Journalism / Free from Terrorism?

It’s more of an opinion piece than journalism, but I like the idea you have put forth. I think though that the real terrorism rather than as you stated, is our government itself. Good piece with potential though.

What nobody wants to talk about is the true definition of “terrorism”.  This article tends to display that to me, more than anything else.  When the same term we are using to define a hostile enemy that is engaged in an attempt to redefine the world order can be used to describe drug dealers, it shows that we’ve failed to adequately define an enemy.

Luckily in policy decisions, we’ve been more prudent; the US is not bombing the Basque separatists who resort to tactics similar to Al Qaeda.

This article rightly points to the need to deal offensively with terrorism; unfortunately we don’t seem to have the will to.  This is in part because those who recognize the threat of terrorism have failed to think of ways to stop it, but it’s also because there are elements in this country that either A) Don’t care all that much, or B) Are sympathetic to terrorism.  The source of the latter belief is the utter disdain for the current world order as being unjust and the misguided notion that the revolution of Al Qaeda is similar to the revolution of socialism.

The question that remains is, how are we to be offensive?

“accustom” should be accoustomed.

Overall, a nice editorial.

I couldn’t agree more. Here in Britain children are locked up while child molesters are allowed to wander about freely, burglars sue law-abiding citizens because they’ve injured themselves while robbing their premises, teenagers threaten violence safe in the knowledge that if you hit them you’ll end up in prison and criminals are awarded double human-rights points once they’re found guilty. Are we being subjected to domestic terrorism? You bet your life (no pun intended). And what politicians say? “Crime is at an all-time low.” “Child molesters just need someone to love.” “Hug a hoody.”

“Are we truly free from terrorism? I don’t believe so.” This is a good lead. I am so glad to have actually found a real journalism piece on Urbis. Everyone posts poetry and creative essays, but few actual journalism pieces. I would say, with that lead, you are pushing yourself into a corner by bringing yourself into the story. The “I don’t believe so” is your opinion, making this an opinion column or letter to an editor instead a straight up journalism article. Write the lead, and use everything else to back it up (as my editor use to tell me).
Reading on, I do see this as an opinion because you “we.” But, it can still work like that, just won’t be a regular article.
We’ve become accustom to the domestic terrorism because it happened gradually.
—-Accustomed
Well, you kind of jump around here. I would consider revising this article--yes the hard part--by focusing on one idea instead of bringing up things like internal cancer and sports, which don’t really relate unless you state immediately how they do.
Overall, a good opinion article. I would consider focusing it with fewer examples, sticking to the topic, and backing up your initial lead. Still, one of the better journalism pieces I have seen today, and I’ve read a bunch. You know what makes good journalism. thanks for letting me read this.

I find your piece to be interesting and thought provoking.  I would like to see you hone in on one perspective, however, and develop that argument.  From the above reading, you have many different premises that cause confusion while reading.

I like the cancer analogy but the sports angle is stronger.  My opinion is to deveolp a full length article outlining the sport analogy angle on terrorism and then add in real life examples.

This was an enjoyable thought-provoking read wroght with philosophical inferences.

Nicely expressed perceptions.  At first, I thought your piece would mainly revolve around terrorist attacks, automatically thinking of horrifying tragedy of September 11.  Despite my first assumptions, you covered the internal issues of the United States as well, consisting of so much more then which I predicted.  What’s happening on the inside, I believe we should be targeting more then the war, or tragedies that have happened in the past.  Tainted violence that is being acted upon now are aspects that are thrown aside, becoming invisible.  My perception, we are at war each day, whether it be against Iraq or all aspects in conflict.  I especially favored how you used the analogy of the foot ball offense and defense concept.  We defend our nation, but we aren’t putting a stop to terrorism.  To counterpoint this view, as much as we attempt to accomplish the end of terrorism, we will never reach that goal, unrealistic goal.

-veronica  

accustom – accustomed.

Are you saying at the end that the US should go and wipe out anyone it thinks is a Terrorist, just to make sure they feel safer?

It’s a good summary though.

Maybe terrorism is not a visible, palpable enemy, but a cancer in itself.
This is an argument against the proposed “war on terror”- that terrorism cannot always be identified as it is developing because the terrorists typically are elusive and often hide behind normal lives.   Can  terrorism truly be targeted?  
I feel that you should address this, and for the purpose of your writing argument, explain why terrorists can be avoided and targeted as necessary.
Finally, to go with the offense/defense scheme, there is a quote that I often was told while playing a team sport:
“often, the best offense is a strong defense.”
I feel that you could strengthen your argument by explaining more specifically why terrorism is an imminent threat, yet one that can be addressed and defeated.

Interesting point of view. A couple of minor things. In the third paragraph the word should be accustomed with the ed on the end. and the word “the” is not needed in “the” domestic terrorism. Also, I wondered what the internal cancer was? Was it some of the things mentioned prior? I would have liked to see it more clearly defined. Overall, I like the tone of waking up the reader to a broader definition of terrorism. Well done.