Terrorists: Harmful Or Justified?

The history of terrorism is as old as humans’ willingness to use violence to affect politics. Terrorism can affect everyone, whether directly or indirectly. However, a group that is largely affected is immigrants, mainly due to the U.S. policies on Counter-Terrorism. These policies might protect our country, but they also indirectly lead to discrimination against immigrants. The U.S. policy on Counter-Terrorism causes unfair immigration laws, encourages social media to demonize foreigners, and creates an unfair society for immigrants to live in.

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.

Domestic terrorism is an extraordinarily real and frightening thing Americans today have to manage. While many protest at the idea of allowing refugees from the Middle East into the country, others realize that domestic terrorism may be the real problem we should be focusing on. Domestic terrorism, is terrorist activity against one's own country to initiate fear and push an ideology about a particular religion or group. In the US since Sept. 11, 2001, "nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, anti government fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims" (Scott). The statistic is certainly alarming because the media and today's society views the typical terrorist as an Allah praising, bearded, suicide bomber when in fact, in over half the cases it was an American citizen causing the terror.

If a caucasian person is involved in a shooting, it is not made a big deal, but if a Muslim person is involved in a shooting, they must be a terrorist. Ever since the crusades, there has always been hard feeling between Christians and Muslims. But after various terrorist attacks in the name of Muslim religion, it seems that there are hard feeling between the whole world and Muslims. Muslims are vilified, hated, and even called terrorists. But, is it justified to profile Muslims as terrorists? No, it is not justified to profile muslims as terrorists. Those on both sides all have their own opinion and reasons, being justified or not. Those who say yes are forgetting that not all terrorists are muslims, the muslim religion is not about terrorism, and Islam is actually very similar to Christianity. Common sense tells us that a few terrorists do not define a religion, and Muslims are just as angered at terrorists as everyone else. Profiling all Muslims as terrorists, as natural as it is for some, is contrary to the very basics of the freedom of religion in this country, along with what most consider common sense.

The statement that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist is not valid and this is because the differences between the two are far more complex than perspective alone. The issue with perspective being the only distinction is in the difficulty to accurately define terrorism in a way synonymous to describing the characteristics of a freedom fighter. In examining the characteristics of numerous definitions it becomes evident that there is a distinction in the relationship which terrorists and freedom fighters have with civilians when carrying out their violent and politically motivated goals.

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

One of the most heartbreaking sights was the image of a family with four children sheltering in a bunker as an incessant shower of bombs destroyed their home and nearby buildings. Exiting the bunker only brought forth even more sickening images as the family watched their neighbors being carried away on stretchers. This scene was one of the many portrayed by the media on the conflict between Israel and Gaza. Not much later my TV screen was taken over by the images of Liberia and the sickly patients diagnosed with Ebola aching for help knowing that there wasn’t any help coming. Unable to watch these stomach churning events unfold, I quickly changed the channel only to be faced with the news of yet another beheading of a westerner at the hands of Isis terrorists. Most Americans oppose the idea of America being “The World’s Policeman” because the title assumes immense responsibility. According to the Politico Poll presented by CNN, a staggering 67% of Americans believe that we shouldn’t get involved in foreign issues while 20% believe the U.S has a responsibility to use its military to protect democracy and peace. In the midst of deepening violence

Since 9/11 the War on Terror has not ceased but has continued on a larger scale. Through this war many issues have become apparent and caused the Constitution and the power of authority to be questioned, one of those authorities being the president. It has been called to question of whether or not the president should have the abilities to violate peacetime laws and liberties in the duration of war. In the past many presidents have sent forces to fight and many hostilities that have taken place abroad have not properly been declared war except certain cases such as World War I and II. Due to the severity and quick pace nature of the War on Terror, the president should be able to all that is necessary to fight the war and protect the citizens.

Al Qaeda is one of the most well known terrorist groups of the 21st century due to their statement terrorists acts that have shaken entire countries such as the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in the USA and the bombing of Madrid’s railway station in Spain. This group was founded in Saudi Arabia in 1988 by Osama Bin Laden after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. All actions that they take are justified by the Islamic religion and they are driven by the Sharia, naming themselves the Jihad or the members of the Holy War. Bin Laden and his deputies have been killed by the US in 2011 in an attempt to stop this terrorist group, however they continue to run today, only with less control and more killings, going by the name ISIS or the Islamic

Terrorism is referred by a criminal act which influences someone beyond the immediate victim, and commits an act of violence that draws the attention of the population, government, and the world (Terrorism research). Goodman explains that Terrorists explode the values they claim to fight. Their victims’ blood blurs and blots whatever ends were meant to justify the carnage (Goodman, 2010, p. 89) We all remember September 11, 2001 and how many innocent lives and people where effected, and that that is what they aim for. The more devastating the damage, the more inhumane, the more avidly is it sought by the strategist, ideologues, and theologians of terror (Goodman, 2010, p. 90).

The term has expanded immensely during the twentieth century to include any type of political violence that an observer does not agree with; thus contributing to the confusion and the murkiness of the meaning of the word. The media and Politicians are quick to label any violent enemy as terrorist. Deeming any act of violence that one disagrees with as terrorism cause the term to lose its meaning and become a highly contextual and highly subjective. Some acts of violence are portrayed as terrorism by certain media outlets and this notion of legitimate is resisted by others. Confusion further depends by the fact that researchers and governments have more than one hundred working different definitions for the term terrorism. Critics believe that another contribution to the media’s confusion is the need to get the news first which can lead to inaccurate reporting and misrepresentations (Tuggle, & Huffman, 2007) or “blatantly false pretenses” (Greenwald,

In a lot of countries around the world, people are unable to do or act in certain manners, so when these individuals see other countries/nations doing these actions they see it as being wrong. The example that Payne provided about the doctor that performed abortions in Kansas City, is an example of domestic terrorism. The gunman was against abortions and therefore he went after a doctor that was performing these procedures. We might not all agree with this, but we do not have the right to say what someone can or should do. The terrorist tries to impose fear and scare everyone so that they can have the upper hand, this does not make their actions right. In domestic terrorism the threat is coming within the nation and in international terrorism

With the recent terrorist attack in Paris, France the topic of terrorism may be a very touchy subject. Especially in the view that what the terrorists did could be considered to not be wrong. These terrorist attacks have affected me more than I ever thought possible and though it it very unfortuante what happened, I have allowed myself to understand ways in which these attacks may not have been so wrong. My first instincts regarding this topic was that there is no possible way anyone could convince me that terrorism is anything but wrong, but somehow my opinion has been mildly swayed. Considering how much death and pain results from terrorism, it is hard to believe that anyone could feel anything but negative attitudes

What aspects define a terrorist from that which defines a freedom-fighter? Well the main answer is ‘different perspectives.’ In order to further dive into the relevance of different perspectives “One person 's terrorist is another person 's Freedom Fighter,” shall be analysed and discussed. ¬

I believe most terrorist target the weak. Terrorists select targets from depending upon how they understand their environment. They study these four things: the purpose (terrorist objectives), the means (terrorist methods), the focus (terrorist targets), and the outcome (is terrorism effectiveness). Objectives are defined as steps its takes anyone to reach a goal. Terrorist only have five different objectives. They want to change the existing order, psychological disruption, social disruption, or to publicize the cause. The most lasting objective is psychological disruption because it almost works like post-traumatic stress disorder (e.g. Americans anxiety of the Islam religion). Terrorism means is powered by technology, communication, and