Terrorism Creation Of Fear And Hatred Analysis

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

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.

This paper will discuss religious terrorism in particular. Religious terrorism can be defined as “the terrorism [is] carried out based on motivations and goals that have a predominantly religious character or influences.” (“Religious Terrorism”) An example of this will be the 9/11 attacks. It was “a series of four coordinated terrorist attack launched by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.”(“September 11 attacks”) This attack had led to a serious causality, “almost 3000 people dies in the attacks.” (“September 11 attacks”) Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, declared a “holy war against the United States” (“September 11 attacks”) In his “letter to America”, he stated the motives as follows: In opposition to western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia; supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir; the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon; the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia; U.S support of Israel and the sanction against Iraq. (“September 11 attacks”) The disastrous attack leads to a serious attention of re-constructing the old version of counter terrorism strategy, which had failed to protect the citizens against terrorism. However, ‘terrorism is far to complex for one solution to be effective in dealing with all the possible threats.” (Lygutas 146) Therefore, some of the measures have difficulties in balancing the rights of

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.

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

The equation of dealing with terrorism on an ethical level is complicated by its components not connected to an official state. Just War theory sets a list of checkpoints before a just war can be declared (Snauwaert 2004). This list is known as the Jus ad Bellum and is comprises, but not limited to: just cause, right authority, right intention, proportionality, reasonable hope of success, and last resort (Snauwaert 2004).

inflict a heavy cost. The authors continue by positing a dilemma that sounds nearly identical to Adler’. They assert that terrorists use a strategy of provocation that is designed to induce a violent response, which will in turn radicalize population and lead to them supporting the terrorists.

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

This week in Lamy terrorism and human security were covered in chapters nine and ten. LAmy describes terrorism as the use of violence to bring attention to a “grievance”, to get a certain “response”, or to weaken someones moral to elicit “political change”. Lamy explains that terrorism can be done as a result of infractions on culture, economics, and/or religion. One example the book gives is Al Qaeda which is a religious based terrorist group that fight due to an oath of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. This group became recognized as a terrorist group after the incident of September 11. These terrorist acts were done on the premise of the belief in jihad. Like most terrorists, Al Qaeda fights for the beliefs for which there is no compromise;

The act of terrorism, an unlawful use of violence and intimidation, is most commonly seen targeting civilians but can also include damage to property or injury to specific individuals. These malicious acts are used to fulfil political, religious or ideological aims in attempt of intimidating the government or society. Terrorisms’ impact reflects on the government and society extracting various responses, both legal and non-legal. The effectiveness of these responses, aimed at obtaining equal justice against terrorism, tend to vary while considering the concepts of preventing terrorist attacks while not infringing on human rights and the resolution of the ‘war against terrorism’. The evident lack of consistency in these responses has been reflected

“Terrorism” is best defined as the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, it intimidate opponents. It can also be defined as a policy of calculated and coercive intimidation, designed to achieve a strategic objective by sowing fear among non-combatants. Its definition does not depend on the objectives that are sought, or whether it is a government or opposition group. Though the distinction between “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” usually inspires debate on the legitimacy of their ends, terrorism is fundamentally a matter of means. This is like saying that there are “good terrorist” and “bad terrorist.”

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.

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.