Evan Parker
Philosophy 101: Ethics
What Is a Terrorist?
“A terrorist is one who sows terror,” says Elshtain. She means that the victims of terrorist attacks are subjected to terror, or great fear. The purpose of subjecting a group of people to such fear varies but usually aims to destroy the morale of a people in its attempt at some religious, political, or ideological goal. Crucial features of inducing terror are its randomness and its attack on civilians as opposed to combatants. This elicits fear in every person because they are afraid for their personal safety in their day to day lives, as opposed to fearing only for our soldiers. To determine who is a terrorist, we must ask who they are attacking. Do they mainly target combatants in
…show more content…
We tell them to not to obey orders which conflict with the laws of war. Our military training films show the soldiers how to avoid loss of civilian lives and that we should certainly not say that it is God’s will to kill enemy civilians. There is a huge difference in the training videos of Islamic radicals. One video acquired by a British newspaper, was reported to depict their “enemies being decapitated with knives after they are disarmed--something strictly forbidden by the laws of war,” says Elshtain. The video goes on to say that you must kill in the name of Allah and that you are then guaranteed to enter Paradise. It says that they should all fight the “sick unbelievers.” Newsweek journalist Francis Fukayama reported that these extremist groups celebrated September 11 because they think that the very basis of our society is corrupt. They hate us for our religious tolerance, believing that we should instead be “trying to serve religious truth.” Some argue that the issue is our foreign policy, but how can this be the case when they “hate us for what we are and what we represent and not for anything in particular that we have done,” argues Elshtain. There is no adequate response for this. We cannot change the very foundation of our great country. These terrorists hate us so much that they commit themselves to “violence without limits,” Elshtain say emphatically. All we can do is fight back
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
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
“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
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).
Recently, President Bush gave his State of the Union Address to Congress. Throughout his speech, he makes a solid case for the further unification of America throughout these harsh times. He makes a very strong argument for the retaliation of the actions committed against America. However, when he speaks of bringing the terrorists to justice, his argument falters. He has made a hasty judgement with little proof when he first began his argument.
The emphasis of counterterrorism policy in the United States since Al Qaeda’s attacks of September 11, 2001 has been on jihadist terrorism. However, in the last decade, domestic terrorists have killed American citizens and damaged property across the country. Not all of these criminals have been prosecuted under terrorism charges. This is not meant to imply that domestic terrorists should be taken any less seriously than other terrorists.
Although there is not a mutual agreement on how to handle terrorism there is the shared common belief that it needs to be dealt with and at the same time the citizens need to be protected. With that being said, this chapter goes along side with chapter 10 which deals with human rights and human security.
Terrorism is a big threat people in the world face today. Terrorism is defined by Cindy Combs as “a synthesis of war and theater, a dramatization of the most proscribed kind of violence - that which is perpetuated on innocent victims - played before an audience in the hope of creating a mood of fear; for political purposes.” In other words an act of terrorism is not for mass casualties but rather for attention. Terrorist seek an audience. They would rather kill one person and have the whole world see it than kill a whole city and no one knew about it. Through attention they believe they can create a fear in us the people. If the people are scared the government
“Stairs narrow toward the top. It becomes harder to turn back with each step” (Kershaw, 2010). As said before, there is not a “cookie cutter” definition of what creates a terrorist. One thing is very evident, the radicalization process of an individual is complex, diverse, and is often comprised of idiosyncratic characteristics.
A United States citizen turning against one’s own government and embracing an ideology to kill another citizen or commit an act of violence is a growing phenomenon commonly known as homegrown terrorism. This transition or radicalization process that transforms an individual into an adversary has intensified since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The problem continues to persist in other parts of the world such as Canada, United Kingdom and even in Saudi Arabia, a Non-Western country. This form of extremism has shown its propensity in the United States since the turn of the century when Muslim extremism had its early beginnings as a venue to support a black separatist movement.
That call to action can come in many forms of media and to a global audience. “Terrorist recruitment videos, often released online, have been tailored to appeal to various audiences. A propaganda video, which can still be watched on YouTube of captured U.S. soldier, Bowe R. Bergdahl, compares what seems to be his good treatment under al-Qaeda, to those of U.S.-run prisoner of war camps” (Philipp).
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.
When a group perceives that a large number of civilians benefit and support or demand extensive state violence against them and their presumed constituents, terrorism is a likely choice tactic. (Goodwin 2004) Pushing this further, terrorist groups can perceive non-combatants of today, as combatants of tomorrow. Whether a terrorist group perceive civilians as benefit from the environment today, or possibly changing the environment of tomorrow, the need to protect the future is great. Since individuals participate in costly collective action, specifically terrorism to secure an ideal future, the choice of terror as a tactic is rational.
Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.