Modern+Terrorism

From the perspective of the people being targeted, terrorism is the creation of terror among a community/nation using violent acts or other threats in order to intimidate them or make a political or social statement. These acts can include bombing, shooting, or threatening to do so--anything that creates a widespread sense of danger and fear. Terrorist actions are performed due to anger, jealousy or disapproval towards the target, which could be caused by tensions involving race, religion, morals, lifestyle etc. However, the acts of terrorism can harm/kill innocent people outside of the target group. From the perspective of those performing these actions, they may not even consider their actions as terrorism, because they believe they are improving the world. Even in different countries, the definition of terrorism varies, and these differences make it harder for the world to agree on how to combat terrorism because they disagree on what it is. Therefore, it is very important that people are still trying to come up with a compromised, solid definition of terrorism today.

media type="custom" key="23753924"

Timeline of Modern Terrorism media type="custom" key="23826438"

media type="custom" key="23864274" media type="custom" key="23871130" Questions for Northern Ireland Case Study: 1.) I think that although the IRA has an understandable motive to use violence​, it is still not acceptable because it is threatening innocent people. They should've chosen a more peaceful, persuasive means of getting their message across. When the state feels threatened, it will use violence in defense of itself and only add to the chaos. As shown, they did not make any progress from this violence. 2.) No, I don't think the use of force was acceptable because "many of the victims were innocent civilians caught in acts of violence perpetrated by the different factions", and it in no way forced the state to surrender but rather provoked them to join in the violence to protect itself. 3.) I think the response of the state to use force was also harmful, but they had no other choice, since the IRA started it in the first place and they wanted to settle them down.

Questions for Chechnya Case Study: 1.) I think that the Chechens had a valid reason to use force, but it was abused horribly. 2.) The use of force was overdone and it didn't even help the Chechens achieve their goal of independence. Instead, it just ended up killing many people who got entangled in the crisis. It forced the Russian government to get involved in attempts to settle the violence, but that only added to the mess. 3.) The response of the government was necessary to stop the rebels' path of damage, and they did a good job at least trying to rescue the hostages and protect people. However, they also ended up killing Chechen civilians in "airstrikes against several Chechen towns", apparently out of revenge for the killing of so many Russian civilians. Both sides are guilty of similar crimes.

Questions for Chiapas Case Study: 1.) The Zapatinas could be considered freedom fighters because they were aiming for improved "rights of the indigenous peoples", but the extent of their violence was too extreme and also aimless. 2.) I think that the Zapatinas were hypocrites for wanting to protect/improve indigenous rights while threatening the rights of the rest of the population by creating terror. Such a threat inhibited their right to live their lives without fear and limited their mobility, not to mention increased their chance of getting killed. 3.) The actions of the state were also unacceptable in this case. The military apparently "[tortured] villagers to get information on the rebels", which is immoral and unfair.

Questions for South Africa: 1.) Out of all of these case studies, the ANC's decision to use violence is the most reasonable to me. They initially used "non-violent resistance" to apartheid, and only "after years of political struggle" and no progress did they begin to use violence. 2.) The case study does not mention the casualties as a result of the ANC's violence, but only those of the South African government. This makes it seem like more ANC members were killed in the struggle, and implies that the ANC is the "innocent" side. Although the intensity of the ANC's violence is unclear, it is stated that they simply "embarked on a campaign of sabotage and armed resistance against the South African government." However, based on the fact that they avoided violence until it was their last option, I could presume that they used it more reasonably than most terrorists. 3.) The actions of the state were extremely brutal in their desperation to maintain apartheid. Although they had a solid justification for this retaliation to the ANC's protest, I do not agree with their aims because they were "[cracking] down on black South Americans as racially motivated violence plagued the country", and I am in no way a supporter of racism.


 * [|Rough draft of terrorism position paper]**
 * [|Final draft of terrorism position paper]**
 * [|Presentation for FARC position paper]**