Terrorism Is Morally Unjustifiable By Stephen Nathanson

The book “How Terrorism End; Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns”, written in 2011 at the height of Al-Qaeda, the most well-known international terrorist group of our time. The author of this work, Audrey Cronin, at the time of print, served as a professor of strategy at the United States National War College in Washington D.C., and a senior associate at Oxford University’s Changing Character of War Program. Both positions allowed her to impact strategic policy making in the execution of the Global War on Terror by allowing her access to senior military and civilian policymakers. Her previous area of her prior work has been mainly focused on international terrorism with an emphasis on al-Qaeda. She has authored

For our purposes, we will use the Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), to define terrorism. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Examples of terrorism persist on a near daily basis around the world. Unstable countries, such as Afghanistan and Syria, deal with terrorist attacks on a constant basis. The common thread of these attacks is deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political objectives. The best known and largest example are

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.

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).

Caleb Carr is stressing that terrorism is never the answer throughout this chapter and I presume, the rest of the book. This is clearly shown in him saying "for just as meeting the tactics of terror in kind will only perpetuate the cycle of terrorist violence.." As for whether or not the affect of Roman warfare can be applied to today's governments in training people that are not of their own, it can be. Carr begins to explain this when he says "There is an irony concerning most of those rebel leaders that also holds enormous implications for our present experience..." (p. 37).

Butko (2006; Freedman, 2005) slightly reflects on Symeonidou-Kastanidou’s (2004) definition in less mechanical way by adding to it that there should be certain psychological effect on innocent victims. In case of the Gunpowder Plot, if the Plot would have failed to achieve its intended purpose, plotters expected at least to evoke condemnation of the society towards the King. The most definitive feature of terrorism in Butko’s (2006) opinion is the threat of violence or use of violence towards ‘innocent’ people, if all of the barrels with the gunpowder would have been ignited the casualties would have been enormous and it is not that hard to imagine, in light of the September 11, the state of horror it would have inflicted upon the London and the whole

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

To a sizeable audience, anyone who has the audacity to justify terrorism could likely face heavy scrutinization. Events such as the attacks on 9/11 impacted American society in such a way that the thought of someone being inherently evil is directly correlated to being a terrorist. While terrorism can be inexplicable and profoundly discouraged, there seems to be only one stubborn approach to the topic. When presented with the question, “can terrorism be justified?”, audible gasps and faces of disbelief unashamedly occur. Yes, terrorism and the violence against civilians is abominable and should not be tolerated, but it truly is a travesty in its own right. The media and their eagerness to apply the word to high-tension situations stimulates a rudimentary understanding of terrorism. The intricacy of the layers of terrorism force those willing to thoroughly study the topic to come to terms with morality. Terrorism has a generally uncomfortable disposition; it compels an individual to not only respond emotionally, but to have logical understanding of the politics and motives behind the cause. The concept is so consuming of thoughts, facts, and

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

There are different elements clarify why terrorism is ethically wrong, regardless of the possibility that different types of murdering are every so often passable. Notwithstanding, terrorism slaughtering considers whether the utilization of different sorts of fear for political as opposed to military use makes terrorism altogether off-base. A few good qualifications that may be critical to the ethical quality and reasonable portrayal of terrorism are incorporated.

In this essay I will argue that terrorism, under its true definition, is not justifiable, and if would be considered justifiable, it is thus not terrorism. This argument may seem unusual, but upon delving into this term and the discussion that follows, it should seem logical and in harmony with the arguments discussed by both Coady and Palmer-Fernandez in their respective articles in Chapter 20. Arguing from a most basic perspective of sentimentalism and more specifically, ethics of care, which examine moral values from considerations of basic sympathy for a fellow human. In this case, we cannot simply rely on utilitarian ethics for instance, which argue for the overall greater good. Even if scarring

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.

War Against Terror and Human Rights The Human Rights Act 1998 took full legal effect across the English and Welsh legal systems on October 2nd 1998. The Act, allows people to claim a number of the rights and freedoms that are set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government had high hopes that when the act was passed it would create a 'Culture of Human Rights within the United Kingdom.'