In her article, “Terrorism and the American Experience: a State of the Field”, Beverly Gage makes multiple important points related to the positives and negatives of the term “terrorism” with regards to describing past events, both the differing waves and repeated consistencies of terrorism throughout history, and how understanding of past terrorism applies to what people should try and do in response in the modern era. Ultimately, Gage’s points line up nearly flawlessly with historical examples in the first 7 chapters of Randall D. Law’s Terrorism. With regards to the definition of “terrorism” and its usage, Gage stresses both the inherent pros and cons of describing historical events as terrorism. Describing historical events as “terrorism” …show more content…
Gage made the point in her piece about how the term terrorism is generally reserved for violence of the left and how right-wing violence, which tends to be more tolerated by the government, does not tend to be described as such (Gage 89). This point is repeatedly supported in the first seven chapters of Law’s book. For example, the right-wing pogroms of Russia tended to be supported by the government and despite their similarly horrific violent tactics were not treated with negative terms such as terrorism like leftist, anarchist violence (Law 83). He also brings up the lack of consistency in reaction with regards to leftist and rightist violence through discussion of how Unions on the left could not support violence while the powerful, more right-wing owners could (Law 111). Additionally, Gage’s discussion of how religious terrorism tends to also have political goals, whether or not they are stated explicitly (Gage 91), is supported by discussion of the Sicarii in Law’s first chapter (Law 29). Perhaps most prevalently supported, however, is Gage’s point that the usage of the term “terrorism” and discussion of it have always been politicized (Gage 78). Law points this out best perhaps through his example of a term which was used in a similar manner. Like “terrorism”, “tyrranicide” was used …show more content…
Specifically, her final point about how counterterrorism needs to focus on surrounding political contexts, not the violence itself, in order to be effective (Gage 93) has examples of both support. In Terrorism: A History, many attempts to curb terrorism via laws that ignored root causes, such as the attempts to limit the entrance of dangerous people into Cairo (Law 42) were very unsuccessful. The only times that attacking the violence itself of terrorism was successful was when it occurred simultaneously with work to correct the deeper issues of society. For example, although Bismarck’s counterterrorism policy and aggressive police action in Germany were successful, this occurred simultaneously with attempts by the German government to attack the societal issues that motivated and inspired terrorists (Law 99). Thus, this is not a good example of the effectiveness of law and violence-focused counterterrorism being successful on its own. For counterterrorism to work, governments needed to address both the violence and the societal ills at hand, and because of the consistency of this historic truth, it is sensible to assert that Gage’s point about how we need to address the context of terrorism in order to fight terrorism itself is
Initially popularized during the French Revolution, the term “terrorism,” at its inception, was a distinctly positive word; from the rubble of the first revolts in 1789, stemmed the regime de la terreur, an instrument of governance meant to further propel the success of the revolutionaries through the intimidation of those loyal to the dictatorial regime which governed France for much of the eighteenth century (Hoffman 3). Ironically, given the modern interpretation of terrorism, the revolutionaries who would ultimately constitute the regime de la terreur were advocating for virtue and democracy––in fact, one of the figureheads of the revolutionary movement Maximilien Robespierre was renowned for having said: “virtue, without which terror is
Categorical terrorism, according to Jeff Goodwin, is defined as “the strategic use of violence and threats of violence, usually intended to influence several audiences, by oppositional political groups against civilian or noncombatants who belong to a specific entity, religious or national group, social class or some other collectivity, without regard to their individual identities or roles.” More so, in terms of definition, according to a study done by Jeffrey Record in 2003, there was a count of over 109 definitions of terrorism, covering 22 different categorical elements. During the 70s and 80s, the United Nations struggled to define the term, finally coming up with the following definition: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
Looking back on communism and its affect on American society, the present day terrorism can draw many parallels. The parallels are similar, yet they are not quite on the level of paranoia that communism instated within the U.S. and against our own society. To be accused of being a communist, one did not have to have a certain appearance; it was an ideology that that individual accepted, however to be accused of a terrorist is mostly along the lines of an appearance and the Muslim community.
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
The topic of my paper is types of terrorism. There are several types of terrorism for which to choose for my paper, state, dissident, religious, left-wing v. right-wing, and international. In this paper I have chosen state terrorism, religious terrorism, and international terrorism as the types of terrorism that I am going to discuss. I will discuss what they are in my own words and give examples of two different groups for each type that represent that type of terrorism. Then I will compare and contrast the three types of terrorism that I chose.
Ladan Osman is a Somali-American writer and filmmaker who was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, but grew up in Columbus, Ohio. She is the winner of the Sillerman First Book Prize for African Poets and the 2020 Hurston/Wright Legacy Award for Poetry for her most recognizable works, The Kitchen-Dweller’s Testimony and Exiles of Eden. Her collection of works, like the given examples, are artistic responses to issues of racial politics, gender, and religion. Ladan Osman uses her own experiences as a Somali-American, a first-generation immigrant, and a woman to create her poetry and short stories. When Osman thinks about the memories from her childhood in Somalia, she remembers the smell of the salty ocean and her parents' home.
Rothe, D. & Muzzatti, S.L. 2004. Enemies everywhere: Terrorism, moral panic and US civil society. Critical Criminology. 1(12): 327–350.
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
To use Eikmeier’s (2007) words, “the framework’s three simple questions—What is the desired end-state? How can it be achieved? What resources are required?—is systems theory boiled down to its essential elements in support of COG analysis” (p. 63). Therefore, to effectively counter terrorism, the United States cannot have a single counterterrorism strategy.
The concept of terrorism is exceedingly difficult to define. Author Gerald Seymour first said in his book Harry’s Game that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Each individual may view terrorism in a different light. Because of this, there is currently no universal definition of terrorism. However, in recent years, it has become increasingly more important to form a definition of terrorism, especially while working in the media.
Hutchinson, Steven, and Pat O’Malley. "A Crime–Terror Nexus? Thinking on Some of the Links between Terrorism and Criminality." Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 30.12 (2007): 1095-107.
On September 11, 2001, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the mindset and the opinion of nearly every American on the one of the most vital issues in the 21st century: terrorism (Hoffman 2). Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a perverse method of political change, one must first begin to understand what terrorism is, where it is derived from, and why there is terrorism. These issues are essential in America’s analysis of this phenomenon that has revolutionized its foreign policy and changed America’s stance in the world.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,