Terrorism Final Flashcards
Consider a recent act of murderous violence (besides 9/11 or the October 7 Hamas attacks) that might be considered an act of terrorism. (Describe it briefly.) Using either Bruce Hoffman’s or Charles Townshend’s definition of terrorism, explain why that act of violence does or does not constitute terrorism. In your answer, you should emphasize how either Hoffman’s or Townshend’s argument illuminates your understanding of terrorism (and is preferable or more useful than the other). Your post should demonstrate a substantive engagement with the readings and thoughtful application of the theory in question to your example.
The incident I chose was a bombing in Oklahoma City that occurred on April 19, 1995. The bombing took place in the morning by two white supremacists
/ anti government extremists. This bombing killed 168 people and injured over 680 and damaged almost 334 buildings. After taking both Hoffman and Towschend’s ideas on terrorism into account I agree more with Hoffman and this is an example of his definition. His definition talks about how people result to violence or exploitation of fear to make political change. This ties directly into the example I used because the two bombers attacked a federal building and were going against the politics of whom they attacked. Sometimes it is hard to tell if people are psychopaths or terrorists and having a political motive I believe makes more sense in the terms of terrorism. While Townshend leans more into the idea that terrorism because of politics is more like war and the motives can be different I have to disagree. From the attacks I’ve heard of I do not think that all violent acts are terrorism and there needs to be fear and political motive either domestic or foreign.
What were the challenges to a Christian theory of tyrannicide (consider especially the views of the early Christians toward state authority, as discussed in the lectures, as well as the later views of Thomas Aquinas, as seen in the Aquinas section in Voices of Terror)? How did John of Salisbury and Juan de Mariana attempt to overcome these challenges? In your opinion, how successful were they
Early Christians, as discussed in lectures, often grappled with the tension between obedience to secular rulers and their allegiance to a higher divine authority. This conflict became pronounced as Christianity evolved from a persecuted minority to a state-sanctioned religion. Thomas Aquinas, in the “Voices of Terror” section, contributed to the challenges by explaining a nuanced position that favored obedience to the rulers, even if tyrannical. John of Salisbury and Juan de Mariana sought to ease the tension between Christian principles and tyrannicide. Salisbury, in his work “Policraticus,” argued for the legitimacy of resisting a tyrant who deviates from the common good. He emphasized the ruler’s responsibility to uphold justice and the best for the people, providing a moral basis for opposition to tyrants. Juan de Mariana, on the other hand, in his treatise “De Rege,” supported the idea of tyrannicide under specific circumstances, especially when a ruler becomes a threat to the common good and violates natural law. The success of John of Salisbury and Juan de Mariana in overcoming these challenges is subjective. Both offered similar but different ideas when facing tyrannical issues and Christianity. While they offered theological and philosophical arguments, their ideas didn’t become widely accepted by Christians. The Catholic Church, for example did not adopt these views, and the tension between obedience to rulers and resistance to tyranny continued. I believe this is because many people in power at the church do not see themselves as tyrants, and when tying religion to political aspects the lines can get blurry on what is allowed for someone in power.
n his article “The French Revolution and the First Terror,” how does the historian Timothy Tackett position himself within existing scholarly debates concerning the Terror of 1793-94? In other words, how does Tackett seek to break from earlier scholarly interpretations and offer a new argument regarding the origins of the “Reign of Terror”? NOTE: Answering this question require paying carefully to a) what Tackett sees as the two major competing interpretations of the origins of the Terror and b) how Tackett presents his argument as superior to these earlier interpretations.
In “The French Revolution and the First Terror,” historian Timothy Tackett positions himself within existing scholarly debates surrounding the Terror of 1793-94 by challenging and going beyond two major competing interpretations of its origins. Tackett differentiates himself from earlier scholars by rejecting both the structuralist and revisionist perspectives, thereby offering a deep argument that highlights the complex interaction of personal and political factors leading to the “Reign of Terror. “The structuralist interpretation, which Tackett critiques, emphasizes the role of socio-economic factors, arguing that the radicalization and violence of the Revolution were inevitable outcomes of deep-rooted structural problems within French society. Tackett argues that this approach oversimplifies the complex dynamics at play during the Revolution, neglecting the significance of individual agency and choices. However, Tackett challenges the revisionist perspective, which attributes the Terror mainly to external threats and crises. According to this view, the radical measures were defensive responses to imminent dangers, such as foreign invasions and internal dissent. Tackett argues that while external pressures were present, they alone do not explain the unreasonable violence witnessed during the Reign of Terror. Tackett positions his argument as superior by proposing a conclusion that considers both structural and individual factors. He declares that the personal motivations and decisions of key revolutionary figures, like the Committee of Public Safety, played a crucial role in escalating the violence. Tackett emphasizes the significance of the ‘First Terror,’ a phase marked by the Committee’s internal power struggles and purges, as a forerunner to the broader Reign of Terror. By incorporating individual agency into the analysis, Tackett provides a deeper understanding of the origins of the Terror, challenging and surpassing the limitations of the structuralist and revisionist interpretations.
What is the significance of the gathering on the Rütli? What political views are conveyed in this scene?
Question 2: High Pass: Friedrich Schiller’s play “William Tell” is a timeless piece of work that explores many different themes including liberty, resistance to tyranny and the struggle for political autonomy. The gathering at the Rutli is a crucial part of this play and the story. It demonstrates the Swiss people’s commitment to freedom and resistance against oppressive foreign rule, specifically in the Napoleonic Era. The Swiss people coming together, from patriots to peasants, demonstrated the sacrifice and dedication to stand up to the Austrian rule, setting the stage for a broader theme of resisting tyranny. This scene emphasizes the importance of unity in a country, touching on the fact that to make change you must stand together. The collective decision making to take an oath to stand for yourself, in this scene hints towards democracy and conveys the belief political decisions should be communal decisions as well. This scene was pivotal in in many ways, especially for the act of resistance which William Tell later becomes a symbol of. The amount of sacrifice and desperation these people carried really showed the negative impact of this foreign government on the Swiss people and their need to change it.
Based on your reading of John Merriman’s The Dynamite Club, what were the three most important factors that led Émile Henry to bomb the Café Terminus? In giving your answers, you should include quotes from Merriman’s book and the relevant page numbers
Emile Henry was influenced in a multitude of ways to commit his actions, but the main three that stuck out to me were his personal grievances/upbringing, the political climate, and his belief in anarchy. On page 27 it talks about his father and how the Spaniards accuses them of anarchy, taking their possessions. His father’s bad experiences with different governments really stands out to me because our environment growing up has more affect than we think on us. Another big factor was his love for anarchism in general around pages 59-61 it talks of Emile’s quest to work for an anarchist newspaper and his success in doing so, becoming one of the most dedicated in the group. The tipping point for Emile was in chapter five after the events in the mines in Carmaux. He was not the only one angered by the injustice the government implemented on the miners but this took his anarchism to a different level.
In the chapter “On Violence” in The Wretched of the Earth, the psychiatrist, philosopher and activist Frantz Fanon makes a case for the necessity of violence in the process of decolonization. Your first post should answer the following questions:
Why does Fanon see violence as necessary and beneficial to the process of decolonization? In answering this question, you should identify three specific benefits that Fanon ascribes to anti-colonial violence, in each case quoting relevant sections (1-2 sentences long) of the Wretched of the Earth and providing the page number where these passages are found.
Is Fanon’s argument convincing? Why or why not? Be sure to be precise in your answers, with references to concrete arguments developed by Fanon in “On Violence.”
Frantz Fanon has multiple reasons he views violence as a necessity in decolonization. Based on the chapter he sees violence as a way to reclaim dignity and humanity. On page 41 he states, “The colonized man finds his freedom in and through violence” highlighting his view on violence as a tool for liberation. Another reason is, to him it fosters national consciousness, he states, “The unification of the people is achieved through violent means, and the liberation of the nation is the product of that unity” (p. 42) This quote shows his justification for violence as a means to spread national awareness. Lastly, he feels violence can dismantle colonial structures. In the chapter he explains, “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder” (p.41) This excerpt shows his perspective to create a new structure, you must destabilize the existing one. While Fanon’s argument is convincing when it comes to the psychological and social effects of colonialism, many see it as morally corrupt. While his understanding of violence as a tool is convincing his method might also create a cycle of violence and not be beneficial in the long-term.
Edward Said’s 2001 essay “The Clash of Ignorance” can be seen as a response to Bernard Lewis’s 1990 essay “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” In your post, you should 1) summarize three key elements of Lewis’s argument (with reference to specific quotes and page numbers), and 2) summarize three of Said’s counter-arguments (again with reference to specific quotes/page numbers), and 3) say whose argument you find more persuasive and why. (Note: you may want to also mention Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis, which comes up in Said’s piece).
The three key elements that summarize Lewis’s arguments in his essay “The Roots of Muslim Rage” (1990) are historical grievances, cultural clash, and religious factors. When referring to historical grievances Lewis touches on the loss of power territory and oppression of the Muslim culture as a gateway for Muslim resentment. The quote from his essay, “The contemporary antagonism between Islam and the West is neither eternal nor unbridgeable, but it is also not accidental or unimportant” (p.25) This quote referring to the west also ties in to the second factor that he mentions, Cultural clash. He, as written in his essay, believed that the problems between the Islamic world and the west go deeper than just economic or political factors, but also about fundamental cultural differences. The quote I pulled from page 27, shows some of when he explained his feelings on that, “We are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them”. Lastly, Lewis believed religious factors played an important role when fueling Muslim rage, especially towards the West. He argued that Islamic teachings and beliefs contribute to a worldview that perceives the west negatively. With that he assumed the Islam people see anyone outside of their culture as a threat. “Islam has brought comfort and peace of mind to countless millions of men and women” ……….”the basis of their sense of order and authority has collapsed” (p. 35), suggesting that the Islamic societies finds comfort in each other but fear elsewhere. In contrast, Edward Said’s 2001 essay “The Clash of Ignorance” can be seen as a response to the ideas Lewis presented. The first counterargument he proposed was Orientalist Bias- critiquing Lewis’s narrative as bias and perpetrating a simplistic, narrow minded, and essentialized view on the Islamic world. He explains, “But in the same way that one might wish to talk about Western civilization without necessarily being a militarist or an imperialist, the Islamic peoples too, want to be able to express themselves and their history without being accused of trying to revive the Caliphate or being irrevocably anti-Western” (p. 5). Said also refers to Samuel Huntington’s these on the class of civilizations and argued that Huntington’s oversimplifies global dynamics and encourages a divisive worldview. He suggests that thesis’ like these further contribute to ignorance and misunderstanding rather than solutions and cooperation. Lastly, Said critiqued the homogenization of Islam and argued that Lewis’s analysis overlooks the diversity of Muslim societies and stereotypes them all one way. He writes, “At best, such a view presents a monolithic, essentialized Islam, unchanging and unchangeable; at worst, it reduces Islam to a series of polemics, clichés, and crude simplifications” (p. 6). Further reiterating his perspective on Lewi’s general grouping of Islam. When considering these arguments, I think they both bring up good points, but I do tend to agree with Said’s perspective a bit more, while Lewis does have some factual and convincing arguments, they do tend to seem a bit personally biased, for me making his argument not as convincing as Edward’s.
tyrannicide: How is tyrannicide similar to and different from terrorism? Consider their motives,
justifications, and intended effects. Are there certain historical acts of terrorism that more strongly
resemble tyrannicide than others? In what ways did 19th and 20th century “terrorism” draw on the
legacy of tyrannicide? In your answer be as specific as possible
Tyrannicide and terrorism share commonalities in their use of violence for political ends and in targeting authority figures, yet they diverge significantly in their motives, justifications, and intended effects. Tyrannicide, exemplified by the assassination of Julius Caesar, typically aims at removing oppressive rulers to bring about positive change, whereas terrorism often targets civilians to instill fear or achieve ideological goals. Certain historical acts, such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, blur the lines between terrorism and tyrannicide, as they target symbols of oppressive regimes. The 19th and 20th-century “terrorism” drew on the legacy of tyrannicide, particularly in anarchist movements, where assassinations and bombings were justified as necessary measures against perceived tyrannical governments or capitalist oppression, reflecting a continuity of violence as a means of political change.
the Terror: What were the causes of the French Revolutionary Terror? How was the Terror justified by
Robespierre? In what ways did his justification draw on the thought of Rousseau? Who were the chief
perpetrators of the Terror and who were its chief victims? What is Tackett’s theory of the origins of
the Terror? What is the significance of the French Revolutionary terror for the origins of modern
terrorism?
The causes of the French Revolutionary Terror were multifaceted, including external threats to the revolution, internal divisions among revolutionary factions, economic instability, and the perceived need for radical measures to protect the gains of the revolution. Maximilien Robespierre justified the Terror as a necessary response to defend the revolution from internal enemies and to safeguard the principles of liberty and equality. His justification drew heavily on the thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, particularly Rousseau’s idea of the “general will” and the necessity of collective action for the common good. The chief perpetrators of the Terror were members of the Committee of Public Safety, led by Robespierre himself, who wielded unchecked power to suppress perceived enemies of the revolution. The chief victims included aristocrats, counter-revolutionaries, and anyone deemed a threat to the revolutionary government. Tackett’s theory of the origins of the Terror emphasizes the role of paranoia and fear within revolutionary factions, leading to a cycle of violence and repression. The significance of the French Revolutionary terror for the origins of modern terrorism lies in its utilization of state-sanctioned violence and mass executions as a means of achieving political objectives, foreshadowing the tactics employed by later terrorist movements seeking radical political change.
partisan warfare: What is partisan warfare? How does it differ from “traditional” warfare? What factors
led to widespread partisan campaigning in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars? How did some
German nationalists embrace the “partisan spirit” in their writings? How is partisan warfare similar
to/different from terrorism? In what ways does William Tell embody the “partisan spirit,” at least in
Schiller’s representation of him
Partisan warfare is a form of irregular warfare characterized by small, mobile, and decentralized groups operating in guerrilla-style tactics against a larger, often occupying force. Unlike traditional warfare with defined battlefronts and uniformed armies, partisan warfare thrives on ambushes, sabotage, and hit-and-run tactics, making it difficult for conventional forces to combat. In Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, widespread partisan campaigning arose due to a combination of patriotic resistance against French occupation, local grievances, and the inability of conventional Spanish forces to repel the invaders effectively. German nationalists embraced the “partisan spirit” in their writings as a means of advocating for resistance against foreign domination and the assertion of national identity. While partisan warfare shares similarities with terrorism in its use of irregular tactics against a stronger adversary, its objectives typically focus on liberation or self-defense rather than instilling fear or achieving ideological goals through violence against civilians. In Schiller’s representation of William Tell, the Swiss hero embodies the partisan spirit through his defiance against tyrannical rule, his commitment to his homeland’s freedom, and his willingness to resist oppression, showcasing the virtues of patriotic resistance against tyranny.
Kotzebue/ Sand: Why did Carl Ludwig Sand assassinate August von Kotzebue and why was his act
viewed sympathetically by many people? What does his letter “To My Family” reveal about his
motives? What factors contributed to the antipathy toward Kotzebue in broad sectors of the German
public? Can Sand’s assassination of Kotzebue be described as the first act of terrorism? Why or why
not?
Carl Ludwig Sand assassinated August von Kotzebue in 1819 because he perceived Kotzebue as a symbol of reactionary and oppressive forces, particularly due to his perceived role as a spy for the Russian government and his opposition to liberal and nationalist ideals. Sand’s act was viewed sympathetically by many people who shared his nationalist sentiments and saw Kotzebue as a traitor to the cause of German freedom. In his letter “To My Family,” Sand reveals his motives, expressing a deep sense of duty to his country and a desire to rid Germany of perceived enemies of liberty. Factors contributing to antipathy toward Kotzebue included his association with conservative regimes and his perceived betrayal of German aspirations for political reform and national unity. While Sand’s assassination of Kotzebue may not fit the modern definition of terrorism, as it targeted a specific individual rather than indiscriminately targeting civilians, it can be seen as an early example of political violence aimed at advancing nationalist and revolutionary goals, reflecting the turbulent political climate of early 19th-century Europe.
Harpers Ferry: How did John Brown come to embrace violence as a legitimate tactic in the campaign
against slavery in the United States? How and under what influences did his strategies for an armed
uprising evolve over time? What was the specific goal of the raid on Harpers Ferry and what was its
impact? Was the raid an example of terrorism? Why does Carola Dietze see the Harpers Ferry raid as
a key moment in the “invention” of terrorism?
John Brown embraced violence as a legitimate tactic in the campaign against slavery in the United States due to his deep-seated belief in the righteousness of his cause and his conviction that peaceful means were insufficient to end the institution of slavery. Influenced by his experiences witnessing the brutality of slavery, Brown’s strategies for armed uprising evolved over time, influenced by his interactions with abolitionists and his own experiences in violent conflicts in Kansas. The specific goal of the raid on Harpers Ferry was to incite a slave rebellion and seize the federal arsenal to arm enslaved people, ultimately sparking a widespread uprising against slavery. Although the raid failed to achieve its immediate objectives and resulted in Brown’s capture and execution, its impact was profound, intensifying sectional tensions and galvanizing both sides of the slavery debate. While the raid on Harpers Ferry does not neatly fit the definition of modern terrorism, Carola Dietze sees it as a key moment in the “invention” of terrorism due to its use of violence targeting symbols of authority and its attempt to instill fear and provoke a larger conflict over the issue of slavery, thereby highlighting the evolving nature of political violence in the United States.
Russian revolutionary terror: Tsarist Russia is often cited as the birthplace of modern terrorism due to the
sheer frequency of terrorist acts in that land. Why factors led terrorism to become such a pervasive
4
tactic among radicals in late nineteenth-century Russia (1866-1914)? What were the ideologies,
tactics, and goals of the key terrorist movements in Russia? To what extent did the Russian secret
police contribute to the spread of terrorist violence?
Terrorism became a pervasive tactic among radicals in late nineteenth-century Russia due to a combination of repressive Tsarist policies, social inequality, and the influence of revolutionary ideologies such as Marxism and populism. The harsh suppression of dissent by the Tsarist regime pushed many activists towards violent means as a perceived necessity for change. The key terrorist movements in Russia, such as the People’s Will and the Socialist Revolutionary Party, aimed to overthrow the autocratic regime through targeted assassinations, bombings, and propaganda of the deed, seeking to inspire mass uprisings and bring about social revolution. The Russian secret police, notably the Okhrana, played a paradoxical role in both combating and inadvertently facilitating terrorist violence by employing harsh repression, which fueled radicalization and provided justification for violent resistance, while also infiltrating and sometimes manipulating revolutionary groups to further their own ends, ultimately contributing to the cycle of violence and instability in late Tsarist Russia.
Anarchism: What was/is anarchism? What factors led late nineteenth-century anarchists, especially in
France, to embrace terrorism as a tactic? How did anarchists seek to justify their attacks? How did
European governments respond to the anarchist threat?
Anarchism is a political ideology advocating for the abolition of all forms of hierarchical authority and the establishment of a stateless, non-coercive society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. In the late nineteenth century, particularly in France, anarchists increasingly embraced terrorism as a tactic due to perceived injustices stemming from industrialization, urbanization, and authoritarian governance. Feeling marginalized and oppressed by capitalist exploitation and state repression, anarchists believed that targeted violence against symbols of authority and oppression was necessary to incite revolutionary change and pave the way for a society based on liberty and equality. Anarchists sought to justify their attacks as acts of resistance against tyranny and as a means of inspiring popular uprisings against oppressive systems. European governments responded to the anarchist threat with draconian measures, including mass arrests, surveillance, and the suppression of anarchist publications and organizations, further exacerbating the cycle of violence and repression between anarchists and the state.
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: What are the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What factors led
militants on both sides to embrace terroristic tactics at different points in time? How did Palestinian
terrorism shift (in ideology and tactics) between the 1960s and the 1990s? What was/is the broader
significance of this conflict for the Middle East and for the world?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict traces its roots to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, marked by competing claims to the land of historic Palestine by Jewish and Arab populations. Factors including displacement, nationalist aspirations, and competing religious narratives have fueled tensions and violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Militants on both sides have at times embraced terroristic tactics as a means of advancing their political objectives and gaining international attention, with Palestinians resorting to terrorism particularly in response to perceived Israeli occupation and oppression. Palestinian terrorism evolved from guerrilla warfare and hijackings in the 1960s to suicide bombings and indiscriminate attacks targeting civilians in the 1990s, reflecting a shift towards more extreme ideologies and tactics. The broader significance of this conflict for the Middle East and the world lies in its perpetuation of regional instability, exacerbation of religious and ethnic tensions, and its role as a focal point for geopolitical rivalries, impacting global security and stability.
