What is considered terrorism?

Elif Okan

What is considered terrorism?

What is terrorism? According to the State Department, terrorism is a "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents". The definition of terrorism may defer depending on who or what group you are asking. Like we talked about the State Department's definition of terrorism makes it so the United States cannot be blamed for any terrorist attacks when they attack knowing many civilizations may get hurt and/or killed in another country. Putting that aside, what people view as terrorism instead of mass shootings/killings defer as well.

Recently there have been three different attacks and shootings but out of the three only one have been called terrorism and the other two are just known as mass shootings. The three attacks in order are the Los Vegas shooting attack, the Manhattan New York truck attack, and the Texas shooting at First Baptist Church. The Los Vegas shooting killed at least 59 people and 527 people were injured. The shooter had 23 firearms in his suite at the hotel and 19 firearms at home. The Manhattan truck attack had a driver plowed a pickup truck down a crowded bike path killing 8 and injuring 11 which Mayor Bill de Blasio declared this rampage a terrorist attack. The Texas attack had a gunman opened fire inside the church and had 26 killed and 20 injured.

The only one of these three attacks that were considered a terrorist attack was the Manhattan truck attack while the other two are known as mass shootings even though the Manhattan truck attack killed and injured less than half than the other two attacks. All three were premeditated violence against civilians but only the Manhattan truck attack is seen as terrorism. For the Texas shooting, Trump called it a "mental health problem" that the shooter had but called the Manhattan truck attacker a terrorist. For the Los Vegas shooting Trump said: "It was an act of pure evil" but wouldn't call the shooter's attack terrorism. What tends to happen like the NYTimes article says is "Muslims are defined as terrorists while lone non-Muslims are deemed 'mass shooters.'" While all the attacks are awful and should never happen, it does seem like only when the person is Muslim or middle eastern we call it terrorism like the driver was in the Manhattan truck attack but when the person is white and American we dot see it as a terrorist attack and just see it as a mass shooting done by someone who was not sane. This needs to change. The Manhattan attack was sad but the Texas and Los Vegas attack was much worst and are the ones that seem more like terrorist attacks to me. If the shooters were Muslim and/ or middle eastern instead of white it is very likely that the news would have called it terrorist attacks rather than just mass shootings. To me, a terrorist attack is when a person or a group of people kill a large number of people normally having it planned out beforehand that causes fear, It does not have to just be politically motivated to me. In the college Democrats club meeting, we talked about all attacks around when they happened when we had our meeting Monday. We talked about why Los Vegas is not considered a terrorist attack instead of a mass shooting. It came down to because it was not politically motivated but like others in the meeting I thought that shouldn't matter and it is like a terrorist attack and should be counted as one. We talked about the Texas and Manhattan attack at the same time since it happened less than a week apart. We talked about how the Texas attack was not given much attention like the Manhattan attack was and how Texas should be considered a terrorist attack as well.


Manhattan Terrorist not Los Vegas article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/terror-attacks-vegas-nyc.html

Manhattan attack article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/nyregion/police-shooting-lower-manhattan.html

Texas shooting article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/terror-attacks-vegas-nyc.html

Los Vegas shooting article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting-live-updates.html

Who determines what reasons are a just reason to go to war?

Cam Hainey

Professor Shirk

International Politics

December 3^rd, 2017

Just War Theory

            When looking at just war theory and the two main components that make up whether a war is just or not it brings up the question about who determines if the reasons that those in war consider just are truly a just reason to go to war. The article we had to read for class (Gillian, 2017) and from class discussion, there are two main principles that make up whether or not a war can be considered just or not. But in Gillian, it also suggests that many theorists want to add another components /conditions to the Just War Theory in determining if a war is just. However the theorists might be missing a key component in determining what reasons make a war just. That reason being who decides what reasons are just for everyone and what aren’t just reasons for everyone. We have been discussing all semester that people from different locations vary in there opinions and beliefs. Those can also impact their views on what constitutes as a just reason to go to war.

            I believe that this reality that people in the world differ in opinions and some people from some regions have certain beliefs, which will influence what, they believe to be just and in a different region they have different beliefs that view those same reasons as being unjust. In the theory of a just war, who determines what constitutes the reason to go to war as being just and whether justice is being conducted within war? The second part of that question I think is given to us through the Geneva Convention, which constitutes what actions during war are allowed and what aren’t allowed. But who determines if those reasons are a just reason to go to war. From learning previously in class and other classes taken at Stonehill, terrorist groups believe the attacks they carry out and the people they kill are just to there cause and they obviously believe that their cause is a just one. No body is going to believe that what they are fighting for isn’t a just reason. Without having a set standard of what is a just reason or having a particular group determine whether a nations reason to go to war with another is a just one, we could see how terrorists groups might have just reasons to go to war. Now that being said, terrorist groups are a special case, since a war is between two recognized states and a terrorist group, which isn’t a state, can’t technically be in a war. But when looking at them, along with the other examples discussed in class (drone attacks) and in the article (targeted assassinations) we can see how they might have just reasons for the actions they commit. But does that really make them a justified if one particular side views them as being such? I think that when looking at what reasons for war make it a just one most interesting is that there are so many differentiating views in the world and international community, how can one particular group of people look at a war from a distance and say that one side had a more just side than another. A war between two religious groups for instance, to one group in a religious war, they have the belief that their reason is just because of their beliefs, while the other group thinks the same about their reason for their beliefs. Just War Theory seems to bring up interesting ideas about what truly is a just reason to go to war.

What Is Considered a Terrorist Attack?

Kyle Meyer

12/3/17

Blog post

What Is Considered a Terrorist Attack?

The question of what is considered a terrorist attack has been asked time and time again, so why is there no set answer? There are many different definitions of terrorism, some of which negate each other in one way or another, or are made to not make the country that the definition was created in not look bad to the public. These different definitions could greatly confuse the general public, or lead the general public to make false assumptions about domestic, as well as international attacks. There are a great number of attacks that occur within the United States, as well as across the world. Although a large number of these attacks are terrorist attacks, many are not and are just considered terrorist attacks, for lack of a better name. The public should really know what the true definition of a terrorist attack is.

So the question is, what is a terrorist attack? There are a bountiful amount of definitions, so which one should we believe?  According to the United States Department of State, terrorism is defined as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” This definition, which is created within the United States, is worded in a specific way as to not let any action taken by the United States considered an act of terrorism. The use of the terms “subnational groups” and “clandestine agents” are used in order to say that actions taken by the United States like the dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the use of drone strikes on Syria are not considered terrorist attacks, because the United States is a nation, and not a subnational group. Terrorism can then also be subdivided into multiple categories, like international terrorism and domestic terrorism. The Federal Bureau of Investigation within the United States defines domestic terrorism as being “Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.” With this definition of domestic terrorism, why are many more events within the United States not considered terrorism?

On June 17, 2015, a man named Dylann Roof opened fire on the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church in downtown Charleston during the Church’s final prayer. Roof sat within the entire ceremony, then at the final prayer took out a pistol and killed nine African American individuals within the church. This terrible attack within the United States is seen as a horrible act by a truly twisted individual, but many do not see it as an act of terrorism. Dylann Roof came out as saying that he committed this horrible act as an attempt to try and create a race war within Charleston. Looking at this, it seems as if Roof was motivated by a U.S. based movement, which is the White Supremacist movement. If Roof was inspired by this movement, then it is by definition of the Federal Bureau of Investigation a terrorist attack, so why do so many still not see it as an attack? This is because the phrase “Terrorist Attack” is such a broad term, and that it has multiple definitions, that many individuals may not understand. This attack undergone by Dylann Roof should be considered a terrorist attack, considering Roof’s motivation for the attack was fueled by a terrible movement, which is the White Supremacy movement. This attack should be seen by many more as a terrorist attack, to truly show how terrible it is.

The term “Terrorist Attack” needs to have a more descriptive and well-known definition. Individuals around the world need to truly know what a terrorist attack truly is, so that others around the world can see the severity of them, and how they are dealt with so harshly. Terrorist attacks are truly horrid, and need to be seen by everyone as such.    

Columbus and the Beginning of Globalization

Caitlin Maloney

12/03/2017

Columbus and the Beginning of Globalization

Columbus's discovery of the Americas presents a great representation and understanding of the beginning of globalization and international relations. His interactions with the native people provide an image of how Columbus and the other explorers thought of and viewed these people. In many situations, Columbus stated that these people were unintelligent. As he was able to easily convince them to trade their gold for his low-value items, such as a glass.

The theory of globalization has been defined as "the radical intensification of worldwide social relations and the lifting of social activities out of local and national conditions" (Amherst College, 2009). When examining Columbus's experiences in the Americas, this definition can easily be applied and supported. Columbus writes of the people he encounters and forms opinions of them from his European viewpoint. Rather, than attempting to see how the natives' environment has shaped and influenced their thoughts and actions. This level of ignorance plays an important role in how Columbus, and the other explorers, choose to interact with the natives.

The explorers represented globalization in ways that stemmed from this ignorance. For example, they acted out social behaviors that would be common to Europe, yet not generally found within this foreign society. Columbus largely pushed assimilation onto the natives, attempting to have them enact the European customs and convert to Christianity. Additionally, he decided to bring some natives back to Spain, in the hope of them becoming missionaries.

In his letters, back to the Spanish Monarchy, he wrote, "Your Highnesses may have great joy of them, for soon you will have made them into Christians and will have instructed them in the good manners of your kingdoms" (Todorov, 43). Moreover, Columbus also intended to teach the natives to, "build cities, to be taught to wear clothes, and to adopt our customs" (Todorov, 43). In these way, Columbus was working to place his own social activities and conditions upon the natives, much like the definition of globalization states.

Along with converting the natives into missionaries, Columbus worked to introduce trading and other formalized activities. Once he began to trade with the locals it became clear that he could trade low-value goods with them for high-value goods such as gold. As he believed they were too passive or unintelligent to realize the trade was not of equal value. However, in reality, they did have the same intrinsic value of the gold as Columbus and the other explorers. Because of this difference in trading Columbus was able to use the goods he acquired to create other transactions back in Europe and other lands. This marked the start of global trading in the Americas and highly impacted ongoing and future international relations of the developing nation.

The thoughts and beliefs Columbus carried with him to the Americas greatly influenced his interactions with the natives. Due to his beliefs, he pushed them to be missionaries wanting them to have the same faith as himself. Additionally, the fact that the people were naked and acted as living parts of nature disturbed him a great deal. Thus, he wanted to teach them to wear clothing, to build cities, as well as adopt other European customs. These actions represent globalization as a whole, as Columbus took the social customs of his background and tried to apply them to the natives, despite the different social and economic environments.

Sources:

"The Political Theory Of Globalization." Amherst.edu. N.p., 2009. Web. 3 Dec. 2017.

Todorov, Tzvetan. The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. Translated by Richard

Howard. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999, p.3-50

Was the Las Vegas Shooting Terrorism?

There has been a lot of debate about the Las Vegas massacre that happened on October 1st, 2017. Many people are debating whether this can be considered terrorism or not. Many Twitter users believe it was. As seen in the image, a Twitter user called Own Your Masters posted a rather cynical picture describing how the United States tends to treat people of color after a shooting versus white people. In the image, labeled ‘Media and Politics 101,’ one can see the perceived stereotypes of shooters, like a Muslim shooter, implies that all Muslims are at fault. In comparison, if there was a white shooter, they are a lone wolf, and the whole race is not at fault for that incident. Likewise, if there is a black shooter, people tend to think it is gang-related, but, if the shooter is a police officer, then the officer is a natural hero and the victim is collateral damage. This image is meant to target how humans, specifically in America, see terrorism and how they pick and choose who they call a terrorist.

This brings us to the question of “What is terrorism?” The state department defines terrorism as a premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. Firstly, the state department says that terrorism must be premeditated, meaning that it was something planned and thought out. According to multiple news sources, among them CNN and the Independent, it seems that Stephen Paddock had been planning it for months prior to the shooting. Secondly, the state department says politically motivated. For the time being, Paddock’s motivation remains unknown, even though ISIS claimed the attack. Experts have rejected that claim because of ISIS tendency of claiming everything. Next, the state department says that it has to be perpetrated against noncombatant targets. Stephen Paddock targeted civilians at a concert in Las Vegas, which means they are not in battle. Lastly, the state department says that it has to be done by subnational groups or clandestine agents. This is the sketchy part because what this part actually accomplishes is making it seem like the United States itself cannot be held as a terrorist for the attacks it pursues. If ISIS had been behind these attacks, the attack would have been done by a subnational group, meaning it is terrorism. Stephen Paddock was a clandestine agent. Clandestine means it was done in a secretive manner and it seems like Paddock hid his plans pretty thoroughly because no one seems to be able to find his motivation for this massacre. All in all, it seems although Twitter users are correct: Stephen Paddock was a terrorist. He fits all the criteria, but the police still need to find his motivation for these murders. If it were a person of color, the media and politicians would jump on the bandwagon and call them terrorists. So, what makes Stephen Paddock different? Perhaps, his skin color.