Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Common definitions of terrorism
Common definitions of terrorism
Common definitions of terrorism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Common definitions of terrorism
In the year 2008, in an interview with Dan Rivers from CNN, Imam Samudra, the main actor of the 2002 Bali bombing in Indonesia, said that he would never apologize to the non-Muslim victims of the tragedy. His reason was that his religion, Islam, based on his interpretation and understanding, allows him to kill the infidels (CNN, 2008; Rivers, 2008). Moreover, Imam Samudra considered his actions as jihad in the meaning of an “obligation to fight a limited war” (Hassan, 2007). In the same interview, Amrozi, Imam Samudra’s fellow terrorist, was showing a happy face and saying "Alhamdulillâh", in the sense of "thank God", when Rivers showed pictures of the victims and some of other images according to his terror act in Bali (CNN, 2008). By using Kaplan and Weinberg’s approach to extremism (1998), Samudra and Amrozi’s way of thinking obviously shown that they are extremists, especially in terms of their antagonism with other groups based on their own moral legitimacy. But, by the same token, they are clearly convicted as terrorists. How the terms extremism and terrorism are actually relate? This short piece would try to answer the question by discussing the proportion that while all terrorists are extremists, not all extremists are terrorists. Besides providing clear definitions about those terms, this essay will also try to explain and assess the definitions by arguments and examples.
The terms or behaviors of extremism and terrorism may share some similarities, but, in fact, they have subtle differences. Perhaps, it is more likely understandable that all terrorists are extremists, but the question that might be raised is: Does employing an extreme religious, political, or ideological view necessarily entail terrorism? Some scholars may argue that the terms extremism and terrorism are difficult to be defined (Juergensmeyer, 2003). However, by borrowing Pressman & Flockton (2014) point of view about the terms, it is more likely acceptable that while extremism does not require violent actions, terrorism always requires violence to achieve some political goals (p. 123).
According to Kaplan and Weinberg (1998) extremism is a perspective that define the reality just into two oppositional categories, black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. They said that, “[it is] an outlook…that is built around monism and moralism that rejects ambiguity" (p. 11). It means that extremists’ point of view to these categories is strict and has no compromise. Furthermore, they put their selves on the “good” side while they are pointing out the others as “wrong” or “evil”.
So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill, three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime—the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth, and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment.
According to Gandhi and Martin Luther King using non-violent actions to fight against the discriminatory actions against the oppression was an important act. This was because they argued that the civil rights of the oppressed could only be achieved by using these nonviolent actions (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011). The two also argued that only by nonviolent actions would the chances of negotiations be given to the oppressed people as they would have earned the civil rights in a true manner. This manner of resistance is portrayed in King’s use of the extremist whereby these oppressed people are seen to advocate for direct actions that disobeys the law so as to cause a crisis that will enable them to fight the discriminative
Patricia Roberts-Miller, a professor of rhetoric, defines demagoguery as “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and scapegoat some out-group, largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called “an escape from freedom” (Roberts-Miller 50). One of the more common forms of demagoguery is polarization, which divides a diverse range of people into two polar opposite groups. The in-group is looked at as the good and correct group while the out-group is demonized and viewed as wrong and evil. The idea of in-group and out-group thinking, “insists that those who are not with us are against us”, creating a stronger hatred against the out-group (Miller 60). Demagoguery occurs most often in times
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.
In Module one, I learned that terrorism is a result of physical harm or deadly acts of force with the intent of a political outcome by the use of terror for coercion. There are various types of terrorism such as international terrorism and domestic terrorism. International terrorism occurs outside of the United States with a purpose to influence the policy of a government by intimidation. International and Domestic terrorism both involve violent acts dangerous to human life that violate federal and state laws. Domestic terrorism occurs within the United States with the intention of coercion or intimidation by way of mass destruction, etc. Some forms of terrorism include Improvised explosive devices (IED), kidnappings, suicide bombings and
Trying to decipher the mentality of terrorism and the fledgling terrorists to be is certainly an intriguing topic. There are too many unknowns in the human psyche to truly break down what really contributes to radicalization. The fundamental factors that lead individuals towards terrorist organizations, religious cults and violent and destructive riots is the needs of the weak willed to be a part of something larger than themselves. Ignorance of others customs, courtesies and cultural practices coupled with religion tends to be the driving factors, many distort to influence hate in future radicals. Sarah Kershaw discusses extremist beliefs justifying violence with a higher moral condition set by their religion, ethnicity and or national political struggles (2010). Through that reasoning people are able to justify violence as a means of influence or control over a given situation or purpose. To me this breaks down as the criminally culpable ignorance of the many lead by the charismatic and deceitful few.
Terrorism has been around for centuries and religion-based violence has been around just as long. (Hoffman, 2). The violence was never referred to as terrorism though. Only up to the nineteenth century has religion been able to justify terrorism (Hoffman, 2). Since then, religious terrorism became motivated and inspired by the ideological view (Hoffman, 3). Therefore, it has turned against the main focus of religion and more towards the views of the extremist and what is happening politically (Winchester, 4).
“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.
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.
Extremism manifests itself dangerously in the Islam religion (Palmer, Monte, and Princess Palmer, 37). The Muslim religion has some laws and believes that no one should question their design, origin or application. Good people should punish immoral people in Islam religion without showing mercy to them. In Islam, human beings have no right to offer forgiveness to others that can easily lead to and create peace to oneself in the society. The unforgiving nature makes human rights groups in many ways try to change and support governments that try to overthrow Muslim extremist governments. Such an approach creates a war never ending between the Muslim governments and other governments that fight the extremist ideals. In East Africa, Somalia presents a case example by observing how the Government is not able to control the ever fighting and dreadful Al-Shabaab. The “Al-Shabaab” is an Arab name for Muslim youth who over the years try to use enforce extremist rulers in governing the country and hence controlling the resources. Muslim fighters and rebels arm themselves with arsenals they use to fight groups that oppose them by killing and torturing them. The al-Shabaab launches attacks that kill people and openly claim responsibility for the losses and the deaths they cause. They also punish members who commit sin using the retrogressive laws of the Quran on the people they label sinners. Other extremist
In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism is wrong, he defines what terrorism is, what causes terrorism, and what people believe terrorism to mean. With a working definition in place, Khatchadourian examines terrorism’s role in a just war and shows that terrorism is never just, even during war. With the assertion that terrorism, even during wartime is unjust, Khatchadourian analyzes the variations of innocence and non-innocence surrounding the victims of a terrorist attack. The analysis of innocence and non-innocence is accomplished through review of the principal of discrimination and the principal of proportion and how each relates to terrorism. From these philosophical and ethical standpoints, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism is unjust and wrong because of the way it groups and punishes the innocent with the guilty, not allowing the victim to properly respond to the charges against them. Finally, Khatchadourian looks at how terrorism is always wrong because of the way it denies a person their basic human rights. In examination of person’s human rights, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism specifically “violates its targets’ right to be treated as moral persons,” as it inflicts pain, suffering and death to those who are not deserving (298).
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.
To be a fundamentalist is to wholly believe in the doctrine they are preaching or professing and will go to any lengths possible to have these beliefs implemented by their government, (even using force or violence) (Garner, Ferdinand and Lawson, 2007, p. 149). All religions have a fundamentalist element, however, there is more of a significant conflict between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists. It is wrongly thought fundamentalism is exclusively linked to Islamic fundamentalists such as the jihadi group al-Qaeda. Nonetheless, Christianity is the world's largest religion and is bound to have some fundamentalist component such as the Christian New Right in the United States of America (Garner, Ferdinand and Lawson, 2007, p. 150)....
In both given articles, “The Roots of Muslim Rage” by Bernard Lewis, and “The Roots of Muslim Rage Revisited” by Nicolaas J.E. van der Zee, argue about the enhancement of the Muslim fundamentalism with different perspectives; however, I believe that Lewis’ view may be quiet misleading to the actual perception. Lewis indicates that Muslim fundamentalism is conceived through the Muslim community’s oppression and dissatisfaction with the West’s political involvement, as well as “Islam is a source of aggression” . In defiance of Lewis’ opinion, the word ‘Islam’ comes from the word peace as well as the will of submission to God. The notion of aggression and violence that Lewis conceptualizes to be the headline of Islam does not have any supporting
Islam, the religion of peace and harmony has unfortunately been corrupted by the deadly terrorist acts which have taken place around the world during these past couple of years. Today the people in this world view Islam as a threatening and terrorist religion. Often, the killing of innocent people, suicidal bombings and terrorist attacks are carried out people who tend to claim themselves as Muslims, though in reality, the dissident actions of these so called named Muslims have nothing to do with Islam. Among all the attributes of God, the Holy Book (Quran) mentions that: he is the source of peace and bestower of security (59:23) people must establish peace in their life. Terrorism what a complete disgrace, however people forget one thing that terrorism is not only found in Islam yet also continued in other religions and countries. But then why Islam? Is it because terrorism has been related to Islam just like peace is to war. The terrorist that claim they are Muslim with pride are oblivious, ignorant and it shows their lack of knowledge. The Holy Quran clearly states that: