Just because it is a terrible act, is it an act of terrorism? State and support your position.

Extending from the foregoing, does it matter that there is no common or universally developed definition for terrorism? Does the fact that there is no universal definition allow for confusion, shifting definitions resultant of political expedience and/or opportunities for terrorists to exploit? State and support your position.

400 words

opportunities for terrorists to exploit? State and support your position. 

Example Below

Class,

On this week’s discussion board terrorism is our main idea. Now we have witness acts of violence on TV or the news. Murders, wars, or any other form that brings death to others. But I will say that terrorism is just an act of bringing fear into a community or country. 9/11 and all the different terror attacks in Europe that killed innocent people because of ideological reasons will be considered acts of terrorism. In my opinion, it should be a common definition for terrorism because it brings a common ground on how it should be processes in the court of law.

I will say that it brings confusion because it will depend of the effect of such terrorist act. For example, an environmental group could set an auto manufacturer plant on fire or hacking the IT system without injuring a person for the idea of no more CO2 emission. This might not be a terrorist act since no humans were killed. But should we place this as a terrorist act because it involves a critical infrastructure of the country? This act could create chaos in the country economic balance which many people will be affected. Since there is not a definition, I could conclude that certain terrorist organizations could be creative in order to not be considered “terrorist” but continue with acts that create chaos and fear within a community.

Good afternoon class. I would say that not every terrible act is an act of terrorism. An individual who gets into a drunken bar fight and kills the other individual would not be an act of terrorism as compared to the events of 9/11. While there may not be a universal definition, one key piece of terrorism that seems to be found in each and every event is the fact that there is premeditation. In my reading in the class and prior to, I have never seen an event of terrorism that occurred as a dynamic event. Each attack occurs only after extensive planning and preparation has been conducted.

I would also assert that a universal definition of terrorism may have been beneficial in days past but considering what we see in today’s society, then it is not necessary. It seems that for the past twenty plus years, all events that we categorically classify as terrorism have occurred with maximum efforts towards violence. While the goal may to be to bring about knowledge of the organization and its recognition associated with the event(s), the individuals and/or groups do as much devastation as possible. The bigger the event, the bigger the news coverage. This can also be related when you look at the targets of the event. When the target is of strategic value such as a military post receiving mortar rounds it does not bring the same level of exposure then say attacking groups of women and children at a music festival as seen in Israel.

That being said, it is almost impossible to find take a room full of people and find common ground on topics such as defining terrorism simply due to political affiliation, cultural, and generational differences. I think these factors affect the ability for the world to come to a common ground on defining terrorism. Lacking a definition will not have any effect on whether a group or individual decides to conduct or not conduct the act that they feel is necessary to push their cause or agenda.