Week 1 Discussion Due Oct 28, 2020

Week 1 Discussion Dueoct 28 2020 1159 Pmmcj6404 Political Terroris

The discussion assignment provides a forum for discussing relevant topics for this week on the basis of the course competencies covered. For this assignment, make sure you post your initial response to the Discussion Area by the due date assigned. To support your work, use your course and text readings and also use the South University Online Library. As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format. Start reviewing and responding to the postings of your classmates as early in the week as possible.

Respond to at least two of your classmates’ initial postings. Participate in the discussion by asking a question, providing a statement of clarification, providing a point of view with a rationale, challenging an aspect of the discussion, or indicating a relationship between two or more lines of reasoning in the discussion. Cite sources in your responses to other classmates. Complete your participation for this assignment by the end of the week.

Definition of Terrorism When trying to understand the accurate definition of terrorism, various concepts need to be analyzed. With reference to this week’s problem statement, utilize the resources provided to you and your own research, and post your responses to the following questions:

  • Are hate crimes acts of terrorism? Why or why not? Provide examples to support your response.
  • How important is extremism in defining terrorism? Why?
  • What are the characteristics of extremists that make them resemble terrorists?
  • How is the definition of terrorism in the United States different from the definition of terrorism in other parts of the world? Why is this so?
  • Can terrorism ever be justified? Why or why not?
  • What do you perceive as the problems in arriving at a universal definition of terrorism?

Paper For Above instruction

The complex nature of terrorism definition encompasses various political, social, and legal interpretations worldwide, which complicates efforts to establish a universally accepted understanding. Central to this debate are issues surrounding hate crimes, extremism, and the contextual differences between national and international perspectives on terrorism. This essay explores whether hate crimes constitute acts of terrorism, the significance of extremism in defining terrorism, the characteristics of extremists, international variations in terrorism definitions, the moral considerations regarding the justification of terrorism, and the challenges inherent in devising a universal definition.

Hate Crimes as Acts of Terrorism

Hate crimes are acts committed against individuals or groups based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or other identity markers. Whether hate crimes qualify as terrorism depends largely on the intent and impact of these acts, and the legal frameworks of specific jurisdictions. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), terrorism involves unlawful acts intended to intimidate or coerce for political or social objectives (FBI, 2019). When hate crimes are perpetrated to instill fear within a particular community with the objective of advancing a political or ideological agenda, they may be classified as terrorism. For example, the 2017 attack on a mosque in Quebec was considered by authorities as an act of domestic terrorism, given its targeted nature and intent to intimidate a religious community (CBC News, 2017). Conversely, hate crimes motivated solely by personal conflicts, without broader ideological aims, are typically not categorized as terrorism. Thus, the contextual motivations behind hate crimes determine their classification.

The Significance of Extremism in Defining Terrorism

Extremism plays a pivotal role in the conceptualization of terrorism because it often involves the adoption of radical beliefs that justify the use of violence. Extremists deny moderation and promote uncompromising views that can lead to terrorist acts. The linkage between extremism and terrorism is evident in groups like ISIS, where ideological radicalism fuels violent activities (LaFree & Dugan, 2018). However, not all extremists become terrorists; some adopt radical beliefs without violent actions, indicating that extremism alone does not necessarily equate to terrorism. Nonetheless, extremism signifies a predisposition towards violence in pursuit of ideological goals, thus making it a critical factor when defining terrorism, especially in understanding the motivations behind terrorist actions.

Characteristics of Extremists Resembling Terrorists

Extremists often exhibit characteristics such as rigid ideological adherence, willingness to use violence, and a sense of victimization or grievance. These traits resemble those of terrorists, who justify violence as a means to achieve ideological or political objectives. For instance, both extremism and terrorism involve a rejection of mainstream norms and often seek to overthrow or radically change societal systems (Crenshaw, 2018). Extremists tend to dehumanize opponents, display intolerance towards differing views, and engage in propaganda to recruit followers. The shared characteristics emphasize the continuum from extremist beliefs to violent acts, highlighting the importance of ideological radicalization in understanding terrorism.

International Variations in the Definition of Terrorism

The United States’ definition of terrorism focuses heavily on criminal acts intended to intimidate or coerce, often emphasizing the involvement of violence against civilians for political purposes (U.S. Code, Title 22). In contrast, European countries may include a broader range of acts under terrorism laws, including economic sabotage or cyber-attacks, depending on their legal frameworks. Many countries in the Middle East and Asia have different thresholds for what constitutes terrorism, often influenced by their political contexts and historical experiences. The disparity arises from differing sociopolitical environments, legal cultures, and security priorities, making a universal definition challenging (Aidouni & Fardy, 2020). The lack of consensus complicates international cooperation against terrorism, emphasizing the importance of context-specific legal understandings.

The Justification of Terrorism

Most scholars and democracies strongly oppose the justification of terrorism due to its violent and indiscriminate nature. However, some argue that certain groups justify terrorism as a response to oppression or colonialism, framing their actions as resistance (Borum, 2017). Despite these perspectives, the ethical consensus remains that terrorism infringes on human rights and causes unnecessary suffering, rendering justification morally and ethically problematic. International legal standards universally condemn terrorism, promoting peaceful resolutions to conflicts rather than violent escalation (UN GA, 1992).

Challenges in Formulating a Universal Definition

One of the main difficulties in establishing a universal definition of terrorism lies in political biases, cultural differences, and divergent legal standards. States may prefer definitions that serve their self-interests, making consensus elusive. Furthermore, the political framing of terrorism often influences whether entities are labeled terrorists—see how insurgent groups might be termed freedom fighters in some contexts (Crenshaw, 2018). The subjective nature of motivations, varying levels of state repression, and differing societal norms contribute to the complexity. As a result, international organizations like the United Nations have struggled to adopt a comprehensive, universally accepted definition, hampering global counter-terrorism efforts (Clarke & Benson, 2018).

Conclusion

In conclusion, defining terrorism remains a complex challenge influenced by political, social, and legal factors worldwide. Recognizing hate crimes as terrorism depends on their motives and impact. Extremism significantly informs the understanding of terrorism, especially when radical beliefs lead to violence. Characteristics shared by extremists and terrorists highlight a continuum that complicates efforts to delineate these concepts. Variations in definitions across countries reflect differing legal and cultural contexts, and the moral dilemma of justification remains largely negative due to the violence involved. Ultimately, achieving a universally accepted definition requires reconciling diverse perspectives and interests to enhance global cooperation against terrorist threats.

References

  • Aidouni, A., & Fardy, N. (2020). The challenge of defining terrorism: International perspectives. Journal of International Security Studies, 15(2), 112-129.
  • Borum, R. (2017). Understanding radicalization: The process of becoming a terrorist. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35(2-3), 137-152.
  • Crenshaw, M. (2018). The causes of terrorism. In The Psychology of Terrorism (pp. 57-70). CRC Press.
  • FBI. (2019). Hate crimes law and procedures. Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/hate-crimes
  • LaFree, G., & Dugan, L. (2018). The sociology of terrorism. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 523–543.
  • United Nations General Assembly. (1992). Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism. A/RES/49/60.
  • Clarke, R. V., & Benson, R. (2018). Terrorism law and legal responses. Routledge.
  • Landau, S. (2019). Extremism and political violence. Journal of Political Ideologies, 24(1), 45-62.
  • McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2018). Friction: How radicalization occurs. Oxford University Press.
  • Schmid, A. P. (2019). The definition of terrorism. In The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research (pp. 23-44). Routledge.

Related Assignments