Murphy And LackeysPerception Of War And Terrorism

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 an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

“War on terror is a misnomer. It would be like calling America’s involvement in World War II a “war on kamikazism.” Terrorism, like kamikazism, is a tactic,” Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian public speaker once noted. It goes without saying that terrorist actions do not appear suddenly, by someone’s unexpected insight. Actually, terrorism is a tactic that is built on the solid fundament of its inner complex philosophy. There are certainly a number of reasons for terrorism to live so long and escape diminishing, and these reasons, when adequately understood, first of all, and only then properly treated, may make the scale of terrorism reduce visibility. That is only a hypothesis, but this is clearly an issue worth of careful attention which does not close up in leading a war against terrorism. As D’Souza has remarkably specified, “this word combination has been already a kind of foolish”. In short,

In this paper, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be defined and discussed in relation to the event of 9/11. As well as, the legal constraints that are associated with the conduct of hostilities under the new conditions imposed. The term “terrorism” and “terrorist” were included following the events of 9/11, identifying a new type of enemy. Narratives of who the enemy was changed towards individuals who were or seemed like a Muslim. Muslims were perceived as the new enemy. This subsequently led to major legal constraints such as

The statement that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist is not valid and this is because the differences between the two are far more complex than perspective alone. The issue with perspective being the only distinction is in the difficulty to accurately define terrorism in a way synonymous to describing the characteristics of a freedom fighter. In examining the characteristics of numerous definitions it becomes evident that there is a distinction in the relationship which terrorists and freedom fighters have with civilians when carrying out their violent and politically motivated goals.

Terror campaigns are cruel by nature but in some instances are regarded as righteous, when the violence is used to liberate oppressed peoples from colonial rule, as in Vietnam or Ireland, the creation of Israel or even the United States. Ronald Spiers, a retired diplomat who served as US ambassador to Turkey and Pakistan and as Assistant

They focus on the traits of terrorism that cause most of us to view the practice with deep moral repugnance: (i) violence (ii) against non-combatants (or, alternatively, against innocent people) for the sake of (iii) intimidation (and, on some definitions, (iv) coercion). In highlighting (ii), they relate the issue of terrorism to the ethics of war and one of the fundamental principles of just war theory, that of non-combatant immunity. They help distinguish terrorism from acts of war proper and political assassination, which do not target non-combatants or common citizens. It does not matter very much whether the victims of terrorism are described as “non-combatants” or “innocent people”, as each term is used in a technical sense, and both refer to those who have not lost their immunity against lethal or other extreme violence by being directly involved in, or highly responsible for, (what terrorists consider) insufferable injustice or oppression. In war, these are innocent civilians; in a violent conflict that falls short of war, these are common

(4) Violence is central to both war and terrorism, but the objective and purpose of terrorism is entirely different. Terrorists seek to use intimidation to impose their agendas. They create fear and panic, extort concessions or weaken and discredit governments to show that the government is unable to protect their citizens. Terrorism is also used in the place of low cost strategic warfare, motivated by ideology, religion or nationalistic sentiments, to express protest and rage, advance fanatic agendas, and overthrow opposition governments. Countries such as Syria, Iran and Libya use terrorism as a form of diplomacy and as an adjunct to their foreign policies. * For these states, terrorism is an integral part of their negotiation strategies.

Insurgent is defined as a movement or political effort with a specific aim while defining terrorism into a simple definition is not as easily accomplished (Spindlove & Simonsen.) For the purposes of this paper, terrorism will be defined as “the use and/or threat of repeated violence in support of, or in opposition to, some authority, where violence is employed to induce fear of similar attack in as many non-immediate victims so that those so threatened accept and comply with the demands of the terrorists” (Spindlove & Simonsen.) It is possible to have an insurgency without resorting to committing acts of terror, but not possible to be a terrorist without an insurgency also existing. In the case of Afghanistan, the country has a long history if insurgency against occupying forces and providing a safe haven for terrorists to train without fear of government interference.

Shaking off the feelings of violence can be difficult after the war. Democratic processes and laws will be made and modified so they are considered fair and just by the majority of society. Yet, in war, all these laws can be broken, and “all hell breaks loose.” Waris conducted in the most gruesome and extreme methods by countries in order to supposedly help other countries. Yet in a way, we are not privy to the real motives of why countries go to war or support war activities. There is no fairness in war. It is a threat to humanity’s existence because of the availability of weapons of mass destructions and other high-end weapons that are available today. Only terrorism and injustices happen in times of war. Terrorism is a weapon used by splinter groups to wage war against a strong system or government to achieve their political, personal or religious missions. Terrorism is a clear and present danger to all forms of governance system from democratic, communism to totalitarian leadership that must be addressed by world leaders to lessen its effect on our society. In fact, the availability of weapons of mass destructions from countries is an alarming reality today, and can be used against countries that adopt democracy as a way of life. This makeswar and terrorism not only a threat to democracy, but also to the stability of the world as a whole, and most

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.

The use of terror is a worldwide phenomenon. The historical record has seen its use for many reasons. One of these reasons is to establish and protect a political ideology and have that ideology recognised by other states. But what then can we define as terrorism? The term itself is one that has been adopted in Western societies to identify the types of actions that cannot be defined as justifiable in any sense. However, evident in this essay is the practice of terrorism as much more than just a random radical happenstance and more of a political instrument. This is evident in all three examples list above. Syria used terrorism to crush political enemies, Zedong’s radical movement allowed him to seize power through terror and the South African government assisted terrorists to help them both defeat their political oppositions. It can be argued that there are even Western societies that can be accused of using terrorist tactics against their own citizens. While their actions aren’t always labelled as terrorism, their tactics are similar in the form of their capability to terrorise. Weber’s contributions to the field of politics might help to develop the framework for ‘political terrorism’. In his essay, ‘Politics as a Vocation’ (Weber 1958, p. 77), Weber describes how politics is “not limited to the policies and questions of the day, but rather how the hypothetical parties in question attempt to attain political power and keep that power, their ‘physical force’. Tilley builds

In this article, McPherson (2007) tries to argue on whether terrorism is distinctively wrong as many people have been made to believe. He compares the negative effects of terrorism with those of the conventional war. According to McPherson, terrorism is not worse than conventional war because both may start from unjust or just causes, and both techniques involve the use of force against unarmed civilians or non-combatants. Conventional war may cause more casualties than terrorism, and the latter can have justification on the ground of a lack of a better option and the ground of just cause. He supports his argument by stating that in the last one century, the conventional war caused the deaths of more than 100 million people, where 43 million soldiers and 62 million civilians perished in the war. Such deaths have occurred in the era of advanced military technology where the level of accuracy is excellent than the weapons that soldiers used before the twentieth century. Such a number is extreme compared to the few thousand people who have died as a result of terrorist attacks.

“What separates us from the animals, what separates us from the chaos, is our ability to mourn people we’ve never meet” (David Levithan). As a war is an organization, armed, and prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nation, or other parties. While the terrorism is acts committed by the government to kill innocent people by the non-government group to create a media spectacle. In the war scenario, the battle is involved between willing participants. The terrorism is a more no-holds-barred approach to attack an enemy and this leaves civilians for potential targets. The people who commit a terrorist or war will act out of violations without regret for others and their own people. Throughout the history of the world, there were wars between countries would always be remembered. While terrorism is spread tentacles throughout this world are constant threat victims of their heinous crime. Even the centuries of war and terrorism, these people will never understand the meaning of peace and prosperity in one union as a whole family. There are similarities and differences in the methods of threats, losses of lives, property damage, and similar and different goals.

Well known peace activist Mhatma Gandhi once preached, “Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong, but of the weak.” Ghandi dedicated his life to independence for each and every person on Earth. We live in a world where countries’ biggest fear is the threat of terrorism. To many, terrorism may only seem to be stories in the history books, but in reality in today’s world terrorism is a heightened menace. Terrorism, when defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, means any activities that “involve of violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law, appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to effect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping” (Federal Bureau of Investigation). While some attacks are far more infamous than others, there have been countless terror attacks on the United States of America alone. Not to mention surrounding countries, territories, etc. all over the world. Terrorism rears its ugly head in all different sizes and I believe all measures should be taken to stop this despicable act. Throughout research, I’ve discovered many factors relevant to the history, current, and future threat of terrorism, along with the different perspective groups of the functionalists, conflict theorists, and symbolic interactionists.