Modern+Terrorism

Terrorism is when there is an attack or threat of people of a different race or ethnicity. It is a threat to the society; a large number of people, or anyone who works in the government However, the word "terrorist," is controversial due to different people's perspective in the matter of terrorism However everyone has in common is when there is an attack or threat against a person's life.

media type="custom" key="23768688"


 * United Nations Struggles to define Terrorism **

Even the United States is having a hard time trying to find a single definition of what "terrorism," is. Even the quote, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is used in the video because of different perspectives of people.





media type="custom" key="23864238"

media type="custom" key="23922648"

** Case Study Activity: ** Northern Ireland has been the scene of political violence for many years. The region is currently a province of the United Kingdom, while the rest of Ireland is a republic that gained its independence from Britain in 1921. Several unofficial military organizations, including the Irish republican Army (IRA) have fought for British withdrawal from Northern Ireland, often through violent means. British security forces as well as other Irish Loyalists “paramilitaries” intent on remaining under British rule, have fought back. Between 1969 and 2002, 3,341 people were killed and more than 47,000 injured. Many of the victims were innocent civilians caught in acts of violence perpetrated by the different factions. In January 1972, in an incident known as Bloody Sunday, British paratroopers fired on protesters, killing fourteen and injuring another thirteen; this event only managed to intensify the struggle. However, in April 1998, a peace accord that became known as the Good Friday Agreement led many to hope for a peaceful resolution of the political differences. Despite this settlement, violence continued to plague the region. In August 1998, an IRA splinter group claimed responsibility for bombing a shopping center in the town of Omagh, which killed 29 and wounded hundreds. In 2006, an independent government commission announced that the IRA had committed itself to following a political path and had instructed its members not to use force.
 * Instructions: **
 * For each case you should answer the following three questions:
 * Using the standards of the international law community, you are to decide if the case represents terrorism or an act of a freedom fighter
 * 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 is your view of the response of the state to use force?**
 * __Northern Ireland__:**

1. The descision to use force is not acceptable or justifiable because the British paratroopers had attacked innocent people and as read in this article about Northern Ireland, it is home of violence and violence should not be acceptable to deal with issues or problems. 2. Force was not acceptable because the British attacked those who did not want to be under their command and yet they fought back and forced them under their command. If British and other loyalists wanted to remain under britain rule, than that is fine for them, but those who do not want to, should be able to build their own kind of state or country of their own to follow under the rules that does not oppress them or want to hurt them. 3. To use force to make someone to follow and believe in something is not right because people have rights and should express themselves they want to without the use of excessive force or killing innocent lives.

In 1994, Chechen armed separatists launched a military-style attack campaign designed to drive Russia out of Chechnya, part of the Russian Federation. The Chechens claimed to be fighting for freedom from an oppressive regime that prevented them from practicing their religion- Islam- and that offered no hope for the future. In response, the Russian military has used its weapons against civilians, killing more than ten thousand and displacing half a million from their homes. A peace treaty was reached in 1997, but fighting resumed between Russian troops and Chechens in the fall of 1999. Russian president, Putin defended Russian military action in Chechnya claiming that Chechnya was being used as a springboard for international terrorism against Russia; the Russian government claimed that foreign Islamic terrorists were fighting alongside the Chechens. Furthermore, the Russian government blamed the Chechen rebels for a series of September 1999 bombings of Moscow apartment buildings that killed several hundred Russians. These incidents provoked a strong military response from Moscow, including airstrikes against several Chechen towns and the capital of Grozny. In October 2002, more than forty Chechen militants took eight-hundred theater goers hostage in Moscow. In the government’s rescue attempt 129 hostages and all the hostage takers were killed. The school hostage crisis in Beslan, Russia in September of 2004 resulted in the deaths of close to 350 people.
 * __Chechnya__**:

1. The use of force that the Chechen had used was acceptable because they only wanted to have basic freedom and liberty to themselves. However the force used by the Russain military cannot be justified since they have killed innocent civilians who were probably not involved with it. Russian military has no proof that Chechen was siding with terrorists or not. 2. The force used by the Chechen is acceptable because they were trying to drive Russians out of their area and they were "fighting for freedom from an oppressive regimen." 3. Russian has no justification to attack the people of Chechen like that besides for their safety but to put other peoples lives at risk isn't justifiable. Chechen were trying to gain their rights and their home back from the Russians and no longer wanted to be ruled by them. Similar to the revolutionists and the British. In the remote southern state of Chiapas, Mexico, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation began an armed rebellion against the Mexican government in January 1, 1994. The Zapatistas claimed to be fighting against poverty and injustice and for the rights of indigenous peoples. Led by a man referred to as Sub Commander Marcos, hundreds of peasant soldiers, their faces covered by black ski masks or red bandanas, operated in the countryside. Although most Zapatistas carried weapons dating back to WWII, they occupied several key towns and attacked a regional military base. More than one hundred people were killed in the uprising, including government soldiers, peasants, and government employees. The Zapatistas blew up telephone and electrical towers and detonated car bombs in Mexico City, injuring several people. The Mexican military responded with force, and international human rights groups accused the military of torturing villagers to get information on the rebels. Since 1995, the Zapatistas have been committed to negotiating with the Mexican government. Nevertheless, talks between the government and the Zapatista have often stalled. The conflict pitted village against village, often spilling over into Bloodshed. In 1997, for example, pro-government forces massacred 45 villagers for their support of the Zapatista. At the same time, the Zapatistas rely on internet band cell phones to maintain a sophisticated communication network.
 * Chiapas:**

1. The use of torturing people for information is not the right thing to do from the Mexican military because the Zapatista only wanted to fight against poverty and rights of others that the Mexican government have been ignoring. They were mainly trying to attack those who were involved in the government so they could prove a point. 2. The force was acceptable because the Zapatista had a justifiable reason and that was to fight "against poverty, and injustice, and for the right of indigenous people." Also they had mainly attacked the government who are responsible for these things they are trying to fight for. 3. For the Zapatista to use force to directly attack the ones who are causing their sufferings or peoples pain is a better way then attacking a large group of people for attention.

When the South African government codified into law its system of apartheid in 1948, the African National Congress, a political movement begun in the early 20th century, launched a national campaign of non-violent resistance to the government’s official system of racial segregation. But after years of political struggle, the ANC had made no progress against the increasingly oppressive apartheid regime. In the early 1960s, the ANC decided that it would use violence to fight the white government, which denied black South Africans their most basic human rights, including access to education, the right to vote, and the right to travel where they wanted. Following the 1960 massacre of 69 black Africans by South African forces at a peaceful demonstration in Sharpeville, the ABC embarked on a campaign of sabotage against the country’s infrastructure and armed resistance against the South African government. The South African government continued to crack down on black South Africans as racially motivated violence plagued the c country. In 1976, government forces killed more than six hundred people in an uprising at the Soweto Township.
 * South Africa**:

1. This was acceptable because there was no force needed, instead the African Americans had used a campaign. 2. There was no force needed, however the government was not fair to the African Americans because they had no rights and it is surprising to see that the African Americans aren't trying to attack the government. 3. The government in my opinion deserves to be bombed and to be hurt by those who they are oppressing because it is mainly at the government and for those who are trying to fight for rights and survival and the health of each other. The government is usually to be at blamed and instead of hurting innocent lives just to gain the government attention, the best way is to attack them directly even if they are "innocent," however they are to be at blame.

media type="custom" key="23874502"