Modern+Terrorism

Modern Terrorism

My own definition: My personal definition of what Modern Terrorism is, is when other regions of the world attack one another only because they don't like the way one another's country works. (So terrorism is a consecutive act of attacks on people, towns, nations, ect. due to their beliefes to make a political or any other type of point against the people that believe what they don't agree with.) (One mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter.) -No clear definition -Attacks on a community or nation -State or Non State sponsered -Intimidation -Attacks on life, liberty, and property -One country attacks one another due to life-style choices -To make a political point Various Definitions of Terrorism –first thoughts; war in Iraq

Controversy in Defining Terrorism The difficulty in defining “terrorism” is in agreeing on a basis fordetermining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate;therefore, the modern definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. So there are many definitions of what terrorism really is? The use of violence for theachievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The majority of definitions inuse has been written by agencies directly associated with government, and is systematically biased toexclude governments from the definition. The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative-- itdenotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. ** As a practical matter, so-called acts of “terrorism” or terrorismare often a tactic committed by the actors as part of a larger military or geo-political agenda. an attack ?

United NationsThe UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60 (adopted on December 9, 1994), titled "Measures toEliminate International Terrorism," contains a provision describing terrorism: Criminal acts intended orcalculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons forpolitical 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 justifythem. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition of terrorism, and this fact has been amajor obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Terminology consensus would benecessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favor in place ofthe present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols. Cynics have often commented that one state's"terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter" so for people in America we consider our side the “freedom fighter” and Iraq as the “terrorist.”

The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism was adopted by the Council of Arab Ministers ofthe Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice in Cairo, Egypt in 199=. Terrorism was defined inthe convention as: Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in theadvancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people,causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to causedamage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizingthem, or seeking to jeopardize national resources. hence why they attacked us….

UN Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004) gives a definition:

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodilyinjury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in agroup of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or aninternational organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

A UN panel, on March 17, 2005, described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or seriousbodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compellinga government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”

European Union

The European Union defines terrorism for legal/official purposes in Art.1 of the Framework Decisionon Combating Terrorism (2002). This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences setout in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which: given theirnature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committedwith the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government orinternational organization to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilizing ordestroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or aninternational organization.

United Kingdom The United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act “designed seriously tointerfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system”. An act of violence is not even necessaryunder this definition. This is just a bad definition.

United States

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Title 18 of the United StatesCode defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113(B),defines terrorism as: “…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation ofthe criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate orcoerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…”

US Patriot Act of 2001: terrorist activities include • threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles. • threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons, such as government officials • any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for "mere personal monetary gain

FBI definition of terrorism: 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.

U.S. Army Manual definition terrorism is the "calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies ... [to attain]political, religious, or ideological goals." U.S. Army Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Chapter 9, 37 (14 June2001).

Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. (Pretty much all the terrorism definitions sound alike except United Kingdoms and the United States. The United States goes way more into depth with details and the United Kingdom was just way off.)

State TerrorismState terrorism has been defined as acts of terrorism conducted by governments or terrorism carriedout directly by, or encouraged and funded by, an established government of a state (country) orterrorism practiced by a government against its own people or in support of international terrorism.“State terrorism” is as controversial a concept as that of terrorism itself. Terrorism is often, though notalways, defined in terms of four characteristics: (1) the threat or use of violence; (2) a political objective;the desire to change the status quo; (3) the intention to spread fear by committing spectacular publicacts; (4) the intentional targeting of civilians. This last element--targeting innocent civilians (Just like in Syria, but we as in the United States, shouldn’t get involved) —isproblematic when one tries to distinguish state terrorism from other forms of state violence.

Democratic regimes may foster state terrorism of populations outside their borders or perceived asalien; but they do not terrorize their own populations because a regime that is truly based on the violentsuppression of most citizens (not simply some) would cease to be democratic. Dictatorships terrorizetheir own populations; democracies do not; but they can engage in state sponsored terrorism in othercountries.

Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violenceto punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes, but many would argue that democraciesare also capable of terrorism. Israel has for many years been characterized by critics, especially in theArab world, United Nations Resolutions, and human rights organizations, as perpetrating terrorismagainst the population of the territories it has occupied since 19<7.

Critics also accuse the United States of terrorism for backing not only the Israeli occupation, but otherrepressive regimes willing to terrorize their own citizens to maintain power. Palestinian militants callIsrael terrorist, Kurdish militants call Turkey terrorist, Tamil militants call Indonesia terrorist; and, ofcourse, the nation-states call the militants who oppose their regimes “terrorists”. Like “beauty”,“terrorism” is in the eye of the beholder. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Hence,the difficulty in defining TERRORISM.

(it all depends on what side you’re looking at things from.)

MODERN TERRORISM TIMELINE:

Modern Terrorism Timeline