Terrorism: A Critique Of Excuses

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

Although there are many admirable qualities of consequentialism, there are reasonable objections to this theory. One of the main objections comes from the notion that one could violate another individual’s rights while acting in accordance with consequentialism. Shafer-Landau utilizes the example of torture to elaborate on the first objection (148). Obviously torture infringes on one’s intrinsic rights, but if torture in a particular circumstance provides more good than bad, it is morally acceptable. Some find this troubling, and thus find this objection grounds for consequentialism’s invalidity.

By punishing traitors and conspirators, particularly if they are deputies or administrators; by sending loyal troops under patriotic leaders to subdue the aristocrats of… [all] regions in which the standards of rebellion and royalism have been raised; and by making frightful examples of all scoundrels who have outraged liberty and spilled the blood of patriots” (Robespierre, Despotism in Defense of Liberty).

No one will or should advocates for Terrorism. (Walzer, p. 284) This is the start of his thesis and it is the basis for my objection. Terrorism is as bad as or even worse than rape and murder. Not only is it the killing of people but it is an intrusive fear. (Walzer, 1988, p. 283) He claims that since the acts are random, degrading, and frightening then they should be indefensible. Terroristic rage is purposeful and pragmatic. A Small number of dead victims make for a large population of scared hostages. It is also the strategic choices which make it worse than random acts of violence. Therefore Moral justification is ruled out. (Walzer, p. 284) Walzer also breaks down how people defend terrorism. The use of excuses instead of openly defending and justifying terrorism is the whole purpose of his paper. The support is indirect but not ineffective: I.e. apologetic descriptions and explanations. He states, “I take for granted: that every act of terrorism is a wrongful act.” (Walzer, p. 284) But he is where is will interject in his

The 9/11 terrorist attacks irrevocably and dramatically transformed the landscape of national security and risk, marking the beginning of the nebulous and never-ending War on Terror. Western governments frequently cite terrorism to rationalize legislation that restricts the privacy and democratic freedoms of its citizenry as anti-terror, increasing unaccountable government power. This rhetoric includes that governments must eliminate all risk of terror, it being such an existential threat that we, as citizens, can and must do everything to fight “them”, including throwing out privacy and the freedom of the press. Our lives are both augmented and restrained by the advent of ‘big data’ that, when paired the ongoing mass, indiscriminate surveillance, strips individuals of their right to privacy. Governments have capitalized on the corporate practice of collecting massive amounts of data on individuals, which has increased in both scale and scope as surveillance technology has become more sophisticated and more difficult to evade. The result is that we live under a global Panopticon in the knowledge that at any point, our online lives and communications can be exposed and subject to scrutiny. Other democratic freedoms jettisoned in the fight include the transparency and accountability in public administration and, relatedly, a free, independent and pluralistic media. The same anti-terror rhetoric and legislation is used to spy on, prosecute, and imprison journalists and

“The danger that darkened the United States of America and the civilized world on September 11, did not pass with the atrocities committed that day”. (Ashcroft, 2003) The terrors of 9/11 caused increased security that comes at a cost that many feel is an invasion of their charter rights. The idea of racial profiling is not new, but many feel worse than ever in today’s anti-Muslim society. This habit of losing civil liberties in the wake of terror is to some an unnecessary change that is unallowable, but leaves many wondering if we should sacrifice our freedom for safety.

Dailymail.co.uk says that over 32,000 people died in 2014 alone (Dailymail 1). Terrorism can be interpreted many different ways. From the terrorist’s standpoint, terrorism is a helpful tool used to promote their way of life and to keep their people in line. From a pacifist’s point of view, terrorism is a dangerous thing, but should be left alone unless it is targeted toward them. From an activist’s point of view, terrorism is too dangerous to be left alone and must stop before it spreads. No matter what point of view it is being seen at, terrorism is dangerous and has ended the lives of too many citizens and soldiers.

There is No Justification for the Terror in the U.S.S.R. in the 1930's I agree more with the statement ‘There can be no justification

Why does the way we define terrorism matter? It matters because we can make wrong judgements of a group or individual and not have a clear vision of what is in store in the future. In the article “The Struggle to Define Terrorism” it says that chaos is that describes the state of things concerning definitions (Tuman 2). Academics, government, experts all have different definitions of what terrorism is. Even a terrorist has a different definition of what the meaning of “terrorism” is.

In most cases, the mention of statistics in any written work is an indication of the extensive research carried out by the author, as well as the validity of information and arguments presented. Any argument seems good when supported with statistics, which is a factor of use of statistics to indicate the scientific nature of evidence, since numbers presented justify the arguments raised. However, these statistics are deceptive since they do not explore an argument or issue in its entirety. For instance, most authors focus on presenting statistics without explaining their background such as sources and explaining how they were obtained (Browne & Keeley, 2015). This paper presents an analysis of an example of graphical statistics that have been

It is important to recognize the need to respond, especially when a national incident affects the entire country. Federal, state and local response personnel are not the only assets that may be required in the aftermath of a strike on the homeland (“Preparing Responders to Respond,” 2003). There are also private response individuals and companies who may be stakeholders within the affected areas. In contrast, the more appropriate term, emergency responders, comprises all personnel within a community that might be needed in the event of a natural or technological (man-made) disaster or terrorist incident (Chapman et al., 2012). Elite ERP are mandated to be ready and willing to run, not walk, to the nearest deployment area if they are to save

Terrorism and the United States A cloud of anthrax spores looming in the sky of San Diego California

In order for the United States of America and its allies to live a life free of terrorist threats, they need to counter violent extremism and terrorism with swift and deliberate prevention efforts world-wide.

Have you ever had a fear for your family, your town, your country, or your world. How about the fear to have everything taken from you, destroyed, and not caring if it has hurt you or not? What about your fear and pain is, and can be someone else’s happiness? The fear of you being terrorized? That is terrorism. Someone else bringing fear and terrorizing you. That is a terrorist’s goal. Terrorism is common and is very difficult to stop. The government promises protection for the people, and their home, but they can not give that protection if they can not stop terrorism. Terrorism needs to stop to protect the live of the people, and their country.

Think of the word terrorism. What is the first thing that comes to mind? One might think of kidnapping, assassination, bombing, or even genocide and guerrilla warfare. Because it is such a broad and complex issue, an all-encompassing definition is hard to formulate. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as…