Terrorism Case

Terrorism can be defined as the intention of fear through nationally cruel acts. There are many terrorist types that carry out tactics in which they consider there profession. Terrorism today is politically and emotionally defined. Within the study of terrorism, there have been 100 known definitions. Terrorism sweeps a wide range of political affiliations. The characteristics abiding this act have been acclaimed as a purpose of gaining publicity from a group, purpose, or self-individual.

The root of terrorism leads all the way back to the Latin meaning "I Frighten." It represents a state of emergency causing panic and frustration. As terrorism can be read as an evil act produced by government, it stresses mainly the idea of killing innocent human beings. The United Nations Secretary General stated a report I November of 2004 that any terrorism act is "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." There are many differences of opinion on this subject and has forever been controversial.

In political affiliation, a terrorist is determined to be a strong violent perpetrator. Bruce Hoffman, the author of Inside Terrorism, wrote about the misuse and the understanding of what is terrorism. Bruce had stated, "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."

...