Political Violence Analysis

He suggests that an objective definition of terrorism could be “the deliberate use or the threat to use violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and religious aims” (Ganor 288). It is important for a definition such as this to be accepted internationally as current definitions of terrorism can be abused by various factions. Many terrorist organizations use the current ambiguous definition of terrorism to promote their own interests and goals. Although politicians also promote their own interests and needs by making political use of the term “terrorism” by emphasizing the brutality of the term (Ganor 293). Another significant reason that an international definition for terrorism is adopted is to help emphasize the difference between terrorism

Over the history of the United States, there have been many attempts of terrorism on our soil, many through domestic roots. One such political quarrel that marked the radicalization of the American public far enough to bring about terrorism were on the terms of certain legislations, the concept of abolitionism and anti-abolitionism. Legislations like the Missouri Compromise, and Fugitive Slave act were very controversial to the general public, both in the North and South. At this time, many abolitionists chose to perform pacifist demonstrations rather than violent conflict to achieve their dream. Generation of sentiment against slavery culmunated in John Brown was a calculated terrorist as he used extreme forms of violence against the populus

There are lot of aspects that deals on the use of force for example, sometimes police are accused of an unjustified use of force to subdue a suspected criminal or to quell protesters. Whereas law enforcement argues that such use of force is necessary to protect others or itself, critics often argue that law enforcement is sadistic and cruel, that it uses force to attack an individual or a group of which they disapprove.To put it more precisely, the problem of the use of weapon and the necessity of the strengthening of gun control is widely discussed at the present moment. It proves beyond a doubt that weapon is a source of a great threat to the health and life of people. This is why it is quite natural that views on gun control and possibilities of use of firearm vary consistently from the total prohibition of arm selling to population to quite liberal regulations of the gun market. In this respect, it should be said that the opposite views on gun control are determined by different approaches to the use of gun by non-professional, people that do not use weapon in their professional work, such as police officers, military, etc.

Terrorism is a controversial, tricky, complicated subject, and thus it has a multitude of definitions. Although the majority of these definitions are sensible and working definitions, none of them are free from flaws. Each definition of terrorism has its own unique pros and cons which all ultimately come down to which groups and historical information it includes and which groups and historical information it excludes. For many definitions, what they include is one of their largest pros. In particular, definitions that pull from historical context help contextualize terrorism.

Throughout the world we have incidents happening that make it on tv, radio or even billboards. At times, even incidents that happened in the past are brought up such as the terrifying story of the notable dictator Adolf Hitler or bullying around the world. All these incidents have many people debating, suffering, and uncompromising leadership, but what does it feel like getting hurt and losing freedom? Dictators and bullies enjoy taking people’s freedom away and use manipulation/intimidation to compel their victims to do their wills, so dictators/bullies make it harsh for them. However, this doesn’t mean that dictators and bullies are identical.

Even when their attempts for “change” are fruitless they resist disbanding to remain with their friends. There is proof that for some groups terrorism isn’t the last choice but the first. Some terror attacks are committed anonymously so how would that bring about any change. Unlike politicians who want to achieve change, terrorist refuse to compromise minimizing any possibility of archiving their goals. Finally, terrorist fight other terrorists, instead of acting like political entities they act more like rival

The section expands the definition to include “a violent, criminal act intended to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction” (1)(B)(iii). The section also defines domestic terrorism as “any act that is “dangerous to human life, involves a violation of any state or federal law intended to influence government policy, or coerce a civilian population” (5)(B)(i)(ii). A problem with the definition of domestic terrorism is that the term is broad in scope, and could encompass non-terror activist organizations (e.g., Greenspace, Operation Rescue, etc. ), and subject them to being

Violence should never come first in trying to make your point seen or heard. Social change such as an agreement without the use of violence can always be an option because no one can ever get hurt. Yet there 's also a line that should not be intersected. If someone uses violence on you, should you be able to use it back? Yes, but it only should be used to defend yourself such as if someone is threatening you and takes action physically you should too.

Gus Martin defines state sponsored-terrorism as an official government that supports policies of violence, repression, and intimidation when it is an act committed against an enemy of the state. They pursue such policies by using or creating “unofficial” groups through monetary means to commit a heinous act against an individual or group that is deemed an enemy of the state. (Martin, 71) There are two types of terrorism committed by the state. That of state assistance for terrorism and the other of state patronage for terrorism. In terms of patronage, on the international level this is when the government creates a group to act beyond the scope of the government and its laws and on a domestic level they impact culture and national security to maintain the governments form of “law and order”.

In Domestic Politics and War, Jack Levy explains diversionary war by writing: “Political elites can use a foreign war to divert popular attention from internal, social, and political problems” (Levy 94). A somewhat cynical view, this theory believes war is primarily instigated to distract civilians from domestic problems. The civilians should theoretically rally behind the country, ignoring the prior internal conflict that jeopardizes the leaders popularity. A successful war should ensure the leaders remain popular, regardless of the prior domestic problems. Examples of internal conflict that leaders may look to divert attention from includes social, political, and religious tensions.