Categorical terrorism, according to Jeff Goodwin, is defined as “the strategic use of violence and threats of violence, usually intended to influence several audiences, by oppositional political groups against civilian or noncombatants who belong to a specific entity, religious or national group, social class or some other collectivity, without regard to their individual identities or roles.” More so, in terms of definition, according to a study done by Jeffrey Record in 2003, there was a count of over 109 definitions of terrorism, covering 22 different categorical elements. During the 70s and 80s, the United Nations struggled to define the term, finally coming up with the following definition: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political 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 justify them.”
Clearly, the UN definition being more general as any act of terror, it is found that revolutionary groups adopt the use of categorical terrorism because it is commonly cheaper than selective terrorism. Further, Goodwin argues that categorical terrorism is employed for the purpose of attacking and threatening what he calls “complicitous civilians.” Complicitous civilians are defined as (1) civilians who often benefit from state actions that the revolutionaries oppose, (2) those that support the state, (3) or civilians who have the ability to influence the state. The primary directive of categorical terrorism is to provoke complicitous civilians from further supporting the state. By applying intense...
... middle of paper ...
...ilians, the reward was clear.
Likewise, Goodwin illustrates how the use of categorical terrorism can be seem being used by Al-Qaida during the attacks of 9/11. Nonetheless, it is evident that Al-Qaida is unusual in terms of using terrorism to influence the rise of unity rather than trying to overthrow a standing state. For the purpose of instigating a pan-Islamic revolutionary movement, Al-Qaida tries to unite all Islamic people under one state to develop umma, or Muslim community. The logic of Al-Qaida remained that if their “revolutionaries” could illicit a reaction from the powerful US state, resulting in oppression of the middle-eastern region, that Al-Qaida could, as a result, unite all Muslims to counter this suggested oppression. Although the end goal of Al-Qaida clear failed, it does suggest the organization’s attempt at implementing categorical terrorism.
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
The film Casablanca centers on an American man by the name of Rick Blaine who flees a German-occupied France during World War II to a city in Morocco by the name of Casablanca. (Casablanca, 1942) This city is a territory of France at the time and is out of full German jurisdiction due to this status. (Casablanca, 1942) Many citizens of German-occupied countries in Europe sought refuge here due to the lack of control Germany had on other countries’ territories early in the war. The general intent of refugees in Casablanca was to flee to even further countries such as The United States of America, which they could not achieve in their home, occupied countries. As the film’s plot develops, the viewer is introduced to refugees very important to the freedom-fighting movement France, and we learn that Rick originated in New York, U.S.A.
Initially popularized during the French Revolution, the term “terrorism,” at its inception, was a distinctly positive word; from the rubble of the first revolts in 1789, stemmed the regime de la terreur, an instrument of governance meant to further propel the success of the revolutionaries through the intimidation of those loyal to the dictatorial regime which governed France for much of the eighteenth century (Hoffman 3). Ironically, given the modern interpretation of terrorism, the revolutionaries who would ultimately constitute the regime de la terreur were advocating for virtue and democracy––in fact, one of the figureheads of the revolutionary movement Maximilien Robespierre was renowned for having said: “virtue, without which terror is
The truth behind stories is not always what happened, with each person 's perspective is where their truth lies. In the beginning of the novel, you start to think that it is going to be the same old war stories you read in the past, but it changes direction early. It is not about how the hero saves the day, but how each experience is different and how it stays with you. From his story about Martha, to how he killed a man, each one is so different, but has its own meaning that makes people who have not been in war, understand what it is like. Tim O’Brien can tell a fake story and make you believe it with no doubt in your mind. He does this throughout the novel. In The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien distinguishes truth from fantasy and the
The reason I picked this book is because I have always been curious about terrorism. Truthfully, I really didn’t expect the book to take the stance it did, which focused mainly on the religious implications of what influences people to commits acts of terror. I liked the fact that the book takes new angles in approaching the search for truth, by focusing on case studies and performing interviews with the people who have committed terrorist acts. This is like getting the insiders view of the inner workings and frame of mind people have before, during, and after they have unswervingly performed the acts of violence.
Several individuals in this course displayed ideas that were different from the norm in their society. The dominant group or worldview in their society marginalized them, but they found ways to defy the dominant group or they created an alternative environment where they could pursue their goals without being affected by others. These individuals have utilized the past to base their actions for the goal of transforming the social order, however, there were problems that arose from the usage of the past. In The Return of Martin Guerre, Bertrande de Rols used her unfruitful marriage to start a new life based on her own choices, but her past life became mediated by the law and she could not continue her masked story when the truth was evident.
“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 film Lawrence of Arabia illustrations the experiences of a man’s exploration of places he has never been before, both on the globe and within his own mind. The leading role is sent to the Middle East during World War One, his experiences there are display disputes that are still prevalent in today’s world. The issues dealt with by the Arabians in the movie and the continued problems in present day Middle East are consequences of European domination. This control is executed through the idea of imperialism or, a countries attempt to expand their power, usually done by means of colonization, in an effort to strengthen their own countries livelihood. The conquest of Arabia by the British was the beginning of the political issues today in the
The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as
on his motor bike. This appears like the 'eye of God'. As soon as the
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).
For example, the Russian word kramola or kramol’nik (sedition or any form of revolt) has been interchangeably used with fanatik (fanatic), zlodei (evil-doer), and zloumyshlennik (evil-thinker) (9). Therefore, in Russian law, a terrorist is not only one who enacts a deed but also a person who thinks and spreads the idea of it. In its most basic form, terrorism is “a frontal assault on any moral, political, or social” order (11). Through the use of violence, terrorists “provoke consciousness” and “evoke certain feelings of sympathy”; and, it is the people’s consciousness of their own grievance that allows for the rise of terrorism. (11).
The U.S. Department of State 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”. Whereas the Belgium Red Cross says that terrorism is committed “for the purpose of intimidating the population, forcing a third party to act or destablishing or destroying the fundamental structures of a country or of an international organization”.
The compelling need for the international community to come up with a comprehensive definition of terrorism is so that all nations have the same understanding of what is and what is not terrorism. By having an internationally agreed upon definition by all nations, it will make it easier for the country that experiences acts of terrorism to prosecute the perpetrators of the terrorist acts. In doing this ‘people’ who are trying to achieves international notoriety by committing ‘illegal’ acts which they see as terrorist acts to gain recognition in the international community, would be less likely to commit these illegal acts. It would also not gain them the worldwide recognition they seek.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,