The Past and Present of Terrorism and Counterterrorism in China

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

Terrorism is a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a

International terrorism aspires to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government and transcend national

Terrorism is something that has shaken America for hundreds of years. One of the most crucial terrorist attacks was the “9/11” attack. After this attack, it made our nation’s leaders realize the danger of terrorism. After all the strikes on the U.S following the September 11 attack, the three branches of government has decided to place, enforce and interpret these terrorist laws to help protect our grounds and civilians; from President Obama and Bush’s proposals of the laws to the Supreme Court’s passing of these laws to the explanations of these new rules.

“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.

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.

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 most common and frequently the most serious problem in legal definitions of terrorism under national laws is that they are overbroad and vague. As a basic legal principle, such laws fail to give reasonable notice of what actions are covered. Many are so broad that they cover common crimes that should not reasonably be deemed terrorist or acts that should not be considered crimes at all. “Their scope leaves them susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by the authorities” (In the Name of Security). Few terrorism definitions are so narrowly drawn. In general, definitions of terrorism tend to cover acts carried out for a wide variety of purposes, often with no requirement that they cause or intend to cause death or serious injury, and without specifying the level of physical property damage required to render an act terrorist. “Legal definitions of terrorism generally specify two or three basic elements: the act and purpose, or the act, intent, and purpose” (In the Name of Security). The crime of terrorism is typically characterized as an act carried out with a particular intent—for example, the intent to kill—and for a specific purpose, such as coercing or intimidating a government or population into performing or abstaining from an action. The American Civil Liberties Union

Terrorism and Communism both represent threats to American exceptionalism and United States National Security domestically and abroad. However, the machinery of both comprises different internal parts. Albeit, terrorism can be used as a technique directly or indirectly by governments to reach an end.

Terrorism has been in existence for many decades. Most recently, the events of September 11th, 2001 have sparked discussions and controversies on the issue of the war on terror. Many nation’s and organization’s have different definitions of terrorism, what laws should be used when dealing with terrorism, and whether or not it is time to rethink the rules of the war on terror. Twelve years after the attacks of 9/11 I believe it is time to reconsider, especially the United State’s rules, on terrorism and the war on terror.

Bachmann, S. (2012). Bankrupting terrorism: The role of US anti-terrorism litigation in the prevention of terrorism and other hybrid threats: A legal assessment and outlook. The Liverpool Law Review, 33(2), 91-109. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1007/s10991-012-9115-7

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.

This is an analysis of Whittaker's case study whereby the affiliation between counterterrorism and terrorism has been displayed. Some incidents that take place are inclusive of political extremism rather than terrorism itself. This exists as an order of displaying the function official action or specifically overreaction incidents terrorism from above and circuitous, cyclic pattern, which eventually leads to the terrorism. The definition for counterterrorism is the proactive and aggressive in use of resources and personnel to destroy disrupt or pre-empt terrorists together with their support links. Many options exist in counterterrorism, ranging from negotiation to diplomatic overtures, to investigations and intelligent operations, to superiority morally, to freezing and blocking of assets, to operations of militaristic SWAT teams. Conservative wisdom suggests that it is never proper to make good use of the soft options for instance making negotiations with the terrorists, at least when they are continuing with their violent acts, but in many cases this is perceived more of rhetoric rather than reality (Whittaker, 2012).

Over the years there have been significant changes in how terrorism is carried out. With the changes in how terrorism is carried out there have also been dramatic changes in how countries counter terrorist attacks. The modifications in the way a country counters these terrorist attacks affects international relations of these countries. These issues bring about the question of how have counter terrorism methods affected international relations. To answer this question several things must be addressed which are, methodology, history of terrorism, and a literature review of multiple authors that have discussed this subject.