Terrorism

Sample Solution

   

Hate crimes are acts of violence or intimidation that are motivated by prejudice or hatred against a particular group or individual. Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

There is no single definition of terrorism that is universally accepted. However, most definitions include the following elements:

• The use of violence or intimidation
• The targeting of civilians
• The pursuit of political aims

Full Answer Section

    Hate crimes can meet all of these criteria. For example, a white supremacist who bombs a mosque or a synagogue is committing a hate crime and an act of terrorism. However, not all hate crimes are acts of terrorism. For example, a person who vandalizes a Jewish cemetery is committing a hate crime, but they are not necessarily committing an act of terrorism. Terrorism is typically defined as a more serious crime than a hate crime, because it involves the use of violence or intimidation to achieve political goals. Examples of hate crimes that are also acts of terrorism:

• The 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, in which 51 Muslims were killed by a white supremacist gunman
• The 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in the United States, in which 11 Jewish worshippers were killed by a white supremacist gunman
• The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, in which 168 people were killed by a right-wing extremist

How important is extremism in defining terrorism? Why? What are the characteristics of extremists that make them resemble terrorists? Extremism is an important factor in defining terrorism because extremists are more likely to use violence or intimidation to achieve their political goals. Extremists are often characterized by their intolerance for dissent, their belief that their own ideology is superior to all others, and their willingness to use violence to achieve their goals. Characteristics of extremists that make them resemble terrorists:

• Intolerance for dissent: Extremists are often intolerant of people who disagree with their views. They may try to silence their opponents through threats, intimidation, or violence.
• Belief that their own ideology is superior to all others: Extremists often believe that their own ideology is the only correct one and that all other ideologies are wrong. This can lead them to view people who disagree with them as enemies.
• Willingness to use violence to achieve their goals: Extremists are often willing to use violence to achieve their political goals. They may believe that violence is necessary to overthrow the government, establish a new social order, or simply to punish their enemies.

How is the definition of terrorism in the United States different from the definition of terrorism in other parts of the world? Why is this so? The definition of terrorism in the United States is different from the definition of terrorism in other parts of the world in a few key ways. First, the US definition is more specific and includes a number of factors that are not included in other definitions, such as the use of "weapons of mass destruction" and the targeting of "aircraft or maritime vessels." Second, the US definition is more focused on the motivations of the perpetrators. The US definition states that terrorism is motivated by a desire to "intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population." Other definitions do not include this requirement. The differences in the definition of terrorism between the United States and other parts of the world are due to a number of factors, including different legal systems, different political cultures, and different historical experiences. Can terrorism ever be justified? Why or why not? What do you perceive as the problems in arriving at a universal definition of terrorism? Whether or not terrorism can ever be justified is a complex question with no easy answer. There are many different perspectives on this issue, and there are strong arguments to be made on both sides. Those who argue that terrorism can never be justified point out that it is always wrong to use violence or intimidation against civilians. They argue that terrorism is a cowardly and immoral act that can never be justified, regardless of the motives of the perpetrators. Those who argue that terrorism can sometimes be justified point out that it is sometimes necessary to use violence to achieve justice or to overthrow a tyrannical government. They argue that the use of violence is a legitimate tool of self-defense and that it is sometimes necessary to use violence to protect the innocent. The problem with arriving at a universal definition of terrorism is that it is a complex issue with many different perspectives. There is no single definition of terrorism that is universally accepted, and there are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. My opinion on the justification of terrorism I believe that terrorism is never justified. Violence against civilians is always wrong, regardless of the motives of the perpetrators. Terrorism is a cowardly and immoral act that can never be justified.