Jimmy doesn’t like it when his class talks about wizards. He’s asked them to stop, nicely and then very angrily, but the class said they will not stop.

The next time someone started talking about wizards, jimmy put gum in that kid’s hair, and stomped on their foot. Everyone is now scared that if they talk about wizards, Jimmy will hurt them.

Jimmy used hurting someone to scare everyone else to do what he wanted them to do.

————————

When a child is 9, it can be difficult to discuss the nuances of whether violence is justified or not. Perhaps the wizard’s were racists, or bigots that discriminated against people with immutable traits that Jimmy has. Perhaps Jimmy disagrees that the wizard’s support allowing warlocks to also be called wizards, stating that he believes this is a moral wrong. Giving a black and white answer to politically motivated violence is impossible, and providing context and nuance at that age is difficult at best.

The ultimate message should be that harming others should never be the answer. As they grow up and learn more about historical context, they can connect that back to the definition of hurting someone to get what you want.

Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.

-Peter Ustinov

I think it’s very true. Countries use violence to get what they want all the time. It isn’t always justified as we can see. It isn’t always to make the world a better place. Often it’s just for their own benefit with some half baked justification added as an afterthought.

So other than having a uniform on what makes a military different to say the IRA?

Both use violence to achieve their goals and both would claim to be right.

If a foreign power occupied your country and there were no peaceful ways to force them out, would you accept subjugation or would you resist too?

Terrorism is a problematic word. Some adults use it to mean “violence I dont like”, but that’s just a kind of lying.

I dont like discarding words, however, so here are two workable definitions for you:

1. An act of war against a civilian target without a formal government direction.

(Broadly covers most mainstream reporting and legal criminal enhancements)

1. Any violent act against a stranger intended to change the political opinion of the attacked.

(Very specifically targets the action without regard for the actor.)

Also, while this may be obbious, my dislike for any definition of terrorism as just “bad violence” means I need to acknowledge that sometimes terrorism is a morally right action. Guy Fawkes, John Brown, and intentional riots would be plausible examples of the same.

Plain and simple its violence against civilians to gain a political goal.
The next question is going to be when is it considered political and thats a complex answer. That’s going to be the root of all controversy. You can give examples of attacks targeting civilians from around the world and explain the political motive behind them.

Terrorism is usually defined as acts of violence against civilians to further a political or religious agenda.

Political violence, basically. Violence done in the name of politics.

Terrorism is when someone commits violence against civilians for political reasons. The goal is to make people afraid