organized crime and Terrorist groups are very similar in many ways. They both are structured with well thought out organization and are multi-leveled, just like a corporation would be. Both are involved with illegal business activities. This includes the smuggling and selling of drugs, kidnapping, and human trafficking. The members of the groups are normally deviant with their behavior. They consist or aggressive, violent, and dehumanizing natures. They feel satisfaction from killing innocent people and striking fear in the individuals that oppose

Criminal activity and terrorist activity have a relationship that is closely related, with only minor differences separating the two. Terrorist activity are criminal acts that are motivated by a higher cause beyond the basic causes of crime. Terrorist attack are highly planned out, and the same can be said about criminal activity. Serial killers often plan out their acts just as much as terrorist organizations, however the same cannot be said for certain crimes like random assaults. (Newman & Clarke, 2008) The relationship between crime and terrorism is brought closer when terrorist organizations use common crime to fund their attacks. For example, a terrorist organization may resort to stealing chemical agents to make their dirty bombs. The

Brian Jenkins (1998) offers a practical solution to the problem: terrorists are not typical criminals. They commit crimes for political purposes. When captured by security forces, they are not usually prosecuted as terrorists but charged with the crimes they commit. Terrorists strike targets for political purposes in a given situation, using crime as an incidental tactic. When terrorists cross national boundaries, they become international terrorists. Furthermore, terrorists are not exceptionally creative; they use a limited array of weapons and tactics.

“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

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).

When you think of the word terrorist, what comes to mind? For most, the first thought they have is mass destruction, chaos, and numerous fatalities, all brought on by foreign members of an elite group of people with twisted beliefs. Although, this may be the case in some scenarios, it is not what defines a terrorist. The definition is broad in terms, covers a wide spectrum of violent acts, and no one gender, race or ethnicity is singled out. On April 3, 1996 the nation’s longest man hunt came to an end, when Theodore Kaczynski, was finally caught for the many acts of domestic terrorism he perpetrated amongst so many innocent people. With hopes to coarse society into putting an end to technological growth, and join him in the simplicity of life

Jihad violence first began in the 8th century when Muhammed Qassim ordered his men to kill millions of Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Zorvastrains and destroy their places of worship. (Suseelan, 2009) It is this ideology that still fuels Jihad hatred and violence. In Muslim communities, Jihad is commonly associated with abductions, bombings, kidnapping, murder, drug distribution, and gang violence, as well other criminal activities. (Suseelan, 2009) The cultural background of the average criminal is different than those with a terrorist mentality and this background heavily impacts criminal behavior, but the motivation behind the acts is not the same.

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,

The second case will be represented by nationalist terrorism. In this case study I will Identify and describe the groups involved. The terrorist group for this case study will be Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA). Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia was a Marxist-Leninist Armenian terrorist group was founded in 1975 with the intention of compelling the Turkish Government to acknowledge publicly its alleged responsibility for killing over 1.5 million innocent people in 1915. This was to territory for an Armenian homeland. The group 's initial bombing and assassination attacks were directed against Turkish targets and later French and Swiss targets to force release of imprisoned men. Around 1982 the Armenian terrorists established an underground cell in Toronto for the purpose of extorting money from Armenian-Canadians in order to raise funds for a projected campaign of insurgency in the Middle East. The case study I will be using will be the attacks On October 22, 1975 Turkish Ambassador in Austria, Danis Tunaligil was assassinated by three members of ASALA. Two days later, Turkish Ambassador in France, Ismail Erez and his chauffeur were killed. This case study is another great example of why the hypothesis from Joseph Margolin (1977: 273-4), "much terrorist behavior is a response to the frustration of various political, economic, and personal needs or objectives." is accurate. The political objectives were to force an end to

In the formation of an individual suitable for either Gang or terror violence my hypothesis relies on the idea that in order for a person to embrace a violent group a strain must be placed upon their life or society. Durkheim’s anomie stated that if an individual becomes disassociated with his means of production or the significance of his production then the individual becomes detached from their society or their social identity (Giddens 1972:180) Furthering this Agnew states that strains or stressors laid upon an individual increase the possibility of negative emotions such as anger, frustration, or spite. The creation of these emotions act as the catalyst for an individual to take action against their strain or stressor usually in the form of violence (Agnew 1992) following Agnew and Durkheim my research will also be formed utilizing the transitions written by Neil Smelser in his book “The Faces of Terrorism”. The transitions that Smelser writes about attempt to model “terrorism behavior as a series of transitions from extremely general processes involved in the genesis of terrorism to its specific manifestations.” (Smelser 2009:

Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks,

Comparing the terrorists to gang members. The gang does exactly do what terrorists do. They despair and recruiting vulnerable young men, and control their communities through brutal violence. We don’t call them terrorists because they don’t have a specific vendetta against America as a whole. So, they can always be classified as terrorists. The unlawful use of violence against people or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of the political or social objective. Anybody who has grown up in a neighborhood knows that gang members use force or violence against people or property to intimidate or coerce the civilian population. Gang banging can be compared to terrorism. Some people believe that the two activities have common goals and results. These groups turn to violence to obtain what they need. The following research will explore this premise, as well as point out where the two groups differ. Sometimes the government will try every means possible to obtain the release of hostages without making concessions. It is a widely held belief that making concessions to terrorists that will encourage more terrorism. Sometimes terrorists will feel that their actions have obtained results. The United States tries to learn about the goals and ideologies of terrorists, it does so only to better identify and apprehend them. Educators search for ways to keep students from joining gangs. Terrorism is a well thought out

Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

What makes people want to commit crimes? Are criminals any different than us? Does committing a crime mean there is something wrong with you, such as a psychological problem? Do all criminals have the same kind of personality? Is a criminal born or made? Questions like this and many more will be elaborated on throughout this paper.

What makes a criminal a criminal? Can anyone become a criminal? Answering and understanding these questions is the core work of criminologists as most criminologists attempt to make sense of why people do certain things (Garland, Sparks 2000). This essay will consider the notion that any person could become a criminal and in so doing consider the initial question. This essay will outline a range of theories that attempt to describe human behavior in relation to criminal behavior given the complexities of behaviour. Several theories will be considered as no single theory of behavior can account fully for the complexities and range in criminal behaviour. The theories range from social-control, to classical, to biological, to personality