Modern+Terrorism




 * - One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.**

- violence against non-combatants (non-military) - Interpreted differently by different countries - might be rebelling against government - an act to promote a criminal agenda - instill fear/intimidate - attempt to impact life, liberty, and property - can be state sponsored (by government) -The United Nations cannot agree on a single definition for what a terrorist is. media type="custom" key="23768810"
 * Terrorist:** A terrorist is someone who commits an act of violence against a group of people because they don't believe in what they believe in. They attack civilians to cause a state of panic. Even if someone is only planning a terrorist attack, but doesn't go through with the plan, they are still considered a terrorist.
 * Class Work: **
 * Video: **
 * Freedom Fi**** ghter: ** A freedom fighter is someone who fights for what they believe in


 * Choices Program Video Questions:**

[|https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nGEPwiOzmVDWNu5Qy3q9145zG077Hj6FnhTbfDOjTlY/present?ueb=true#slide=id.p]
 * Modern Terrorism Timeline:**

In the events that I chose for my timeline the types of terrorism were kidnapping, hostage taking, bombing, chemical warfare, and highjacking. These events impacted ordinary citizens by instilling fear in people. After 9/11 for example many people were scared to be in high buildings, be in large crowds, or go on planes. The attacks of terrorism also shocked many people across the world. These terrorist attacks got world attention because once one part of the world was attacked, people knew that it could also happen to them. the terrorists succeed in instilling fear in people.
 * Opener: 9/17/13**
 * Explain the types of terrorism used in the events you identified in your timeline?**
 * How did these events impact ordinary citizens?**
 * Why did it get world attention?**

media type="custom" key="23870868"
 * Revolutionary or Terrorist Mark Up:**

media type="custom" key="23871342"
 * Case Study Mark Up and Questions:**

__**Northern Ireland:**__ I do not believe that the Republic of Ireland's decision to use force was justifiable, just because they want their land back doesn't give them the right to go killing and injuring innocent people. I don't think that the way they used force was acceptable because they killed many innocent people in the process of trying to take back their land. I don't think it was necessary to have to use force in this case. The Republic of Ireland and Britain could have come up with an agreement before having to start any violence.
 * 1. Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not?**
 * 2. Was the way in which the force used acceptable? Provide evidence from the reading to agree or disagree.**
 * 3. What is your view of the response of the state to use force?**

__**Chechnya:**__ I think that the Chechnya's started out as freedom fighters because they were being controlled by Russia, but as time went on I believe they became terrorists because they started using violence against innocent civilians of Russia. In the beginning, I think it was justifiable for Chechnya because they were using military based violence against Russia and for a good reason, but when they started using violence such as hostage taking and murder against innocent civilians it was then an act o terrorism. I think that the Chechnya's started out with a good cause then got carried away.
 * 1. Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not?**
 * 2. Was the way in which the force was used acceptable? Provide evidence from reading to agree or disagree.**
 * 3. What is your view of the response of the state to use force?**

I don't believe that in this situation it was justifiable to use force because the Chiapas said they were just going to attack the military but they ended up killing many innocent people in terrible ways. The way in which they used force was not acceptable because they set of bombs in public places and innocent people were killed. I don't think it was right for the Chiapas to say they were just going to fight the military and then go kill innocent people.
 * __Chiapas:__**
 * 1. Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not?**
 * 2. Was the way in which the force was used acceptable? Provide evidence from reading to agree or disagree.**
 * 3. What is your view of the response of the state to use force?**

No, because the whites in South Africa weren't using any violence on the blacks, they just weren't allowing them their rights which is still wrong but not justifiable to use violence in my opinion. The same thing happened here in America and Martin Luther King Jr. made a point not to use violence against the whites, even if the whites used violence against them. No, because they weren't being threatened by the whites, they just weren't being given their rights. I don't think it was right for the South African blacks to use violence against the whites.
 * __South Africa:__**
 * 1. Do you believe the decision to use force was acceptable and justifiable? Why or why not?**
 * 2. Was the way in which the force was used acceptable? Provide evidence from reading to agree or disagree.**
 * 3. What is your view of the response of the state to use force?**

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Avo9bOQcUW8Bv1SkWU8GaKuISc-m64JeOgmxqerG8Fg/edit
 * Rough Draft of Position Paper: Tamil Tigers**

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lLZwM0lYh540n5ttxKZUBX_EAOe_15N4PeTQx6_mwl0/edit
 * Final Copy of Position Paper: Tamil Tigers**

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BlnAFdHgOp-Cp07Ozx_lunx-UPMGtCu2VMc3lwmHapo/edit#slide=id.p
 * Visual Presentation: Tamil Tigers**