Running head: ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION 1

Arguments of Definition Annotated Bibliography and Topic Proposal: Terrorism

Clarice Hester

Arizona State University

ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION 2

Abstract/Topic Proposal

According to Dictionary.com, terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or

coerce, especially for political purposes. The word has been used to describe events such as the attack on

the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the bombings that occurred at the Boston Marathon in

2013, and many other tragic events. In recent years there has been some criticism in regards to the

reluctance of political officials to label certain things as terrorism, mass shootings and the activities of

certain hate groups for instance. Some people feel that any person or group who causes “terror” should be

labeled a terrorist regardless of motive or lack thereof. They feel that this is not done due to the deep

seeded racist tendencies in the United States. I believe that an act of terrorism has to be politically

motivated in order to be labeled as such. Simply causing panic does not qualify.

Keywords: terrorism, violence, crime, terror, political, motivation

ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION 3

Arguments of Definition Annotated Bibliography and Topic Proposal: Terrorism

Summary

This article by Eyder Peralta debates whether or

not the shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee,

committed by Mohammod Youssuf

Abdulazeez, was an act of terrorism. Experts in

language and political science analyze the event

and the word “terrorism” itself in order to

decide if Abdulazeez is a terrorist. They concluded that it is difficult to determine motive (a political

motive would constitute terrorism) and that the definition of terrorism needs to be constructed on a case-

by-case basis. They also agreed that not knowing what to label a crime contributed to the uneasiness of

Americans.

Evaluation

This source from National Public Radio is credible and offers interesting insight into how and why certain

events are labeled terrorism and others are not. By not taking a position on whether or not the crime in

question is terrorism, the author is able to delve into deeper analysis of the word and why Americans so

desperately want to able to categorize things.

Reflection

This article could be used to explain why the controversy around the word “terrorism” exists. The experts

whom the author interviewed present valuable points that can be used to explain the word and society’s

need for concrete definitions especially when it comes to feelings of security.

Citation

Peralta, Eyder. When is an act of violence an act of terrorism?. National Public Radio, 17 July 2015
ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION 4

Summary

The article, What Qualifies as Terrorism? by Lane Wallace compares three different crimes and tries to

decide whether or not those crimes qualify as terrorism and why or why not. After a great deal of

rhetorical questions and extensive background information, the author settles on the definition of

terrorism being the “Federal Definition of Terrorism” and states that the race or religious affiliation of the

perpetrator has no weight when determining whether or not they are a terrorist.

Evaluation

Because of the strong willed nature of the author, the article comes off a bit biased or closedminded.

However, it is an effective source and one that evaluates several cases and makes decisions on each of

them based on the US definition of terrorism.

Reflection

This article could be used to support the argument that terrorism is, by definition, politically motivated.

The author does not deviate from his stance that any violent act or crime that causes mass panic is not

terrorism unless it is backed a political agenda or established terrorist organization. This source is a strong

one for my argument.

Citation

Wallace, Lane. What qualifies as terrorism?. The Atlantic, 23 February 2010.

Hyperlink

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/02/what-qualifies-as-terrorism/36410/
ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION 5

Summary

The article, Why aren’t mass shootings called terrorism? by Michele Richinick takes a look at why

certain crimes and acts of violence aren’t labeled as terrorism. She goes into religious/ethnic prejudices

and the strong beliefs held by Pro-gun America. Richinick states that if half or even a quarter of the recent

mass shootings had been committed by people of color no one would hesitate to label it terrorism.

Evaluation

This article, although heavily biased, effectively discusses the more liberal side of the controversy and the

author uses evidence such as charts and grafts as well as testimony from experts to support her claims.

Reflection

This source could be used to present the counter argument that the reason particular acts of violence are

called terrorism over others is somewhat racially motivated. It brings several new arguments to light such

as the role gun control plays in terrorism and why some gun-lovers are cautious when describing mass

shooting and other mass crimes as terrorism.

Citation

Richinick, Michele. Why aren’t mass shootings called terrorism?. MSNBC, 3 February 2014.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION 6

Summary

In this episode of Crash Course, John Green goes over the circumstances leading up to President George

W. Bush’s election, the No Child Left Behind Act, and how Bush dealt with the events of 9/11. Green

went into detail about the Bush Doctrine and how the President decided to wage war on terrorists and the

countries from which they hailed. Green discussed the debacle that was the war in Iraq and how shortly

thereafter, Bush declared war on any nation suspected on terrorist activity.

Evaluation

This video presents a look at how terrorism has been dealt with in the past, specifically the attacks on the

World Trade Center on 9/11. It is effective in presenting all the information in a (mostly) unbiased

manner and tells a story of terrorism through the presidency of George W. Bush.

Reflection

This source is credible and can be used as anecdotal evidence for how terrorism has been tackled

throughout history and help to establish the criteria for what is to be considered terrorism. By looking at

how unchallenged terrorist acts have been handled, other crimes can be analyzed and compared to see if

they are indeed terrorism.

Citation

Green, John. Terrorism, war, and Bush 43: crash course US history #46. Crash Course, 30 January 2014.

Hyperlink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlsnnhn3VWE
ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION 7
ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION 8