Modern+Terrorism



My definition of **terrorism**- Someone or a group of people who plan for attack on another place, disturbing its people in any way (not freedom fighters). They plan to attack an innocent public, and intend to cause harm or fear to its people. It may include a goal to make a political or religious point. They may b in the cat to rebel against the government. These criminal acts are intended or to provoke a state of terror in the general public, disturb its people in any way, or to cause intended harm into the public through their acts. Terrorist cause fear or arm the public, or to cause damage to their environment. It is an act to promote a criminal agenda or provoke intimidation.It is an attempt to corrupt life, liberty, and property. They have come to the conclusion that there is no agreement on what specifically defines terrorism, due to the fact that there are different perspectives that vary between people. Each country will have its own definition of terrorism, and it will always be that way.

media type="custom" key="23772868"
 * __Various definitions of Terrorism Mark-up:__**

**Choices Program: Scholars on Line: Responding to Terrorism**

[]
 * __Modern Terrorism Timeline:__**

__**Modern Terrorism Timeline Opener:**__ The types of terrorism linked with my timeline include #|airline hijackings, truck bombs, ship bombings, kidnappings, and chemical warfare.
 * 1. Explain the types of terrorism used in the events you identified in your timeline?**

These events did not only what they intended, to cause worry among the citizens; but it made them frightened and afraid. They were afraid to take part in things or go near things that were centralized around the areas or places that had been part of an attack or the location of an attack. It also caused these ordinary citizens to become more aware or the things that could happen no matter where they are. They were now cautious about the fact that terrorism can occur in their own country, and you are never guaranteed to be safe. People didn't want to have to worry about the possible attack at could be centered on their own country, but now they were. It made them afraid to live in their own country, which nobody should have to fear. Everyone was stunned that such terror and destruction had been done to their own country.
 * 2. How did these events impact ordinary citizens?**

These acts of terror got world attention because they caused harm to the people in it, both physically and emotionally. These people and their homes were struck with terror, and that is what these terrorists intended to happen. It caused people to become paranoid of what could possibly happen next. They now know that anything is equipped to happen at any given time without them being prepared for it.
 * 3. Why did it get world attention?**

media type="custom" key="23857240" ("So what paragraph" in mark-up)
 * __Revolutionary or Terrorist Mark-up:__**

media type="custom" key="23858510"
 * __Case Study Activity: ("So what paragraph in mark-up")__**

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 acceptable?Provide evidence from the reading to agree or disagree. 3.What is your view of the response of the state to use force?

1. Primarily, I believed that it was okay for them to use an act of force, but only for the circumstances of defending their own. But my view quickly changed after their attacks escalated to bombings, and led to the harms and deaths of the innocent civilians, which would now be classified as an act of terror.
 * Northern Ireland-**

2. I disagree with the claim that this force was in any way acceptable because it targeted many "innocent civilians", becoming the cause of their injury or death. There is no excuse for disturbing these innocent people, "violence" should not be the only way around it.

3. I am satisfied with the government's response on using force. I support their response because force should not be used in my opinion, although the response of the government should have been used earlier.


 * Chechnya-**

1. Again, I primarily believed that to some extent, there should be actions taken due to the fact that the practice of their own religion was being prohibited. With that, I do not think that it was a good enough reason to commit these acts of terror, that disturbed, destroyed, and killed these people and their homes. No measures should be taken to that extreme, or any measures that are putting the lives of others in this type of danger.

2. I was too quick to judge when I came across the prevention on them from "practicing their own religion", because they should have no reason to commit such crimes that they had. Different measures could have been addressed to get their point across. Additional effort could have saved many lives that they prohibited or ended, just to try to prove their point.

3. I disagree again with the response of the state, because they were permitting and encouraging these acts of terror, as they continued on with them after they had blamed other places for the occurrence of particular bombings, etc..

1. Started out with a good reasoning as to why they wanted attention and/ or justification to win over for these people in poverty, but the extent that they took their actions of violence to was uncalled for. There was no reason for the committing of these severe acts of terror, knowing that they would result in the harm or destruction of people or their homes. This harm was intended and is in fact terrorism.
 * Chiapas-**

2. The force was not acceptable because they harmed and killed innocent people in the process, along with their homes and their "military bases."

3. I disagree, because I think that more effort could have been taken into account for the discussion between governments. If the governments wanted to discuss more they could, but they haven't been and it is not helping the situation. If anything it is causing more and more destruction.


 * South Africa-**

1. I think that the primary measure taken by them was appropriate, because it was a campaign and was advertising non- violence to do so. But I do not think that the force applied when this didn't work out was acceptable, but I wasn't surprised that it was applied, because their act of non violence has failed.

2. I do not think that the force was acceptable as a whole, because in the end it did destroy "African Americans' rights", harmed many, and resulted in he death of many. It also failed to demonstrate their point in a "peaceful" manner.

3. I strongly disagree with the actions of terror taken by this government completely. I think that under no circumstances should they resort to the intended deaths of all of those 600 people in the uprising. This action was the government's responsibility, and was not acceptable under any circumstances in my opinion.


 * __Rough Draft of Position Paper:__**


 * __Final Draft Position Paper:__**


 * __Google Presentation For CEPA:__**

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aHpOMQhay3CXLqrHt5B_gizwwYUwwUPzjxKxWTTBrm0/edit?usp=sharing