| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

WynesWorldFinalDefinitional

Page history last edited by PBworks 18 years, 6 months ago

RhetoricAndComposition > SectionSixtySeven > YourBlogs > WynesWorld > WynesWorldFinalDefinitional


 

Now that the U.S. has declared a “War on Terror,” many definitions and ideas of what terrorism is have been formulated in writing. Definitions of this word can be skewed for reasons such as governments defining terrorism in ways that suite political needs. I will do my best to define terrorism as what I believe it to be without any external influences.

 

To define terrorism, one may say that it is an act of violence towards a person or group of people. However, it is not just any act of violence. Should common crimes or even accidents be considered terrorism? With this definition we can say that murder is an act of terrorism; but should it be? Instead, we can define terrorism as an act of violence aimed towards a person or group of people used to intimidate others. Because intimidation can occur through murders or accidents, we should also include “the intention to create terror” into our definition. Usually, the groups targeted for intimidation are political groups, governments, or societies. The definition now stands at “An act of violence aimed towards a person or group of people with the intention of creating terror and intimidating others such as political groups, governments, or societies.”

A better transition may be "Someone may respond that terrorism is morally questionable" as the start of the following paragraph.

This definition brings us to another problem. Killing doesn’t necessarily denote a corrupt or immoral act. One can be put in jail for intentionally killing someone. An example of this is murder. But on the other hand, someone can also be rewarded for killing. This can occur in such situations as the army where killing a certain person could deserve reward.

Like "Wanted dead or alive"--but does that really address the question of morality? The question arises b/c there might be good reason to question whether killing itself deserves a bounty.

Now we must include the morality of the action. Morality itself is a debatable word.

Yes. And perhaps it should be avoided; consider whether "good intention" avoids the problem your attempting to side-step.

It will be used in this definition as a good intention of the person(s) carrying out the act. Terrorism is now an immoral act of violence aimed towards a person or group of people with the intention of creating terror and intimidating others such as political groups, governments, or societies.

 

Thinking about the definition now, it seems to be just about right. But, if one country attacks another country, is that considered terrorism, or is it considered war? It would be considered war. If established governments engaging in these acts is called “war”, then what groups would make it terrorism? Again, we need to add to our definition. Perhaps the definition could now read “An immoral act of violence not by an established government aimed towards a person or group of people with the intention of creating terror and intimidating others such as political groups, governments, or societies.”

Though, there is supposedly such a thing as "state sponsored" terrorism. Iran sometimes is named as one such example.

 

Despite the already long definition, it still needs more boundaries to be clearly defined. Terrorism does not have to be politically focused, although it often may. Terrorism can be religiously or culturally motivated as well. An act like such as a bombing would still be considered terrorism even if the attackers are not motivated by anything but their own boredom. Thus, the act does not have to be motivated by anything in particular. We can now define terrorism as “An immoral act of violence, often motivated by politics, culture, or religion, not by an established government aimed towards a person or group of people with the intention of creating terror and intimidating others such as political groups, governments, or societies.”

 

Another question brought up is “Are people the only target for terrorism?” Can it be an attack to destroy other things such as property? Terrorism can target things other than people. Actually, I think most terrorist attacks are meant to destroy things other than people. Most targets are items that the terrorist feels would hurt the enemy even more than losing people.

Though making people fear for their lives is an effective way of inciting terror.

For example, icons or important things that control the economy are targeted because they are difficult to rebuild and have a long lasting negative effect. Now we must change the act to be against people or property. This would now make the definition “An immoral act, often motivated by politics, culture, or religion, of violence not by an established government aimed towards people or property with the intention of creating terror and intimidating others such as political groups, governments, or societies.”

 

Now the definition is accurate. It includes immoral acts similar to suicide bombings and the acts that took place on September 11th. The definition includes these acts while it excludes events like murdering and vandalism. Though it is nearly impossible to fully define terrorism without leaving gaps or some uncertainty, my definition is strong and clear.

 

But, I wonder, what are the counter-arguments? Are there definitions that disagree with your position?

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.