TerrorismS18G2

Erika Dennery Professor Shirk Global Politics of Terrorism March 31st, 2018 Redefining Domestic Terrorism For many years domestic terrorism has been defined by the Patriot Act as an attempt to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” This definition clearly outlines what it means to be a domestic terrorist, and yet men and women alike are being put behind bars for committing acts that don’t seem to fit the stated definition. When this occurs, the government is clouding what the true definition of domestic terrorism is and they are creating confusion as to what it means to be a domestic terrorist; with this in mind, the government needs to put more recognition on violent terrorism in the country in order to address threats to public safety rather than threats to big corporations along with their money making a...

History has shown us again and again, that colonialism and the suppression of a national identity by a larger state, often leads the suppressed group to take up arms and resort to violence in an attempt to vye for independence. Groups like the FLN in Algeria, the PIRA in Northern Ireland, and the PLO in Palestine are all modern examples of ethnic minorities that have resorted to violence in an attempt to rid themselves of the oppression of a state that does not share in their identity. Comparing these three groups is important in discussing the broader theme of how populations respond to oppression. While the concept of colonialism all but disappeared after the end of the Cold War, there are still many instances where minority groups are being subjugated. Exploring historical examples of the reactions of oppressed peoples and nations gives insights as to how oppressed groups should be dealt with in future scenarios.             ...

Rachael Feldhausen Global Politics of Terrorism Professor Shirk 3/14/18 2) Do you think that groups like NORAID should exist in the United States?   Why or why not? One of the the biggest aspects of democracy in America is the freedom of individuals to gather. In other words, any person(s) who wish to form a group or organization are allowed to do so, no matter the nature of the organization, with the sole exception of organizations plotting to or have committed an act considered illegal in the United States. Therefore, from a democratic standpoint, groups like NORAID. It would be undemocratic and against human liberty to restrict or put limitations on which groups can and cannot exist in the United States. However, another aspect to consider is the fact that the main goal of NORAID is to supply the IRA with funds for which to buy weapons. The main interest of this group has nothing to do with the benefit of American citizens and may have actually hampered or could ha...

Erika Dennery Professor Shirk Global Politics of Terrorism March 14th, 2018 Noraid, or Irish Northern Aid, was formed in 1970 after the Troubles in Northern Ireland following the IRA’s split into two groups, to be the public face of Irish republicanism in America. Noraid argued that it’s main purpose was to raise money in order to support the families of imprisoned PIRA members and to publicly campaign for British withdrawal from Northern Ireland, but it’s true role was more or less getting funds for weapons for the PIRA. F undraising letters that Noraid sent out in the 70’s said that, “Our support goes exclusively to the Provisional IRA and those who are working with them and our funds are to be used for the advancement of the campaign in Northern Ireland,” and while this does not explicitly suggest that Noraid was fundraising for weapons, it can be implied. Noraid is the only organization in America that supports the PIRA and another one of its main goals was to represen...