The question ‘What is terrorism?’ can be answered in a varying number of ways. A variety of scholars have attempted to define the term, each with differences but with more similarities. To define it in its most simple format, it is ‘the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims’ . Wyn Rees defines it as ‘a particular type of action, in which violence is employed for a political purpose. It is conducted by non-state actors against non-combatants, with the aim of creating fear amongst a wider target audience.’ As well as being an action, it also important to understand that terrorism is in fact an ideology that has developed, and different people/states have alternative opinions on what in fact terrorism incorporates.
…show more content…
State terrorism which are acts of terrorism that are enacted by the state against another state or civilians, or even against their own civilians. Grant Wardlaw defines the idea of state terrorism, he is quoted as saying ‘Political Terrorism is the use, or threat of use, of violence by an individual or a group, whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and/or fear-inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators.’ An example of state terrorism would be the purges enacted by Stalin in Russian in the early 20th century. Non state terrorism are acts of terrorism that have not been committed by the above mentioned proponents, examples of these would be the 9/11 bombings by Al Quada, and the recent terrorist attacks in France by ISIS. It could be argued that non state terrorism is now a more dangerous threat, certainly as the world has developed and ideas on morality have, state terrorism is becoming less …show more content…
To what extent surveillance is the best policy to prevent terrorism is a separate issue, and it certainly is a topic that is widely disliked amongst more liberal states, and often private information can be gain accessed to by the wrong people. Yet, it seems difficult to be able to rule out surveillance as a way of combating terrorism. In the past number of years we have seen a significant rise in the amount of terrorism that has been initiated on social media, and subsequently the ease of radicalising online. Surveillance comes up the branch of counter-terrorism. Counter-terrorism is simply defined as political or military activities designed to prevent or thwart terrorism. With attempting to thwart terrorism with surveillance, a number of issues arise, such as who are the perpetrators and who needs security. Can we ever be secure from the threat of terrorism even with surveillance? In the answer in short is no, but it can make people feel much more secure and it has proved successful in a number of previous incidents. Alternate measures to counter terrorism don’t seem to be as clear, or as effective, or even accepted in western culture. After recent terror attacks in France killing 129 people, the debate on surveillance has stepped up. CIA Director John Brennan asserted ‘many of these terrorist attacks are picked up and uncovered before they’re able
State terrorism which are acts of terrorism that are enacted by the state against another state or civilians, or even against their own civilians. Grant Wardlaw defines the idea of state terrorism, he is quoted as saying ‘Political Terrorism is the use, or threat of use, of violence by an individual or a group, whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and/or fear-inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators.’ An example of state terrorism would be the purges enacted by Stalin in Russian in the early 20th century. Non state terrorism are acts of terrorism that have not been committed by the above mentioned proponents, examples of these would be the 9/11 bombings by Al Quada, and the recent terrorist attacks in France by ISIS. It could be argued that non state terrorism is now a more dangerous threat, certainly as the world has developed and ideas on morality have, state terrorism is becoming less …show more content…
To what extent surveillance is the best policy to prevent terrorism is a separate issue, and it certainly is a topic that is widely disliked amongst more liberal states, and often private information can be gain accessed to by the wrong people. Yet, it seems difficult to be able to rule out surveillance as a way of combating terrorism. In the past number of years we have seen a significant rise in the amount of terrorism that has been initiated on social media, and subsequently the ease of radicalising online. Surveillance comes up the branch of counter-terrorism. Counter-terrorism is simply defined as political or military activities designed to prevent or thwart terrorism. With attempting to thwart terrorism with surveillance, a number of issues arise, such as who are the perpetrators and who needs security. Can we ever be secure from the threat of terrorism even with surveillance? In the answer in short is no, but it can make people feel much more secure and it has proved successful in a number of previous incidents. Alternate measures to counter terrorism don’t seem to be as clear, or as effective, or even accepted in western culture. After recent terror attacks in France killing 129 people, the debate on surveillance has stepped up. CIA Director John Brennan asserted ‘many of these terrorist attacks are picked up and uncovered before they’re able