Modern+Terrorism

media type="custom" key="23769982"




 * __Terrorism__- an intended act of violence against non-combatants caused by a person or group of people with a ** **purpose to intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or stop an action, instill fear in people, and to make a political or religious point. Some forms of terrorism include: placing lives of people in danger, causing damage to a property or the environment, or seizing a land. Any violence caused by the use of weapons, cars, airplanes, boats, buses and other vehicles are considered to be a terrorist act.**

**In Class Definition of Terrorism**
 * **violence against non-combatants ( non-military)**
 * **instill fear in people**
 * **goal to make a political or religious point**
 * **an act to promote a criminal agenda**
 * **terrorist may be rebelling against government**
 * **intimidation**
 * ** attempt to impact life, liberty, and property **
 * ** state sponsored by governmen **


 * United Nations Struggles to define Terrorism video **
 * ** One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter **
 * ** The ambassador of Syria states that we have to distinguish between combating terrorism and the right of people to combat foreigners to achieve the right determination. **
 * ** UN will soon be discussing the root causes of terrorism **



media type="custom" key="23839654"

OPENER Most of the events I researched about involved bombings, hostage taking, hijackings, shootings, and chemical warefare.
 * 1.Explain the types of terrorismn used in the events you identitfied in your timeline?**

It impacted ordinary citizens becuase innocent people died and many builidngs and property were destroyed which disrupts the routine of the community. After 9/11, people became scared of going into tall buildings and traveling on airplanes.
 * 2. How did these events imoact ordinary citizens?**

Most of the events got world attaention becuase there were many casualties involved and because it happened in well known places.
 * 3.Why did it get world attention?**

media type="custom" key="23870420"

media type="custom" key="23872234" __**Northern Ireland**__ I believe that violence shouldn't of been used and it should've been negotiated among the governors. I disagree because the article said that "several unofficial military organizations, including the IRA have fought for the British withdrawal from Northern Ireland through violent means" I agreed with the independent government commission that the IRA isn't allowed to use that force.
 * 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 of disagree**.
 * 3.What I your view of the response of the sate to use force?**

__**Chechnya**__ I believe that at first the Chechnya started out as freedom fighters because they were being controlled by Russia, but later on I think they became terrorists because they started to act violently against the Russians. I think it was justifiable for Chechnya because they were using military based violence against Russia and it was for a good reason but once they started taking hostages and killing Russian civilians I consider that to be an act of terrorism. I think that The Chechnya had a good reason to protest but then they got carried away and started to use violence. __**Chiapas**__ I don't believe that in this situation it was justifiable to use force because the Chiapas said they were just going to attack the military but they ended up killing many innocent people in terrible ways. No, it wasn't acceptable because they bombed places that innocent people were. I think it was unfair because the Chiapas had warned the other military group they would just bomb their military but then they ended up killing hundreds of their people. __**South Africa**__ I believe that their decision was acceptable and justifiable because they deserved their rights but they shouldn't have used violence I believe it was acceptable because they have had good intentions.
 * 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 was your view of the response of the state to use force?**
 * 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 was your view of the response of the state to use force?**
 * 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 was your view of the response of the state to use force?**
 * I** think the response of violence could've been a little less violent because i feel like it wasn't necessary to use violence

Position Paper Rough Draft []

Position Paper Final Draft []

[|CEPA Presentation]