AQA Short Course- RE- Lesson on Terrorism

  • 1,177 views
Uploaded on

AQA Short Course- Unit- War and Peace. …

AQA Short Course- Unit- War and Peace.
Short Course.
GCSE
RE
Lesson on terrorism- intro/info

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,177
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. DNA... Whilst listening the song- let me know what you think? Write it on the post it note...
  • 2. What does terrorism look like?
  • 3. Draw a terrorist
  • 4. Task... 1. Why did you draw your picture? 2. Where do our impressions of a terrorist come from? 3. Do you think our ideas are representative of the majority of terrorists? In the UK, there have been many thousands of terrorist incidents; only a handful have involved extremist Muslims. In 1993, 22 bombs were planted by the IRA in London alone; hundreds of other incidents took place elsewhere in the UK.
  • 5. (A) Which of these are terrorists? (B) (C) (D)
  • 6. (A) Timothy McVeigh A former American soldier In 1995, he blew up a building in Oklahoma, killing 165 and wounding over 400. Nineteen of the dead were young children at a nursery. He wanted revenge for the Government handling of the Waco siege two years before, where 76 members of a religious sect – including 20 children – died after a gun battle with the authorities. He also wanted to bring down the American Government. He was arrested and found guilty soon after, and killed by lethal injection in 2001.
  • 7. (B) Donald Currie A member of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) The ALF officially do not support attacks on people. In 2005, he placed several homemade bombs under cars and on the doorsteps of people who were connected to an animal experimentation laboratory (Huntingdon Life Science). No one was killed. He was found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of six years in prison.
  • 8. (C) Salem al-Hazmi Terrorist He was born in Saudi Arabia and become a member of the Al-Qaeda network. On 11 September 2001, he was one of the five hijackers on American Airline Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon building in America.
  • 9. (D) Mairéad Farrell Member of the IRA In 1976, she was found guilty of attempting to plant a bomb in Northern Ireland. She spent ten years in prison. In 1988, she was controversially shot dead by the SAS on the Island of Gibraltar when suspected of a potential bombing. Explosives were later found in a car that she had the keys to – but they were not set to go off.
  • 10. What is terrorism? Come up with a definition of terrorism. Use one of the sentence starters below. Tip: Your definition cannot include the word “terrorism” or “terrorist” (apart from at the beginning), but might include the word “terror” or “terrorise”. Terrorism occurs when… A terrorist act is one that … A terrorist is someone who…
  • 11. Applying your definition Using your definition, look at some of the following cases. Would you say that the organisation in question was a terrorist organisation?
  • 12. Scenario 1 During the 1970s and early 1980s, Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship. The government carried out a “dirty war” against many of its people. If people disagreed with the government or tried to protest, they would be taken away from their houses – often in the middle of the night – and were never seen again. Around 20,000 people „disappeared‟ this way. This made people frightened to disagree with the government.
  • 13. Scenario 2 Fathers for Justice believes that when couples with children split up, fathers often do not have enough rights to see their children. Since 2000, the group has carried out a range of stunts to highlight its cause. These have included: throwing a purple flour bomb at the Prime Minister in the House of Commons; climbing on Buckingham Palace dressed as Batman; and forcing their way onto the live National Lottery show.
  • 14. Scenario 3 In the 1980s, the members of ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) carried out a series of bomb attacks in Spain. They wanted the area of Spain they lived in (call the Basque Country) to be a separate country with its own laws. They felt that the Spanish government was ignoring their rights and feelings.
  • 15. Discussion points- groups? Scenario 1: Some people are reluctant to say that governments can commit acts of terrorism. In part this is because it might open up lots of governments to be accused of terrorist actions. Other people would say that yes, a state or government can commit terrorist acts. Scenario 2: Most people would not describe Fathers for Justice as a terrorist organisation. Although the actions of its members may break the law, they do not use violence or intimidation. Scenario 3: Although the ALF themselves do not claim to use violence, some individuals associated with the organisation have done so. The UK Government considers ALF to be an extremist organisation but not a terrorist one. Scenario 4: ETA would appear to be using terrorist activities to further its cause.
  • 16. Definition of terrorism The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as follows: An act of terrorism is “….an act or threat of act that is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public which is made to advance a political, religious or ideological cause”. Such acts may a) involve serious violence against a person; b) involve serious damage to property; c) endanger another person's life; d) create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public; and e) seriously interfere with or disrupt an electronic system. The key features of the definition are: • use or threat of violence • members of the public (civilians) • political, religious, ideological gain.
  • 17. Why do people commit acts of terrorism? Why do people commit acts of terrorism?
  • 18. In the past, people have committed terrorist acts: • because they want to become independent from the rest of the nation • because they want to change the government • because they want religious freedom • out of retaliation for attacks on their members/people • because they don‟t agree with specific laws • as revenge for perceived/real injustice.
  • 19. 7/7 attack on London
  • 20. 7/7 attack on London Did it work? What do you think the aims were? Has it succeeded?
  • 21. Bringing about change Case A Someone joins a large and peaceful march to protest about the Government spending cuts for universities. Morally OK Morally grey Morally wrong
  • 22. Bringing about change Case B Someone joins a large march to protest about the raising of tuition fees at universities and throws a brick at a police van. Morally OK Morally grey Morally wrong
  • 23. Bringing about change Case C A local hospital is under threat of being closed down. A campaign is running to try to keep it open. One person from the campaign handcuffs themselves to a Government minister, to try to raise awareness about the hospital in the national media. Link to a similar story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1204719.stm Morally OK Morally grey Morally wrong
  • 24. Bringing about change Case D A university has been raising the fees they charge to students. To protest about this a group of students all sit down in the main entrance to the university, making it almost impossible for anyone to get in or out (a “sit in”). They boo any student or teacher that tries to enter or leave. Link to a similar story in America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashville_sit-ins Morally OK Morally grey Morally wrong
  • 25. Bringing about change Case E A group of extremist Christians object to an abortion clinic being set up. They stand outside the building with posters and shout “murderers” at any woman entering. They photograph people who enter and put the photos on a website accusing them of murder. Link to a similar story: www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2011/03/110303_wt_westboro_baptist_church.shtml Morally OK Morally grey Morally wrong
  • 26. Bringing about change Case F A group of animal rights protesters kidnap one of the directors of a fur farm in North America. They demand the release of all the animals into the wild before they will release the director. Link to a similar story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3541234.stm Morally OK Morally grey Morally wrong
  • 27. Bringing about change Case G In one country, black people were segregated from white people and treated as inferior. They were given worse housing, education and medical services than white people and often prevented from taking better-paid jobs. A group of black protesters wanted to change this system. They started a campaign of bombing official government buildings such as courts. They try to avoid killing humans if possible. Morally OK Morally grey Morally wrong
  • 28. Case study Nelson Mandela was one of the leading members of the ANC, which engaged in violent protests and organising the bombing of buildings. In 1963, he was arrested and found guilty of acts of terrorism (sabotage) against the state. He was in prison until his release in 1990. He later acknowledged that even though apartheid was unfair and a breach of human rights, the use of force also violated other people‟s human rights. The eventual release of Nelson Mandela came about largely through international pressure and economic sanctions. In other words, through peaceful means. Up to 2008, Nelson Mandela was not allowed to enter the USA because he has previously been classed as a terrorist.
  • 29. Gandhi and non-violence "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." In the last century, Gandhi was a key figure in enabling India to gain independence from Britain. He was a political leader of many Hindus. He preached non-violent means of protest such as non-cooperation with the British authorities and boycotting British goods. Tens of thousands of followers took part in the non-violent demonstrations, and tens of thousands were sent to prison. By using non-violence, Gandhi and his followers were always able to take the moral high ground over the often violent British authorities. The protests were one of the key factors in India gaining independence from Britain and were the first time that non-violent action had been used on such a large scale "There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."
  • 30. Question If it is not effective, then why do people still commit acts of terrorism?
  • 31. How do countries respond to terrorism? How would you feel if someone threw a brick through your lounge window in the middle of the night? What would your family do if this happened again?
  • 32. Responses to terrorism By 11 September 2001, George W Bush had only been president for nine months. How would you respond to the attacks of that day?
  • 33. Responses to terrorism Options 1 and 2 – Military Options 3 and 4 – Inward focus Options 5 and 6 – Outreach Options 7 and 8 – Tighten security Options 9 and 10 – Use intelligence networks Options 11 and 12 – Carry on as normal
  • 34. Military Option 1 Use existing intelligence to locate the source of terrorist training camps and take these out with air strikes. Option 2 Destabilise and overthrow governments that are sympathetic to the terrorists‟ cause; train up enemies of the government within the countries and maybe send in your troops.
  • 35. Military Will you choose Option 1: Use existing intelligence to locate the source of terrorist training camps and take these out with air strikes. This may be a good option. After all, in destroying training camps you will probably kill potential terrorists and stop future terrorists from being trained. It will also show the terrorists that you are prepared to act. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. Many terrorists may not be trained in camps; how will you reach them? 3. There is a strong chance that you could kill innocent civilians in the air strikes; is this morally fair? Might this undermine your moral standing in the world? 4. The world is a big place; surely you can‟t locate all training camps?
  • 36. Military Will you choose Option 2: Destabilise and overthrow governments that are sympathetic to the terrorists’ cause; train up enemies of the government within the countries and maybe send in your troops. This may be a good option. After all, terrorists need safe countries to build a base and send new recruits. If these governments can be removed, then where will the terrorists go? It will also show the terrorists that you are prepared to act. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. By training up people to take on their own government, are you encouraging terrorism? 3. Will the new government be stable? 4. Might this approach encourage terrorists and others to come and fight on the side of the government under attack? 5. The world is a big place; surely you cant stop terrorists from training? 6. This is an expensive option; aren't their cheaper ones?
  • 37. Inward focus Option 3 Withdraw your military presence from other countries. Focus only on issues in your own country and don‟t get involved in any issues abroad. Option 4 Soul search through newspapers, talk shows, etc. as to why terrorists would attack you.
  • 38. Inward focus Will you choose Option 3? Withdraw your military presence from other countries. Focus only on issues in your own country and don’t get involved in any issues abroad. This may be a good option. After all, if your country keeps a low profile, it is harder to be seen as an enemy. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? By withdrawing your military presence from countries, might this leave more room for terrorists to train? 2. The USA has lots of interest abroad – it exports and imports lots of goods (including oil). A strong military presence can help protect these interests. 3. As the world‟s most powerful military force, surely you are needed to help countries in trouble? 4. Many voters in your country will want to see revenge for 9/11, not a withdrawing of troops from around the world. 5. Might withdrawing troops be seen as a sign that terrorism works and therefore encourage more attacks?
  • 39. Inward focus Will you choose Option 4? Soul search through newspapers, talk shows, etc. as to why terrorists would attack you. This may be a good option. After all, by working out why America was attacked in 9/11 and not other countries, you may prevent future attacks. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. Will soul searching help? Many fanatics want every country that contains Muslims to be an Islamic state. Surely the problem lies with the fanatics, not your country? 3. Might introspection be seen as a sign that the terrorist attack has worked and therefore encourage more attacks? 4. Other countries have been attacked by similar extremist terrorists. The problem is not with America alone, so will introspection help?
  • 40. Outreach Option 5 Make contact and discuss with terrorists. Find out what the terrorists want. Option 6 Community cohesion – focus on developing better relations with different communities in your own country and elsewhere.
  • 41. Outreach Will you choose Option 5? Make contact and discuss with terrorists. Find out what the terrorists want. This may be a good idea. If you can understand the terrorists‟ demand, you may be able to prevent future attacks. Surely dialogue is a good thing? But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. Contacting terrorists might be a sign that terrorism works; might this encourage more terrorists? 3. Many voters would feel betrayed if they knew that the government was talking to the terrorists. 4. The terrorists are fanatics; they do not have rational demands. Surely talking would be of no use?
  • 42. Outreach Will you choose Option 6? Community cohesion – focus on developing better relations with different communities in your own country and elsewhere. This may be a good idea. If people learn more about each other, there is less fear and mistrust. If you can understand the terrorists‟ demand, you may be able to prevent future attacks. Surely dialogue is a good thing? But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. The terrorist were fanatics and not representative of any community; encouraging better relations between different communities might be a nice thing to do, but will it actually stop fanatics? 3. Many voters will want to see decisive action from the government. Might this be seen as a weak response?
  • 43. Tighten security Option 7 Tighten up border security. Have increased security at airports and places that might be targets. Option 8 Pass laws to give the police and government more powers to pursue terrorists. For example, allow arrest without charge or trial.
  • 44. Tighten security Will you choose Option 7? Tighten up border security. Have increased security at airports and places that might be targets. This may be a good idea. Monitoring people coming in and out of the country more closely might stop the possible terrorists from entering your country. Tightening airport security would make it much harder for potential terrorists to take knives or weapons onto airplanes. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. What about “home grown” terrorists; would border control stop these? 3. Trying to stop potential terrorists from entering your country will end up targeting (profiling) particular types of people. Might these people feel discriminated against? Might tourism slow down? 4. Isn‟t increasing airport security a hassle for everyone? There are many other ways an attack could occur and these are much harder to prevent.
  • 45. Tighten security Will you choose Option 8? Pass laws to give the police and government more powers to pursue terrorists. For example, allow arrest without charge or trial. This may be a good idea. Rounding up potential terror suspects and interviewing/interrogating them might not only stop some terrorists; it might also lead to vital information that could help capture other terrorists elsewhere. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. Losing basic rights, such as the right to a trial, shouldn‟t happen easily. Isn‟t this an overreaction to the events? Traffic accidents in the USA kill around 30,000 people per year and injure 2.5 million. What about tougher laws to prevent these? 3. This approach will involve detaining many innocent people for possibly years, without needing to give any evidence in courts for their detention. Might this lead to mistrust of government, particularly if certain groups of people are targeted? 4. In giving the police such great powers, aren‟t people losing the sorts of freedoms they normally hold up as what is good about democratic countries?
  • 46. Intelligence networks Option 9 Infiltrate terrorist groups abroad and learn about their ways. Option 10 Use intelligence communities to destabilise governments in countries you suspect are helping terrorists.
  • 47. Intelligence networks Will you choose Option 7? Infiltrate terrorist groups abroad and learn about their ways This may be a good idea. By infiltrating networks, you can find out about any potential attacks that might happen. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. This is easier said than done: finding the right people to work as agents can be very hard, and this kind of work is extremely dangerous. They could be found out and tortured by the terrorists to reveal information that might put American lives at risk. 3. Can you be sure that the agents you recruit aren‟t really double agents working for the terrorists? What if you get lots of misinformation and waste time and money acting on that?
  • 48. Intelligence networks Will you choose Option 10? Use intelligence communities to destabilise governments in countries you suspect are helping terrorists. This may be a good idea. Monitoring extremists may help you see if there is any “recruitment” occurring in terrorist groups. Keeping an eye on extremists might also reveal information about other networks and groups outside the country. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. Might certain communities, e.g. Muslims, feel picked on and discriminated against if they find out that their actions are being monitored? Might this lead to worse community relations? 3. In giving these intelligence agencies greater power, aren‟t people losing the sort of freedoms they normally hold up as what is good about the USA?
  • 49. Carry on as normal Option 11 Ignore the terrorist threats: they will go away. Option 12 Actively encourage the citizens to carry on and not let the terrorists take away freedoms.
  • 50. Carry on as normal Will you choose Option 11? Ignore the terrorist threats: they will go away. This may be a good idea. It is certainly a cheap option! It also sends a message to terrorists that you are not going to be scared by their actions and that life will carry on as normal. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. Might this be a sign of weakness and lead potential terrorists to think your country is a soft target? 3. Many voters will want you to do something. Doing nothing may be seen as a sign of failure or weak leadership. 4. If there are more groups out there ready to attack, how will doing nothing stop them?
  • 51. Carry on as normal Will you choose Option 12? Actively encourage the citizens to carry on and not let the terrorists take away freedoms. This might be a good idea. The citizens may rally around your calls and feel a stronger sense of togetherness and community after the attacks. By not being scared, the citizens will be defying the terrorists and will have won. But can you answer these questions? 1. Why do you think this would be effective? 2. Might this be a sign of weakness and lead potential terrorists to think your country is a soft target? 3. Many voters will want you to do something. Doing nothing may be seen as a sign of failure or weak leadership. 4. If there are more groups out there ready to attack, how will doing nothing stop them?
  • 52. The US response to 9/11 • George Bush declared “war” on terrorism. • Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were declared responsible for 9/11. • The USA carried out military attacks on suspected Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. • They later sent troops to Afghanistan and helped Afghani tribes overthrow the Taliban regime. (The USA and UK still continue to fight the Taliban today, especially in southern Afghanistan.) • Over 700 Muslim suspects were arrested in the USA (all were later released without charge). • They passed various laws to allow greater power to police and intelligence, including allowing phone tapping without the requirement to ask for permission first. • They began to detain terror suspects found in Afghanistan and elsewhere in Guantanamo bay (a US military base in Cuba). Over 700 people have now been detained, nearly all without charge. (The USA has received criticism for its treatment of detainees at Guantanamo bay.)
  • 53. The UK response to 9/11 & 7/7 What should the UK Government do to prevent a repeat of events such as 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings? One action taken has been to pass tougher anti-terror laws. These laws include some of the following measures: • The right of the Home Secretary to impose „control orders‟ on people he suspects of involvement in terrorism – The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 • The right of the police to detain suspected terrorists for up to 28 days – The Terrorism Act 2006 • A new criminal offence where anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to 10 years, if a link to terrorism is proved – The Counter- Terrorism Act 2008
  • 54. A debate – the case for these measures: • With tougher terror laws, we can prevent similar events from happening again. • People have a right to life, and the UK Government needs the legislation to enforce this. • This legislation will only be used responsibly to combat terrorism. • The legislation will enable the Government to build up information on suspected terrorists before they can act. • The legislation will ensure that terrorist suspects are put under strict control orders and prevented from committing further acts of violence.
  • 55. A debate – the case against these measures: • The rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens are being eroded by this legislation. • Isn‟t everybody entitled to be treated equally and fairly in a civilised society? • Making the terror laws tougher may alienate some groups of people – especially if they feel that these laws are targeted at them. • How do we know that future governments will always use this legislation responsibly?
  • 56. Common civil liberties Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights such as: • the right to life • freedom from torture • freedom from slavery and forced labour • the right to liberty and security • the right to a fair trial • the right to defend one's self • the right to privacy • freedom of conscience • freedom of religion • freedom of speech • freedom of assembly and association • the right to marry and have a family. • the right to own property.
  • 57. Exam Question ‘Terrorism is never justified’ Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer, showing that you have thought about more than one point of view. Refer to religious arguments in your answer. 6 marks For Against Religious view My view Evaluate the Religious view To begin with, someone, like a Christian, would support the statement, because... On the other hand... A Muslim would argue that... I think... This is because... I agree/disagree with Christianity/Islam, because...
  • 58. Homework ‘The U.N. is powerless to stop wars’ Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer, showing that you have thought about more than one point of view. Refer to religious arguments in your answer 6 marks For Against Religious view My view Evaluate the Religious view To begin with, someone, like a Christian, would support the statement, because... On the other hand... A Muslim would argue that... I think... This is because... I agree/disagree with Christianity/Islam, because...