The Federal Bureau of Investigation describes an act of international terrorism as one that infringes on criminal laws by endangering human life and is conducted to intimidate citizens and manipulate government policies in support of extremist environmental, religious, racial, political or social ideologies that originate from outside of the United States (Gus 4).  Based on this description, the actions of the Army Major who maintains contact with an Al Qaeda operative that is based in a foreign country that shouts “Allah Akbar” before shooting and killing 33 fellow soldiers could be said to be guilty of committing an act of international terrorism.

Even though the violent act was carried out within US jurisdiction, and the shooter, as well as his victims, were all citizens of the United States, the fact that he had previous contact with a recognized member of a terrorist organization in a foreign nation proves that even if he had never set foot outside the US, the army major’s actions were actually inspired by the extremist ideologies that have been cultivated in a foreign nation by the Al Qaeda terrorist organization which is based there. The army major probably gradually embraced anti-government views over time, and then became radicalized by consuming terrorist ideology through online forums (Kurzman, 2).

Question 2

The FBI describes domestic terrorism as any activity, conducted by natively-born perpetrators and targeting local civilians, which infringes on criminal laws by endangering human life, and is carried out to intimidate local citizens and manipulate government policies in support of extremist environmental, religious, racial, political or social ideologies which have arisen in response to circumstances that are specific to the US (Koehler 4). The FBI also asserts that for such activities to be considered as constituting domestic terrorism, they have to be committed within American jurisdiction. According to Corbin, for a violent act to be considered as an example of domestic terrorism by the FBI, its perpetrator, as well as victims, have to be from the United States, and the act itself has to have direct consequences for the political policies, government, citizens or business organizations of the venue country. Based on these definitions, the actions of the gunman who shoots and kills more than 20 citizens in a movie theater are indicative of domestic terrorism. The fact that there are materials associated with far-right groups that are later discovered in his apartment proves that his actions were influenced by the said groups (Simeon 5).

His violent act, therefore, is the result of an ideology that stems from groups within the US (German and Robinson 3). The fact that the shooter and his victims are American citizens, and the shooter’s radical ideologies are wholly domestic in their origin makes his violent act one of domestic terrorism (Ravndal 8). The effects of his violent actions cannot be said to transcend US borders in any way.

Question 3

The case of the gunmen who seize children, parents as well as teachers and make demands that they will detonate explosives and kill all their 1500 hostages if the local government does not withdraw from a contested area does not fall under domestic terrorism or international terrorism. Rather, this is an example of transnational terrorism. According to Greene, “it is not unusual for transnational terrorists to choose their locations for terror attacks based on the need for generating as much publicity as possible” (422). In choosing to take hostage more than 1000 innocent individuals, the terrorists, in this case, seek to demonstrate to the general public that any global citizen is a potential target. This brings a lot of publicity to their political objectives. This would be a case of domestic terrorism if the gunmen merely made demands that did not involve territorial disputes which may involve different national governments (Sandler, 258). Moreover, this terrorist act has been made transnational by the fact that the local government that has jurisdiction over the city or nation in which the attack has been perpetrated may not be authorized to meet the demands that have been made by the attackers in relation to the contested area (Greene 415).

According to Sandler, “transnational terrorism usually involves more than one nation” (269). In addition, it is not unusual for the nationality of the attackers to be different from that of the targeted victim. In this case, it appears that the attackers are of one nationality, their victims may have different nationalities, and the demands of the perpetrators are focused on a disputed territory that constitutes yet another jurisdiction. The terrorists have initiated their attack in one nation, but they intend for the end of this episode to be in another nation (Simeon, 5). This incident could be said to be transnational because the perpetrators are of one nationality, their act of terrorism was likely planned in a different nation, and it is being implemented among victims of different nationalities. In this case, the victims are effectively pawns that have been chosen with the aim of not just attracting international attention to the incident, but also to coerce the government into withdrawing from the disputed territory to preserve the innocent lives of citizens from different jurisdictions.

Works Cited

Corbin, Caroline Mala. “Terrorists Are Always Muslim but Never White: At the Intersection of

Critical Race Theory And Propaganda.” Fordham L. Rev., vol. 86, no. 455, 2017,  ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5437&context=flr

German, Michael, and Sara Robinson. “Wrong Priorities on Fighting Terrorism.” Brennan

Center for Justice, 2018, www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_Wrong_Priorities_Terrorism.pdf

Greene, Alan. “Defining Terrorism: One Size Fits All?” International and Comparative Law

Journal, vol. 66, 2017, no. 411–440.

Gus, Martin. Types of Terrorism. Hershey: IGI Global, 2017. Print. Available

online: http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/types-of-terrorism/164714

Koehler, Daniel. “Violence and Terrorism from the Far Right: Policy Options to Counter an

Elusive Threat.” ICCT Policy Brief, February 2019,  icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Koehler-Violence-and-Terrorism-from-the-Far-Right-February-2019.pdf

Kurzman, Charles. “Muslim-American Involvement with Violent Extremism.” Triangle Center

on Terrorism and Homeland Security, 18 Jan 2018, sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2018/01/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Involvement_with_Violent_Extremism_2017.pdf

Ravndal, Jacob. “Thugs or Terrorists? A Typology of Right-Wing Terrorism and Violence in

Western Europe.” JD Journal for De–radicalization, vol. 3, 2015, pp. 1-38.

Simeon, James. “The Evolving Common Law Jurisprudence Combating the Threat of Terrorism

in the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada.” Law, vol. 8, no. 1, 2019, pp. 5.

Sandler, Todd. “The Analytical Study of Terrorism: Taking Stock.” Journal of Peace Research,

vol. 51, no. 2, 2014, pp. 257–271.