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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Another element of the strategy is untwisting the “spiral of violence”. The classic mechanism, which assume the existence of cycles of suicide terrorism activity in a “action-repression-reaction” it is aimed at lowering the public support for the government, and increase it for the terrorists. By curried out the suicide terrorism attacks, the intension and aim of the terrorists is to hit the repressive actions of the authorities not only in themselves but also in the group indentified with them and/or their supporters (a specified ethnic group, religious, social or the entire society). As a result, this process has lead to massive social explosion directed against the government. Such a model of strategy for terrorism has been used by most of the leftist groups in Europe in the nineteenth century, and in the
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.
International terrorism aspires to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government and transcend national
“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para
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).
The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather
In the book War on Terror, by Patrick Coaty discusses issues that reference to terrorism. His main focus was the attack on 9/11 the terrorism issue has been more aware to the public on how dangerous it can be. According to Coaty terrorism was formed during the ending of the revolutionary France by the Jacobins they thought it was “cleanse” that it would take away all evil (Coaty 84) . The concept of terrorism was a form of have “power” over people a legitimate system was used to fear the public. In modern-day terrorism does not obey the law or have any law. Terrorism is not only based on bombing, killings and amonio, the government needs a title for a group it can be an individual whose against the government. A more popular group on terrorism is the Islamic fundamentalism. Terrorism comes from history, but recent it had shocked the world by different terrorist attacks and many innocent lives.
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.
Annotated bibliography Bellamy, Alex J., Security and the war on terror, 1975-, 2007 This author is a university lecturer in the University of Queensland. He is a professor of peace and conflict studies and seems like he has a very broad amount of knowledge in the area of different wars including war on terror. His book security and the war on terror are pushed towards readers who care about the security of their country and the war on terror. ‘This edited book recognises a fundamental issue: while major crises initially tend to reinforce old thinking and behavioural patterns, they also allow societies to challenge and overcome entrenched habits, thereby creating the foundations for a new and perhaps more peaceful future’ .
There are many differing definitions of terrorism. What is terrorism? How do we define it? Why is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? These are just a few of the questions that face the world on a daily basis. There are many challenges that face the international community when it comes to how to define terrorism and what it constitutes. This paper will explore the challenges facing scholars when it comes to labeling terror and discuss potential ways to properly define it.
Acts of terrorism are typically political oriented and ideologically motivated, ranging from specific goals expressed in terms of the might of political nation-states to more general purposes connected to the dilemma of certain people and groups. Therefore, terrorism can result from demands made by ethnic groups to receive representation in an existing political community or have its own state be formed, while terrorism can also be part of ideological fights for the acknowledgment of diminished expressions of ideas and ways of life. Because of the essentially political ideological objectives of terrorism, the fundamental ideas of terrorism are important to consider as the inspiring forces that fuel terrorist groups and individuals.
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,
In the 20th century, terrorism continued to be associated with a vast array of anarchist, socialist, fascist and nationalist groups, many of them engaged in ‘third world’
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.