Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified

Modern terrorism, as deduced from this literature, is acts to violence strategically used by secular groups spanning international borders with the aim of achieving a desired outcome. Further, it can be seen as organized activity whose genesis can be traced back to the 1880’s. From then to now there are identifiable traits and patterns observed from different (terrorist) groups which have allowed for the conceptualization of the term modern terrorism. This concept therefore, can be best explained in the context of being a wave or having a life cycle. That means it is a cycle of activity demarked by phases from inception and expands along the way then eventually it declines. The world, thus far, has experienced four waves of modern

In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.

Terrorism is a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a

This article by Isabelle Duyvesteyn starts off by summarising the objectives that challenge the perspective of terrorism since the last decade of the twentieth century is fundamentally new. In this article certain questions have been debated regarding new aspects of terrorism and they are: “transnational nature of the perpetrators and their organizations, their religious inspiration, fanaticism, use of weapons of mass destruction and their indiscriminate targeting.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)In order to understand the depth of aspects of new terrorism the article talks about “national and territorial focus of the new terrorists, their political motivations, use of conventional weaponry and the symbolic targeting that is aimed in order to achieve a surprising effect.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Additionally, John Mueller lambasts what he labels as the socially constructed ‘terrorist industry,’ which he attacks for artificially inflating concerns over terrorist attacks. Instead, Mueller confirms that the damage caused by terrorism is not materially significant but stems primarily from the fear that it creates. Violent retaliation is viewed as a form of ‘self-flagellation’ that provides the terrorists with exactly what they want. As mentioned, realist definitions of power, self-interest and rationality lack explanatory prowess when non-state actors are able to subvert states thanks largely in part to the use of suicide-terrorism. The proliferation of terrorist groups and their use of suicide-tactics in many ways defies realist expectations and conclusions.

Throughout the world, terrorism affects cultures in a myriad of ways. The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as, “ the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (DOD). Terrorism has emerged in the last ten years as one of the most crucial issues governments attempt to tackle. Many movies and documents can help people better understand the major strain of terrorism. As seen by the effects of the September eleventh attacks on American security, tourism and economy, the Taliban, and Somali piracy, terrorism has had an utmost impact on the world.

Terrorism, in a modern day perspective, has been molded as a Middle Eastern threat to Western Civilization; although the whole idea of terrorism itself has existed for ages. Undoubtedly, “The War on Terror,” is a western form of saying to depict the general aspect of terrorism. Through all aspects of the world, terrorism, is defined as an act of unruly and warlike tactics that mainly creates harm to civilians. Usually, these acts of violence are not simply for the use of harming citizens, but to voice specific mutinous organizations that do not comprehend with the standard civilization. This analysis will numerically discuss the main aspects of the United States intervention with terrorism, past terrorist acts, and a modern day

For these reasons, historians of terrorism normally work with a wide definition, and social scientists do so much of the time. But philosophers may well prefer a narrow definition. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of (what one considers) an unjust and oppressive government, and planting a bomb in a tea shop and killing a random collection of common citizens, including children. While both acts raise serious moral issues, these issues are not identical, and running them together under the same heading of “terrorism” will likely hamper, rather than help,

The French Revolution’s aftermath during the 18th century sparked a vicious campaign against nobles who were seen as enemies of the newly formed state. The post-revolutionary government because of their series of mass executions was referred to as terror. The terror concept differs from the modern use of “terrorism” because the perpetrators are not usually governments and are instead nonstate actors (Lacquer, 2001). The word terrorism can be like the word globalism because it can be difficult to define because of the diversity of its meanings among different individuals and different groups. The continual transformation of the contexts in which the term is used causes difficulty in forming a distinctive meaning, but does not make it impossible to study the phenomenon as a distinctive form of political violence. Terrorism may differ from media outlets, governments, cultures, scholars, and readers. Examining the usage of the term thorough-out history will be a useful way to come to a conclusion as to the true meaning and definition of the term. Even though examples of terrorism can go back several millennia, studying the history of it will make it seem considerably new at this time and

Terrorism, at its base definition is a form of political violence, the same as war, apart from war being on a larger scale, so in this sense, acts of terrorism deserve as much justification as acts of war (Held, 2003). However, it is seen that acts of terrorism are unspeakable acts, and any form of terrorism is an immediate threat to society and people’s way of life. This is mainly caused by the influencing of society’s behaviour towards acts that are now described as terrorism, which began during the Pacific War. Propaganda was used to manipulate Western society’s perceptions of the enemy – mainly the Japanese – in order to advance their wartime agendas. Government officials approved propaganda that attempted to dehumanise the Japanese, to make them into a breed of “subhuman” (Dower, 1986). This was to make it easier for soldiers to face and kill the Japanese in combat, as there was hesitation to kill anyone on the battlefield (Dower, 1986). This process of ‘othering’ was an essential part of what was deemed effective propaganda and began to be used outside the military and throughout the public (Aszkielowicz, 2015). The propaganda was seen throughout western society so much, that the racist terms and subhuman representation became a part of society and lodged

One can scarcely turn on the television, or the radio, or open up a web browser without the mention of Islamic terrorism or unrest around the world. Though the United States and the rest of the world may not be engaged in a protracted religious war, for radical Muslim fundamentalist they are. Bernard Lewis brings to light possible reasons for the issues facing the world dealing with Islamic terrorism. The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror explains these issues in historical context as well as how some of the actions professed in the name of Islam and claim to

There has been difficulty in defining terrorism in international law due to "changes in terrorist methodology and the lack of any precise definition of the term 'terrorism’” . The United Nations General Assembly also condemned acts of terrorism without defining it. Therefore a functional approach had been adopted through treaties dealing with the forms of terrorism considered to be unacceptable. Although, it is agreed upon in international law that terrorism is unlawful, it is not addressed whether it is a casus belli, an unlawful act that justifies a military response. There is a general duty for states to act thoroughly to avert the performance of violent and terrorist acts within its territory. However, this duty is breached when governments support terrorism or fails to apprehend terrorists.

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.