Theo
Slepski
Blog
Post 4
Terrorism is a talked about frequently in
international politics. In class discussion, I defined that terrorism is the unlawful
acts against a group of people to furthers one’s personal agenda. This differs
from organizations like the state department whose definition for terrorism is,
“Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant
targets by subnational groups/or clandestine agents.” (Lecture 21). I believe
that my definition is correct because I am trying to be as broad as possible
because I believe terrorism falls under many categories and to limit terrorism
to just politically motivated people is unfit.
Terrorism does not need to always fall under the category of politics. I believe that someone can still inflict terror among others and it may have nothing to do with a political agenda. In today’s world people commit horrible actions, that cause terror, with no real reason and because of this a lot of attacks are not defined as terrorism. The victims still experienced terror during the actions carried out against them. Because these victims still experience terror I believe that perpetrator should be labeled as a terrorist. Whether politics was involved has no real impact on whether or not this person committed terrorism or not.
Terrorism does not need to always fall under the category of politics. I believe that someone can still inflict terror among others and it may have nothing to do with a political agenda. In today’s world people commit horrible actions, that cause terror, with no real reason and because of this a lot of attacks are not defined as terrorism. The victims still experienced terror during the actions carried out against them. Because these victims still experience terror I believe that perpetrator should be labeled as a terrorist. Whether politics was involved has no real impact on whether or not this person committed terrorism or not.
Terrorism is too much of an important
topic to have one definition. I believe that there are different types of terrorism.
The first type of terrorism is political terrorism. I believe that the state
departments definition is perfect for this type of terrorism. It is important
to give this label because it is important to know if someone was politically
motivated or not. It is important for a state to differentiate these different
types because they need to know what political actions are causing terror. I
also believe there should be a second type of terrorism called non-political terrorism.
I believe that this kind of terrorism is exactly like political terrorism just
without politics involved.
I believe that splitting the definitions
into these two categories is efficient and limits misinterpretation. After the
Las Vegas shooting many people made the fact that the shooter was not being
called a terrorist in to a race issue. I believe this misconception should
never occur and I believe that the definition of terrorist is at fault for this.
I believe that defining words is very important and should not be taken
lightly.
Hi Theo, I understand what you are saying with the way terrorism is defined in the media. While I do agree that the way certain departments, such as the State Department, define terrorism in a way that best suits them, I believe that your definition of terrorism is a bit too broad. To me, the way you define terrorism would allow almost any act to be labeled an act of terrorism so long as some were afraid during/ as a result of the incident. I believe that there is a distinct difference between someone driving a truck down a busy sidewalk and killing dozens of people and a person who scares people during a home invasion. While both incidents scare individuals, they are not both acts of terrorism. I do agree that no all acts of terror are politically based. I think that for a lot of Americans, it is hard for them to view people who are American as able to commit acts of terror against fellow citizens. That may be why departments define these acts as politically based because it's difficult to fathom why some Americans choose to kill hundreds of other Americans.
ReplyDeleteHey Theo I thought this was very well done and I agree with a lot of it. However, I do think your definition of terrorism is a bit too broad. I am worried that things such as homicide will begin to be determined terrorism when they are not. Yet, I do agree that terrorism needs a different definition and I like how you talked about the Las Vegas incident was not about race but definition when determining if it was terrorism or not. I completely agree with you on this point. Terrorism is complex and we certainly need to revisit it and how it is defined.
ReplyDeleteHi Theo- I have to question you on something. You say "Terrorism does not need to always fall under the category of politics". I'd like an example. I think that "politics" can be synonymous with an agenda. Every terrorist is one for a certain political reason- they have a move in mind. I think religion, party affiliation, country you're from... any reason someone is a terrorist is for a political reason.
ReplyDelete