Terrorism is Wrong Essay

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 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.

International terrorism aspires to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government and transcend national

The argument here is that terrorism has gone through three transitory phases since 1945. The first phase was dominated by nationalism, and the second emphasized ethnic

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.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism on the basis of three characteristics. In order for an act to be considered terrorism, it needs to be (1) a violent act, or acts dangerous to human life that violates laws; (2) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or

Arthur Massacre) and comparing these with acts committed in the name of a “cause” (terrorism) by

In this paper, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be defined and discussed in relation to the event of 9/11. As well as, the legal constraints that are associated with the conduct of hostilities under the new conditions imposed. The term “terrorism” and “terrorist” were included following the events of 9/11, identifying a new type of enemy. Narratives of who the enemy was changed towards individuals who were or seemed like a Muslim. Muslims were perceived as the new enemy. This subsequently led to major legal constraints such as

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

Research into terrorism is another challenge in defining terrorism. According to James Rinehart, “those who write about terrorism, tend to possess a preconceived bias of a ‘problem-solution’ orientation in which he or she is simply attempting to justify a set of counterterrorist prescriptive” (4). This research is unreliable at best because as mentioned previously, preconceived biases and stereotypes tend to become involved. Furthermore, there is little research into the why of terrorism, and also very little research into the psychology of terrorists by actual psychologists. The scarcity of primary, first-hand research and due to the private nature of data that is out there, the challenge to defining

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.

Terrorism, then, is a type of political crime that makes use of murder and destruction or the threat of such violence in order to promote change. It is a

From the lips of the FBI, “Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objective.” On September 11, 2001 the United States of America experienced such actions, it was the largest terror attack experienced by any country. The affect this had on America was tremendous,

For example, the Andijan Events, which happened in 2005. Many innocent people were killed during the terrorists attempt to take control over the government of (maybe in) Andijan. As the President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov said (Uzbek Nation Will Never Depend on Others, 2005), the executors of that terror act were the members of, so-called, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Their primary goal was to set Caliphate in Uzbekistan, which would have made Uzbekistan an Islamic Republic and led to put dot in Uzbekistan's development, especially in economy growth. Also, there are some other reasons for terrorist acts such as: hate towards a race, nationality, or religion. The following example contains all reasons listed above. Another international terror group Al-Qaeda, number one terror group with a multimillionaire leader Osama Ben Laden, carried out a terror attack in 2001, in USA. Referring to Wikipedia.com (2006), terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into World Trade Centre, in Manhattan. The other one crashed to US Pentagon, and fourth crashed in rural place in Pennsylvania. It took about 2,986 lives of innocent people, including 19 hijackers, and more than 40 000 people were injured.