The word terrorism is still a useful term because there have been recent terrorist attacks,

Quiz name: Terrorism Discussion Questions (5-13-2016) Date: 05/13/2016 Question with Most Correct Answers: #0 Total Questions: 12 Question with Fewest Correct Answers: #0 1. Is terrorism still a useful analytical term or should it be abandoned? Doe, John Useful Terrorism should still be used and should not be abandoned. Terrorism should be used because it is the only term that can describe what it really means to hurt innocent people. If they stop using the word what other word will they use that has a similar meaning. There should be a specific definition for the word and everyone should use it in the proper way. Elias, Kevin The word terrorism is still a useful term because there have been recent terrorist attacks, The term terrorism should be abandoned. The word is vague, and everyone has different interpretations of what it means. There are many disagreement between what events are considered terrorism and what isn't. Also, terrorism has such a negative connotation. The word casts a shadow of fear and resentment. Politicians use the word to win support for wars. The word "terrorism" also has become a way to invoke prejudice against minorities. These reasons prove that "terrorism" can be a toxic word. Instead, words like "political violence" should be used. i do not think that the term for terrorism is the right thing to you because there is probably other words that you could use the terrorism it should be abandoned because the is no definite term or difination of the word terroism it should be abandoned because no one knows the definition of the word it could mean be anything. Garcia, Eliyah I believe it should be abandoned because no one ever has agreed on one meaning for terrorism. Everyone has their own opinion on terrorism. For example, like guy shooting in the airport awhile ago, people named that an act of terrorism but when a man shot in a gas station and they said it wasn't terrorism. Rua, Denise With high-profile incidents of political violence continuing to make headlines, the time has come to question the labeling of these events as terrorism. The term terrorism creates the false impression that the actions it describes represent a special or unique phenomenon. The simplest solution to this problem would be for scholars and policymakers alike to jettison the term. Dussard,krystia Yes,terrorisn is still a useful analytical term and it should not be abandoned.although it is difficult to determibe terrorism bevaude it may offend a country/ countries, it is still needed if an attack had occured and the characteristics of the scene had been one of of a terrorist attack. It's still useful because it has multiple categories of terrorism. Terrorism include political terrorism and religious terrorism. Terrorism is still a useful analytical term because it is one that people have been using for a long time to define acts of terror whether it is political or religious. Page 1 of 11

I think that it should be abandoned because you dont know whether the person is a terrorist or not. Anyone can be a terrorist, if a person is invading a persons right and causing you to destroy things of theirs, then it can be a cause of a terrorist. terrorism should be abandoned because it causes lots a problem. and people are getting hurt and terrorism should be stop. some people dont know what is a terrorism the definition of terrorism is so many things know one knows what is terrorism. Terrorism is still a useful analytical term. Cristian Sanchez in some cases i think terrorism should be abandoned but in others i dont think so. i think it is a good term for cases such as bombings and large attacks. It should be abandoned for the reason of acts that are not serious such as blackmailing people to do what they want because that is a type of terrorism. It still is a useful analytical term and it should not be abandoned. Although it is difficult to determine terrorism because it may offend a country/countries, it is still needed if an attack had occurred and the characteristics of the scene had been one of a terrorist attack. They would need it to determine what to do in that situation. Terrorism is still a useful analytical term because it is one that people have been using for a long time and it is one topic that can determine an act of terror. Terrorism is still a useful analytical term because it is known as being an act to inflict terror onto unknowing civilians. It should be used to only identify when a certain act is token place.for example taking action using violence to terrorize people to prove a point. 2. Is there a new terrorism in existence today? There is new terrorism today all over the world. Terrorism is when a single person or a group plans to attack something or someone for a specific reason or cause. Today's new terrorist is ISIS,they have said that they are planning to bomb somewhere in California. New terrorism is all over and it is caused because others have different opinions or views on the way the government does things and they want it to be done differently or it to be done how it was when it was first done. Elias, Kevin yes,a group known as ISIS has recently been involved in attacks in paris and california and depending on your definition of terrorism there might be many other groups Terrorist groups operate differently then they did in the past. For example, terrorist groups use the internet to recruit others and get their messages and actions put to the public. "New terrorism" uses religious radicalism as one of its motives, whereas "old terrorism" was more secular. yes there is a new terrorism i think but im not really sure i dont really ember from the slide show from yesterday i believe not because terrorism always will happen because of something that has changed or something that needs change or cause that some believes that wroth peoples lives maybe there is the word means anything Page 2 of 11

Garcia, Eliyah Yes there are many new meaning of terrorism today. While on man believes someone bombing an amusement park is an ac of terrorism another man might think that's no where near an act of terrorism. Some people think that terrorism is only people out of the country to commit the act but others believe it is that plus people from the country they are trying to harm. Rua, Denise Advocates of the new terrorism concept contend that the impetuses of terrorists are altering and indicate the progress of religious fundamentalism. The cogency of the term new terrorism and some make comparisons between antecedents in history and recent terrorist acts. The similarity of the two, including the political religion of their ideologies, the transnational nature of both sets of terrorists who oftentimes planned attacks and lived abroad, as well as the likeness of political economic situation in the world at the end of the 19th and 20th century. I think that there is which is the new weapons that they have made today. Nuclear bombs have such effects in many places. If a nuclear bomb were to be dropped on a city which has many civilian and which there are little enemy it would be terrorizing the people. The weapons that are made today have so much destruction power on them now, and different countries from around the world are threatning each other to get what they want. well i really dont know right now but i do know that there is a terrorism right now as we are speaking in Afghanistan. there is a war over there.some of there group cause terrorism in the United States Cristian Sanchez There is still an existence of 'New terrorism today in my opinion. Many patrons of the concept of new terrorism observe the eminence of religion, essentially radical Islam, as one of its key features. This terrorism is reputedly distinguished from the old by a new structure, a new kind of personnel, and a new attitude toward violence.terrorists are now able and willing to develop network forms of organization for the same reason that businesses are. The 'New terrorism' has been evolving into more violent acts and other things over time. No, there is not a new terrorism in existence today. It is just the fact that one act of terrorism is being used more than another. Terrorism doesn t seem different now in 2016 than it did back in 2001. Although places are taking more precaution so that it doesn t happen like it did the last time, the terrorists are still finding opportunities to blow up, threaten and/or shoot up areas with an unspecified amount of people in it. What is most common today that can be considered a "new terrorism" is bombing.another way can be financially making another person suffer. 3. Can states be terrorists? States cannot be terrorist because everyone has different opinions and or beliefs. People within a states don't necessarily have to take part in anything that they don't want to do unless it's the law and I don't believe that it is apart of the law for them to commit terrorist attacks. If anything it is the complete opposite. For example when it comes down to the middle east people say they are all terrorist because of what happened on 9/11. When in reality not all the people in the middle eats had anything to do with it. It was just a group that originated from there. Page 3 of 11

Governments and officials of a state can contribute to state sponsored terrorism. A state's gov't could give supplies to support terrorist actions. It could also use terror tactics against their own civilians to suppress them. It could also use terror tactics against other people with views that they do not advocate for. no because maybe the people there are not all the same and don't want terrorist or don't want anything to do with terrorism maybe a few people the are terrorist but not all states can not be terrorist beacsue a state shouldn't be accounted for a group of people actions yes because it means anything Garcia, Eliyah I believe so if they are trying to get a certain point out there. Anyone can be terrorists if they cause terror/harm/death to civilians who have never done anything wrong. States can be terrorists because they would automatically send of group of people who represent the state. Yes they can. If they have nuclear bombs, they can threat other states with it and say that they will launch it if they dont get what they want. Yes terrorism can happen in any states. It happen in the United States and France Yes, states or entire countries can be labeled terrorists because it had happened before. If a country gets attacked by a foreign person, or foreign people, that would seem like the country that the person(s) is from does not like or favor the other place that was attacked. The whole country would look bad for what one or a couple people have done, especially if it had happened more than once. States or countries can be held at fault for their people s actions whether is was to make a political or religious statement and that also dampens it for other people that are from that country because they are judged as being a terrorist or they are watched because people think they might do something. They can be if they do illegal and violent actions to other states or countries.such as destroying property or the economy to prove a point. 4. Is terrorism a serious threat to international and national security? Terrorism is a serious threat to both international and national security. Terrorism is a threat to anyone because terrorist will plan their attacks anywhere and everywhere if they like. They will go to extreme measures just to prove that they want to make a difference or stand up for what they believe in. Terrorism is an international threat because there are terrorist among up and they might be secretly planning things. For example ISIS is trying to get people to join them and what happened in San Bernardino was linked to ISIS. If they can get people from California what makes you think they can get people from other places. Terrorism poses as a threat internationally. Especially in recent events, terrorists will plot to execute attacks on a grander scale than the last. But terrorism isn't the only security problem our country or world faces. Page 4 of 11

? yeas beaacuse it can effect everyone around the world because each country behold something that one country shouldn't have and if terrorist get it especially the ones who don't care about life they will kill us idk Garcia, Eliyah It is a serious threat because if the terrorist want to go after them then it's going to cause chaos if they weren't ever prepared. Yes it is, if terrorist were to start doing things that causes cities to be scared then, there would be alot of panic everywhere going on. terrorist wouldnt stop until they get what they want. Yes terrorism is a threat to the international because it is happening in ever country I don t think terrorism is a serious threat to international and national security. International and national security have taken more precautions. They had made sure to rule out anything or anyone that seems to be classified as a threat. National and international security try to prevent anything that could be harmful to a state or country from entering. Yes,because terrorist don't care and will hurt anybody.also security will try to stop them and terrorist will eliminate whoever gets in their path. 5. Is WMD terrorism a likely prospect in the future? I think that WMD terrorism is a likely prospect in the future because terrorist can get their hands on anything that they want. terrorist can make their own bombs. They will and can go to the max just for their own reasons and or beliefs. Weapons of mass destruction can be used and terrorist can try to get their hands on them and might be successful or might not. It doesn't keep them from trying. If obtaining WMDs becomes easier in the future, the likelihood of WMD terrorism could increase. However,the Boston Marathon Bombing and many other events have shown that nuclear weapons are not needed to harm multiple people at once. Also, it is still very difficult to orchestrate a WMD terror attack. So, terrorists will most likely continue to use conventional methods harming a populations to avoid the risk of trying to obtain WMDs. no WMDs as a self-evident or uncontroversial claim.78 Ibid, The Future of Terror in Expert Literature and the Advocacy of so yeah i'm not sure Page 5 of 11

I think that it isnt and it depends on the people. if weapons of destruction destroys many things, places, and homes, then i dont think that there would even be a future. It would only be a future of destruction if things were to go bad. Yes WMD is a terrorism weapon in the future because if they use that to a country they are destroying the country Weapons of Mass Destruction is definitely a likely prospect in the future. Although the generation of these terrorists may die out, there s also other generations that could take over. It could be a possibility that a bunch of intelligent people working together to damage or even take down a whole nation. If terrorism does even go away, it s unlikely that it ll go away forever because there is always someone or something that brings it back or the terrorists were just planning something worst. It can be if the problem reaches to that point in the future. 6. Does al Qaeda continue to pose a serious international threat? Al-Qaeda continues to pose international threat because they have before in the past. Even though they have posed serious threat in the past they still can because they know exactly what to do because they have done it before and were successful. Even though it is harder to plan something it wouldn't really stop them. Al Qaeda still poses a threat, but not as serious as it used to be. After bin Laden's death, the group took on new leadership and continues to operate. Reports show that Al Qaeda is present in 60 countries in the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa. i dont really remember Al Qaeda and its affiliates still present a serious threat to the U.S. despite El Chapo's Extradition to U.S. Can Move Ahead, Judge Rules in Pakistan, the State Department said in its annual report on global terrorism is primarily active yes because its killing people Al-Qaeda still active after Osama Bin Laden killing. Even with it's leader dead Al-Qaeda remains a significant force, particularly through the combined syndicates in countries such as Yemen and Syria. Yes the al Qaeda is still threatening the United states and France by saying things that they will destroy next and bombing buildings Yes, they do still continue to pose a serious international threat. Al Qaeda has lost their primary leader but they have still managed to evolve and spread throughout other places. They are doing illegal acts so that they can earn more money and they are increasing financially. They still pose a serious threat because they still continue to attack. Page 6 of 11

They are still using bomb threats to scare people. 7. Is terrorism the result of root causes such as poverty and exclusion? Terrorism is the result of poverty and exclusion. Poverty because bombings have destroyed houses and or peoples possessions. Since 9/11 people tend to say that all middle easterners had something to do with it therefore leave them all out of the circle. Terrorism attacks economy wise leaves people in poverty by taking all their money and leaving them with nothing. Terrorism is the result of poverty and exclusion. Living in poor conditions and exclusion could make people more likely to commit crime. It could also harbor resentment toward richer, seemingly more privileged countries and populations. no it dont seem to cause any of those bt i'm not really sure t is such a widespread which clearly contradicts the belief that poverty is a root cause of terrorism, cannot be dismissed result when economic success has been achieved, yet a corresponding increase in political power no because its not doing nothing bad it depends. For example, i think that the army are like terrorist to other places in countries, if armies were to be here where i am at and start invading properties and start destroying things and killing people, then i would consider it a terrorism, so i think yes it is. Well terrorism happen by things that people dont like so they have to do something big to get there attention. Sometimes its about the religion and what do everyone has to believe Yes, It may the result of root causes such as poverty and exclusion. If a country is not well equipped and they are suffering, they could blame a well off country as though they are the cause of them not having anything. Being excluded is not something many people like. People that are excluded and are poor could have anger towards those that they believe do not need it but have it anyways. It can if for example they hurt the economy or other places that can affect the people which could lead to poverty and exclusion. 8. Is religious extremism a major cause of terrorism? I am not sure if religious extremism is a major cause of terrorism because not all people do it because of their beliefs. Terrorist do it for what they think is right and want to be heard and the only way they think they can be heard is by doing things that hurt others. Page 7 of 11

Religious extremism isn't a major cause of terrorism. While some terrorists kill for radicial religious reasons, Bad conditions caused by Western intervention in the Middle East causes terrorism. Religion is often used a a motivator - terrorists will be told that they will go to paradise if they follow out their objectives. yes sometime it is about something religious that involves the terrorism they enforce Shira Law which is a major human rights violation of many people Religion is not the only cause of terrorism but it is definitely one of them idk I think that it isnt. it has nothing to do with it because it never talks about killing one another. It is up to a person who what they wanna be. Well yes and no some people do terrorism because they dont like how it is. so they want something to do so they can do it in there way. and it sis about religion like al qaeda they dont like how the united states looks so they want to do it in There way and want them To believe the same god as them No. No, religious extremism is not a major cause of terrorism.terrorism has been used all throughout history. It has not always been because of religion but for political reasons.terrorists believe that if they can kill one person, they can instill fear into others so that they can get their way. Although some try to use religion as an excuse to do their attack, religious extremism is not the major cause of terrorism. From most of the terrorist groups yes due to different believes that they have which involve violence. 9. Are counter-terrorism frameworks based on suppression and military force effective in responding to terrorism? I am not sure what this question is asking. Over-prolonged and unnecessary military intervention, as it was displayed in the invasion in Iraq, destabilizes the region and creates a situation where terrorists groups flourish. i dont know How suppression and military force plays its role in disbanding Y Alexander, Counter-Terrorism Strategies Successes and Failures of Six as a response relies heavily on intelligence to be effective, especially when prewhether dissolution frameworks based on suppression and military force are. Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons. Page 8 of 11

I think that it is because it can be an international threat. If armies were to come in someones house and startkilling them that would be considered as a terrorism. im not sure about this question but there are some people who are counter terrorism gets frame form the work they did No, using another nation s military to occupy a foreign nation does not help suppress terrorist activity. It does not because there are more people like them all around the world and not just those places. By going there and occupying that space, they know that they have to go somewhere else. If they have nowhere to go but through a rival s turf, they could join each other and become even bigger terrorist group that could pose an even larger threat. It sometimes works, but then it can lead them to use more violent acts. 10. Is the use of coercive interrogation or torture permissible and effective as a counter-terrorism method? I don't believe that torture is effective. If terrorist feel strongly about the reason they are committing these acts are right then they will do whatever they have to. Even if they have to go through torture to prove a point. Torture doesn't always get people to talk. Plus it isn't okay to do that anymore. Torture is not an effective method to combat terrorism. Not only is torture is violation of human rights, it provides unreliable and inaccurate information. Torture methods have been proved to impair memory and cause trauma. In addition, suspected terrorists could provide the info. official want to hear, but it's not true just to stop the torture,? Controversial interrogation techniques used by the CIA have been under the spotlight for years. from suspects but insisted: "This government does not torture people. that sought to justify the use of waterboarding and other methods. violence by revolutionary groups or regimes that intimidates and terrifies the general population. I think that it is a counter of a terrorism because it is forcing someone to do what they want to hear and get. Well I really think they use torture interrogation because that is the only way to make them speak No. The use of coercive interrogation or torture is not permissible and effective as a Counter-terrorism method. The information gathered by someone being tortured could just be way for them to relieve themselves of the brutal activity.terror is nothing but prompt, severe and inflexible justice. It cannot be relied on. People will take measures to get out of a dangerous situation and terrorists could be using false information as one. Page 9 of 11

It can be a useful method to gain information out of them to know how to act with the information received to prevent bad things from happening. 11. Is the targeted assassination of terrorist suspects an effective response to terrorism? No targeted assassination of terrorist suspects is not an effective response to terrorism. They might be possible suspects and why kill someone if you are not sure that they are for sure the real deal? Might as well just take them in and hold them for a while until they're sure that they have something to do with it. They'd be taking someones life and not be sure why they did if it wasnt really them. Targeted assassinations of leaders and significant figures in terrorist organizations can cause brief instability, but others will simply to moved up to fill their places and more will continue to be recruited. It is not a long term solution to controlling the growth of terrorism. yes it is something to terrorism but sometimes not Targeted killings have become a central component of U.S. counter terrorism tactic to pursue those responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and in counter terrorism efforts in Pakistan, Yemen, more than 1200 criminal incidents were claimed by animal and envirommental rights extermists. I think that it is because if someone orders a person to do it for them, it would still be a cause of terrorism because they are making their own choice to do such thing. I really dont know but that person is assassinated well its only a man slaughter No, the targeted assassination of terrorist suspects is not an effective response to terrorism. It is not effective because it could only cause more problems later on. Terrorist groups are growing and they are also increasing so if their enemy kills one of their people then that would just increase their hate for those people. They really shouldn t assassinate those people but instead try to negotiate a deal with them.. 12. Have global efforts to reduce terrorism and political violence been effective in the past decade? I'm not so sure if global efforts to reduce terrorism have been effective in the past decades. In the past decade, global efforts to reduce terrorism have caused the rise of new terrorist groups. Some of the military efforts the US were involved in destabilized regions and caused anarchy. The rise of terrorist attacks globally have increased. Page 10 of 11

yes it has seem to reduce in the past decade i think Over the past decade, the international community has developed UN-sponsored sanctions have been effective in addressing state sponsorship of terrorism,but has not been effective idk I think that its still the same probably even more now because of the WMD's. If they are to threat them with another state and the state doesnt want to do anything then it can cause both to start a war. the global effects hasnt reduce the terrorism. Terrorism happens everywhere violence happens everyday. terrorism did past in a decade somewhere in califorina a couple had a shootout in a daycare for elderly people. Then there was a bombing in France Hundreds of people died in that day. Terrorism cant be stop. This world cant have any peace because there are people who has a problem with one thing. So I really think that terrorism well go on in the future No. Global effects to reduce terrorism and political violence has worked. It worked with terrorism because places are not being blown up as violently as others in the past and less people are dying. Even though people are still getting hurt by terrorists, it s not as forceful because terrorists can bring certain things into a country anymore. In a global and political aspect, it has helped but not tremendously. Page 11 of 11