Modern+terrorism

Modern Terrorism:


Terrorism is when a threat or **violence** (against non-combat, non-military) is made by a person, or group. The act is against another area where the organization wants to create **terror** or **fear**. Terrorism depends on which perspective you are looking at it. It was defined once as any threat of violence that caused fear. It was then explained as a criminal agenda that planned on creating harm, panic, and placing lives, liberty and security in danger, including the environment and the public. Terrorism explained that it is an act that is not necessary. It is an unlawful violence that is supposed to intimidate the government or societies. Groups or people normally do not terrorize their own population, but it can happen. It is used to change political objective, spreading fear, to use violence, and to target (innocent) civilians. VIDEO NOTES: media type="custom" key="23771528" media type="custom" key="23850932"
 * Definition:**
 * IN CLASS **
 * terrorist may be rebelling against government
 * It is interpenetrated by countries differently. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
 * an act to promote a criminal agenda to install fear/intimidate
 * attempt to impact life, liberty, and property
 * Can be state sponsored (by government)
 * VIDEO **
 * The United Nation cannot agree on a definition for terrorism worldwide.
 * Each country has a different way of looking at it especially because someones terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter.
 * Terrorism can never be justified.
 * Terrorism Timeline:**

The types of terrorism that was used in the events that I identified in my timeline were mostly about bombings. There was one attack that involved chemical warfare. In the Olympics of 1972 hostages were taken as a type of terrorism. There were several hijackings of airplanes. They impacted ordinary citizens because most terrorism attacks created fear in people. They were scared to be in big buildings and probably next year not as many people will be at the finish line at the Boston Marathon. Some people wont be able to fly, but I know that 9/11 in a way, made the United States stronger. It gave be a sense of pride. Most citizens thought they were still in danger after the terrorist attacks. People were scared to participate in their everyday lives, like going on the subway or going into tall and popular buildings. It got World attention because innocent citizens were being killed.Terrorist want to make attacks that will get everyone attention. People started to fear terrorists and what they could do.
 * OPENER ON MODERN TERRORISM TIMELINE:**
 * Explain the types of terrorism used in the events you identified in your timeline?**
 * How did these events impact ordinary citizens?**
 * Why did it get world attention?**


 * __Revolutionary or Terrorist Article__**

media type="custom" key="23871900"

__**Case Study Articles**:__

media type="custom" key="23872316" __**Northern Ireland:**__ No, I do not think that the force was justifiable. I understand that they wanted their land back, but that does not give them the right to start using violence and killing people.
 * 1.Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not?**

No, the way the force was used was not acceptable. In the article it states how innocent civilians were in the middle of the acts of violence. 3,341 people were killed and most of them were innocent peop;e. I do not think that in this case violence was necessary and even at the end the IRA stopped using it.
 * 2.Was the way in which the force was acceptable?Provide evidence from the reading to agree or disagree.**
 * 3.What is your view of the response of the state to use force?**

__**Chechnya:**__ No, I do not think that the force was justifiable. I think Chechnya had good intentions, but they started to use violence against innocent civilians. Chechnya killed innocent people in Russia by taking hostages in a school No, i do not think it was justifiable for Chechnya and the way they used force. They started to use military based violence against Russia for a good reason, but then they used violence taking and murdering against innocent civilians. I think that the Chechnya had somewhat of good intentions, but ended up using more force and violence then needed and killed innocent people.
 * 1. Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not?**
 * 2. Was the way in which the force was used acceptable? Provide evidence from reading to agree or disagree.**
 * 3. What is your view of the response of the state to use force?**

No, I do not think that in this situation it was justifiable to use force. Chiapas had good intentions for themselves, but i do not think the violence was necessary. Then the military got involved which was, but they started to torture their citizens to get information. No the way they used force was not acceptable. The Chiapas started to set bombs and the way the military responded was not acceptable. I don't think it was right for the Chiapas to start setting bombs injuring and killing people, but then the government decide that civilians knew what were happening and started to torturer them which is never justifiable.
 * __Chiapas:__**
 * 1. Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not?**
 * 2. Was the way in which the force was used acceptable? Provide evidence from reading to agree or disagree.**
 * 3. What is your view of the response of the state to use force?**

I do because It was horrible that they weren't allowing them their rights which is wrong, but violence was not needed. I do think that the force was acceptable because they did not hurt innocent people. they went after the people who would not let them have education and their basic rights. I never think that violence is the answer or that it is okay to respond with force, but out of the four cases i believe that this cases use of violence is justifiable.
 * __South Africa:__**
 * 1. Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not?**
 * 2. Was the way in which the force was used acceptable? Provide evidence from reading to agree or disagree.**
 * 3. What is your view of the response of the state to use force?**

**Final Draft Tamil Tigers:**
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MJD1NYZ3-DHerBdvpi3Em1DD1hq1BidH9EFZc5R8Wkg/edit

**Visual Presentation:**
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1X0mC6ZR8bqnD5STEV-UO0GUGxR9ah_BrgK1m3-eVwvc/edit#slide=id.p

**Draft:**
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D7wMkvxUBlE_KBmIu0tH8TaqLe-y2Yf_PEGBI2xZ72M/edit

**Citations:**
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12U5DdEKHoE6e-eqUlytp5IlR14gK8SxBDvBsALoFlsU/edit