Read the text and find which definition of terrorism the author makes use of

Reading

Watch the pronunciation of the following words and phrases from the text

Pronunciation

Warm-up

Part 2. Definition of terrorism

IV. Prepare 10 questions using the vocabulary units from the Word Study section in order to discuss the most urgent issues of today with your group mates.

I. Work in groups. Analyze the following definitions of terrorism. Which one if any can be considered comprehensive? Which one describes the modern world’s phenomenon in the most appropriate way? Try to give your own definition of the notion.

Terrorism – is the unlawful use of force or violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political and social objectives. (FBI definition)

Terrorism – is the use of violence or the threat of violence to obtain political demands. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English)

Terrorism – is the use of terrorizing methods; the state of fear and submission so produced; a terrorist method of governing or of resisting a government. (Webster’s New Universal unabridged Dictionary)

II. Do you know anything about such notorious terrorist organizations as the IRA (the Irish Republican Army), Hamas, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, the Shining Path Movement (Peru)?

III. What is a terrorist group?

IV. Can states or legitimate governments stick to terrorism in order to attain their political objectives? Give examples.

- indiscriminate violence

- to intimidate adversaries

- Sri Lanka

- legitimate

- to condemn

- covert war

- a suicide bomber

- rebel guerillas

- grenade-thrower

- South Lebanon

- notorious

- a besieged town

- slaughter

- righteousness

The notion of terrorism is manifold. It should be considered from different aspects, since states, governments, terrorist groups and individuals can adhere to it in order to attain their goals. Originally this notion, suggested by Sheiling, implied the use of the threat of indiscriminate violence against civilians to intimidate adversaries – or to terrorize them.

Terrorist groups are national and transnational political organizations which violently contest the authority or policies of states. Terrorist groups use the threat of indiscriminate attacks on civilians as a means of imposing pain or causing trouble for political authorities and thereby compelling political change. Many of these groups (the Irish Republican Army, Hamas and the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka) seek independence or autonomy for their national, religious, or ethnic group. Others, like the Shining Path Movement in Peru, are ideologically motivated. But like states, these organizations link violence to clear political objectives and like states, choose to attack civilians rather than legitimate military targets (the other side’s military forces).

Some politicians claim that the main idea that distinguishes terrorism from other kinds of violence is that it’s politically motivated and it indiscriminately targets civilians as a means of intimidating opposing states or political groups into making concessions. According to the definition, both states and terrorist groups are capable of terrorism. The difference between them is not in their use of violence or the threat of it, nor is that one or the other may violate the distinction between military and civilian targets. Rather it is that states are accepted as sovereign governments by the international community and their right to use violence to suppress disorder at home or protect national interests abroad has been accepted as legitimate and necessary.

Terrorism is not the simple, sharp-ended or bad-guy phenomenon we all love to condemn. There is no clear line that marks off politics from the threat of force, threat from use, and use from covert or open war. Who is a terrorist? Is it the suicide bomber, the rebel guerilla, the liberation front, or the armed forces of the state? In practice, it depends on the person who applies it. To Ulster loyalists all IRA violence is terrorism; to Sinn Fein it is part of a legitimate war. To many Israelis, everyone from the suicide-bombers in Jerusalem to the Hezbollah grenade-thrower in South Lebanon is a terrorist.

Governments can also stick to terrorism in order to attain their political objectives. The Americans support the idea when they accuse Libya or Iran of supporting global terrorism. In the cold war, international terrorists were used to wage war by proxy. The modern era’s most notorious terrorist, the gun-for-hire Carlos the Jackal, made his career in the world of state-sponsored terrorism.

So, terrorism is quite an ambiguous notion. Historically, it has always been the tool of the strong, not the weak. Medieval armies, having taken a besieged town, would slaughter some or all of the citizens to encourage other towns to surrender faster. The second thing one can learn from the wide definition of terrorism is that the phenomenon is neither uniquely wicked, nor uniquely deadly. Irrespective of the fact what kind of weapons people fight with (knives, Semtex, rifles, or fighter-bombers) all are equally convinced of their own righteousness as well as the number of victims is also the same.

Дата добавления: 2015-07-13