Terrorism : A Critique Of Excuses

The word ‘terrorism’ can be traced back to the French Revolution and the reign of terror committed against the population of France in the 1790s. During this time, thousands of people were killed and the general population was severely oppressed. Also, some of the first instances of terrorist tactics, such as assassination and intimidation, were witnessed in the killing of prominent officials and other opponents of the Revolution. In general, terrorists aim to incite fear in the population through pre-meditated violent acts and gain publicity as a medium in achieving their goals. Such acts include taking hostages, bombings and assassinations, all of which create fear and compliance in a victim or audience. Terrorism can be distinguished from other types of political violence through its disregard for and intentional harming of innocent civilians. Also, terrorists usually adopt a state of mind where one side is always good and any opposition is bad and deserves to be punished. As a result, terrorists will always have some supporters who share the same radical thoughts as them and thus terrorism, as a whole, will always be accepted as a legitimate use of violence. This is the reasoning behind the famous phrase by Gerald Seymour, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”(QUOTE

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.

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).

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).

In examining Islamic terrorism, we are presented with two very different viewpoints from politicians. On the one side, we have John Kerry, who contends that terrorism is the result of barbarism…says “this is a battle between civilization itself and barbarism” (Kerry, 2015), and describes religious extremists as “psychopathic monsters”. When we reduce the actions of these people to barbarism and separate their brand of violence from our, as Mary Moran puts it, "[...] it provides a satisfying depiction of the fundamental difference between the deployment of U.S. military might and the "senseless violence" perpetrated by others" (Moran, 200; p. 251). She is quick to explain, however, that this strategy of explanation is counterproductive because

The main goal for terrorism is to create chaos to push a political agenda for the group using the terror, but this is not what Fiala wants to really discuss (129). He states that terrorism can be justifiable at a certain time, such as war, the reason he states this is because he uses England as an example during World War II. Early in the war England did nit have the aid of the United States so he states in his article that this made it reasonable to use terrorism on the attacking countries to gain the advantage. Fialal uses the words of James Sterba to push this point across by discussing a just war theory. Sterba uses the example of the Palestinians using terrorism against Israel and there actions being justified. The reason that he states that their actions are justifiable because the Palestinians did not have any other way of ending the occupation of Israel. If this was the mind set that all countries trying to gain control used then the world would be worse because then if would give the right to any country that is fighting the United States to use terrorism because most countries that fight wars against us would mean they could uses terrorism just to level the playing the field and that is not something what we want to have to worry about even more than we do already (128). Fiala makes two different arguments throughout his paper saying that

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.

In Alison M. Jaggar’s paper “What is Terrorism, Why is it Wrong, and Could it Ever be Morally Permissible?”, she takes the topic of terrorism and tries to bring up information about it in a way to where terrorism can be discussed fairly and examined critically. Terrorism has been defined differently by various people, but many have voiced their concerns about this type of violence. Jaggar tried to develop an account (i.e., in-depth definition) of terrorism that would be consistent, precise, and impartial (Jaggar Pg. 205). For an account to be impartial, there must be a separation of the moral assessment of terrorists’ ends from the moral assessment of the ways or strategies used by them (Jaggar Pg. 206). Jaggar’s proposed account of terrorism is as follows: Terrorism is the use of extreme threats or violence designed to intimidate or subjugate governments, groups, or individuals. It is a tactic of coercion intended to promote further ends that in themselves may be good, bad or indifferent. Terrorism may be practiced by governments or international bodies or forces, substate groups or even individuals. It 's threats or violence are aimed directly or immediately at the bodies or belongings of innocent civilians but these are typically terrorists’ secondary targets; the primary targets of terrorists are the governments, groups or individuals that they wish to intimidate. (Jaggar Pg 209) Her description of terrorism is very comprehensive or inclusive. Furthermore, her

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

Wlazer explains that, 'the resort to terror is not last in an actual series of actions; it islast only for the sake of the excuse'. Later, using the statment, 'Another Justification for Terrorism is a conclusion that no other strategy can work because of the weakness of the oppressed and prevailing power of the state', as an example of how people justify terrorism. The distention between the two is that, an excuse is an attempt to lessen the blame surronding a fault or seek to defend or justify, and, justification being the action showing something to be right, reasonable, a good reason for something that has to be done. I personally believe that what Walzer was attempting to show was that there is no real justification for terrorism, but rather a lue of excues layed out in an attempt to justify such horendous acts of

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

In Arafat’s case, then, terrorism is only a characteristic of the mature industrial “Western” state, whereas “revolutionary” nations have a duty-perhaps even a “logically rational” one-to condemn “designs against peace,” herein supplanting the notion of “equality.”

Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.

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.

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…