Replying to David Rodriguez,

In your post, you highlighted the fact that international terrorism can be defined by campaigns
carried out by non-state actors to spread violence, fear, and intimidation on non-combatants with
the intention of influence the general public as well as the government to conceded to the will of
the terrorist. This according to me makes sense since international terrorists are armed groups
who execute violent campaigns against mostly the innocent people and soft targets with the aim
compelling those concerned to change their minds about some important aspects that are
important to the terrorists. That means that the terrorists have no other ways of influencing the
public or government and their only option is to resort to violence that is often orchestrated
against the innocent. In general, the goal of international terrorism is to attract attention to the
causes or motives that are important to the terrorists and that is often achieved through
campaigns of fear and intimidation.

In your discussion post, you took the position that the Palestinian airline hijacking campaigns
and the other terrorist campaigns of the 1960s and 1970s were successful in achieving their
objectives. This is an interesting position since what the Palestinian Liberation Organisation
(PLO) which was the terror group responsible for the hijacking of the Palestinian airline
hijacking among other terrorist activities in that period has over the years become defunct and
the occupation and rule of Palestine by Israeli which was what they were fighting for still exists
today (Jackson, 2018). Therefore according to me I would say that the terrorist campaigns of that
period were not able to achieve their objective since the status quo remains and the terror groups
of that period mainly the PLO are seized to exist and have been replaced by new ones such as the
Hamas which are still fighting for the same cause more than 50 years later.

Reference

Jackson, R. (2018). Writing the war on terrorism: language, politics, and counter-terrorism.

Replying to Jarrod Franks,

You mentioned in your post that international terrorism is unlawful and that it involves the use of
violence to coerce the public or the government to take certain actions that are in accordance to
the motives or causes of the terrorists. Terrorism is violence that is often meted on the innocent
by people or individuals who have failed to change certain aspects of public governance, social
order, religion, economy or culture through legal means and as a result have chosen to resort to
coercion and intimidation through campaigns of terror against mostly the innocent people. You
also mentioned that in your post that domestic terrorism is a form of localized terrorism against
the state to change the prevailing socioeconomic or political order. Domestic terrorism is often
the result of the failure of terror organizations to marshal the necessary socioeconomic or
political influence to change the status quo and as such as a result of frustration the terrorist
organization result to the use of violence against the state and the public in general.

Your insights about the Palestinian airline hijackings and the terror activities of the 1960s and
1970s was very interesting. You mentioned that the PLO terrorist organization hijacked the
airline to coerce the Israeli government into releasing its Palestinian prisoners. Interestingly you
mentioned that the response of the Isrealis to the hijackings was both swift and very strong which
rendered the airline hijacking unsuccessful in achieving its objectives (Ganor, 2015). To this day,
the records of history clearly show that the airline hijacking was one of the most unsuccessful
terrorist activities in the history of the terrorism since it resulted in the death of all the terrorists
involved while there was no death of the innocent hijacking victims.

Reference

Ganor, B. (2015). Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. In The Routledge History of
Terrorism (pp. 253-271). Routledge.