Article: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/08/we-will-eradicate-terrorism-by-enacting-gun-control-legislation/
In class we
focused on defining terrorism, and why it is important. The FBI, The CIA, The
State Department, and more all have similar definitions on what terrorism is.
There is international terrorism and domestic terrorism. International Terrorism
includes events that are abroad, that includes violence, and domestic terrorism
is violent act that occurs in one’s homeland. Currently the United States is
more concerned with terrorism than gun violence due to the international and
domestic threats and attacks that have occurred. American citizens have been
set on looking for ways to fight of the enemy, and they are looking to
President Obama to help show them how to end it.
I do believe that
it is important to encompass all aspects of terrorism when using it to define
an attack, but since many different organizations have not met with an exact
conclusion, it will be harder to find one solid one. In class my group decided
to conjoin the FBI’s and the CIA’s definition on terrorism and it covered
pretty much all aspect of terrorism. It is important to come up with a
definition of terrorism because if the Security Council were to be faced with
deciding what a terrorist attack is and what is not, they would be stuck with
continuously arguing on what their definition and views are. And if they were
to have an argument on that, then nothing would get done, and we would be stuck
with half the countries saying declare war and the other half saying “look for
other ways to fix it.”
In class we also talked about different terrorist attacks
and whether or not they were actually terrorist acts based off of the
definitions that were given. Obama’s address was one that rendered a lot of
commotion. He discussed how we need to address gun control and why it will help
to keep guns out of terrorist’s hands. Americans were not happy with his
political speech, because they wanted to know an efficient strategy to defeat
ISIS and how to declare war. Americans are also looking for a clear way to
combat the terrorist threats, and they did not feel that Obama accurately
explained how. The main argument of the speech made was that citizens should
have stricter laws on owning a firearm. And I believe that the article summed
up a really good point that Obama made which is “In
Obama’s eyes the real threat America faces are people who take the second
amendment seriously and learn to safely handle a firearm and defend themselves.”
There is also a debate on how
we treat terrorists. People in one country could be declared a terrorist while
in another country they are merely soldiers or freedom fighters. This is
another reason as to why we need to fix our definition because other countries
might view certain people who attack others as a variety of things. What
certain people don’t understand is that if we want to stop terrorist attacks we
need to first understand what a terrorist act is and from there we can move
toward finding a way to stop them.
Anchal,
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts! It is definitely true that a more broad, overreaching definition of terrorism should be defined. The only problem with this is that different countries could face political backlash for using one definition, because, for instance, if the US broadened its definition of terrorism, it might be interpreted to the point where people could make the argument that the US itself has undergone terrorist actions. This is an unfortunate point of hindrance, but once the political dilemma is overcome, a global definition could be more easily composed.
Anchal, I have always found it interesting on whether it was terrorism, war, or freedom fighters. The line between all of them really depends on which perspective you are looking at it with. A more clear global definiton would surely be not only beneficial for military purposes, but also for the public to understand who is doing what.
ReplyDeleteAnchal, I think one important aspect of terrorism that needs to be addressed in any definition must be in regards to a war or military action. My final paper is focused on terrorism and I think that it is important to take into account armed conflicts in the definition of terrorism. I took many of these definitions just one step further in adding a line the explains that a terrorist attack occurs when the attack does not look to further the advance of some military campaign. I believe that this helps to take out some of the ambiguity in the definition in regards to the "freedom fighters" "rebel factions" etc.
ReplyDeleteAnchal,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up the need to define terrorism in a more complete way. I agree that this is beneficial from a policy standpoint. Still, I think it is impossible to come up with an accurate definition of terrorism. I believe that terrorism is a word used to denounce violence committed by a political enemy. Whenever terrorism is mentioned, the perpetrator of violence becomes the "other". Do you think it is realistic for people to come to a consensus on a definition for terrorism?