Modern+terrorism

=**Terrorism:**=



Revision:

 * - Goal to make a political or religious people
 * - Violence against non-combatants
 * - Instill fear in people
 * - terrorists may be people rebelling against gov't
 * - intimidation
 * - An act to promote a criminal agenda
 * - An attempt to impact life, liberty and property
 * - terrorism can be state sponsored ( by gov't )
 * - could never be justified under any circumstances
 * - one's man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

media type="custom" key="23772996"



Modern Terrorism Timeline:
[]

Opener:
There were hijackings, bombings, and hostage-takings used in my events.

These events harmed ordinary citizens and left them traumatized. Citizens worried terrorists would attack again.

They got world attention because they were massive attacks and many were infected within the acts. Terrorism destroyed places in a devilish way, and they affected a lot of lives.

media type="custom" key="23857344"

media type="custom" key="23890248"

Case Answers to Questions:
Northern Ireland: 1.I do believe the act to use force was acceptable. The British are on Irish are on Irish land and have no reason being there. 2.The way of force was acceptable due to the fact that protesting wouldn't work. "British paratroopers fired on protesters, killing fourteen and injuring another thirteen; this event only managed to intensify the struggle." 3.I think it is totally understandable to for the Irish to attack the British. When another country has access and some control over your country, many problems can occur.

Chechnya: 1.I understand their reason for wanting to drive Russia out of the country, but its solely focused on religion; however no person should have control over another person’s religion. 2.Their way of force was cowardly. “ Chechen militants took eight-hundred theater goers hostage in Moscow.” 3.The states use of force to take people hostages was low, innocent people shouldn’t have to lose their lives for some random cause based on religion.

Chiapas: 1.I understand their decision to use force against the Mexican Army. I don’t know how bad the injustices were in Mexico, but if any, I still agree with the cause. 2.Their way of force is acceptable, it seems as though they only aimed to destroy property or attack Mexican militants. “they occupied several key towns and attacked a regional military base” “ Zapatistas blew up telephone and electrical towers and detonated car bombs in Mexico City, injuring several people.” It is unsure of who was injured but it doesn’t seem like the people were their aim. 3.I would agree with their cause of force because people want and deserve equality.

South Africa: 1.The reason to use force in S. Africa was justifiable because the people felt as though their rights were being denied. 2.It doesn’t seem like the blacks were fighting much. I could see that they were defending themselves and I always agree with self-defense. “ Following the 1960 massacre of 69 black Africans by South African forces at a peaceful demonstration in Sharpeville, the ABC embarked on a campaign of sabotage against the country’s infrastructure and armed resistance against the South African government.” 3.The states need to use force was chaotic because it was the people against government.

Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist Position:

 * Final Draft :** https://docs.google.com/document/d/14bEoBKaW1zccLWuge9fQwgnAH7vgWGD9sZxsw7dh8YQ/edit?usp=sharing


 * Rough Draft :** https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uArwKX6pKaAp2ShFvN_izOxz2GOf__DHCPr0rwKsIV0/edit?usp=sharing


 * Presentation :** https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UjETKwtCnJPa130vb7VuuCHoZTbjABA545Xlo-nXmpc/edit?usp=sharing