What Happens When The War Started

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

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.

The term terrorism is used widely in present day especially in the United States. Terrorism is a double standard, the people who commit those terrorist acts, commit the acts out of beliefs and in their eyes ok. Terrorism can be described as the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective by targeting innocent people (Laqueur, 1987). To me the definition mention above is a great definition to describe terrorism as a crime. To aim for innocent people to prove a point which lead major injuries or death in most cases is to most people would be a crime, no questions asked. According to Martha Crenshaw (1995), “Terrorism cannot be defined unless the act, target and possibility of success are analyzed”. So to think, terrorist are people who commit these acts as a way to get their political or religious point across. If we look at the some of the most famous terrorist acts they are automatically labeled crimes. 9/11 was a crime because the persons affiliated with the act, targeted the

“War on terror is a misnomer. It would be like calling America’s involvement in World War II a “war on kamikazism.” Terrorism, like kamikazism, is a tactic,” Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian public speaker once noted. It goes without saying that terrorist actions do not appear suddenly, by someone’s unexpected insight. Actually, terrorism is a tactic that is built on the solid fundament of its inner complex philosophy. There are certainly a number of reasons for terrorism to live so long and escape diminishing, and these reasons, when adequately understood, first of all, and only then properly treated, may make the scale of terrorism reduce visibility. That is only a hypothesis, but this is clearly an issue worth of careful attention which does not close up in leading a war against terrorism. As D’Souza has remarkably specified, “this word combination has been already a kind of foolish”. In short,

If you eat with your fingers does it show you discomfort? Do you feel disgusted? A woman who is very distraught and very wise has an opinion on fingers and she thinks "fingers are filthy" (The Voyage Out 50). Visualize an old, boney, gray skin woman using utensils to eat a fruit. A young, mischievous man who tells the gruesome story of how he got away with murdering a German, with the terrifying graphic detailing story he claimed "with one blow it cut through his neck so deeply that his whole head fell forward and dangled down onto his chest" (Mdisho of Mwanumwezi 39). Envision this a man running for four hours and welcoming himself into another person's home and murdering him with one blow to the head, and then the victims head rolls down

We all wonder where does terrorism comes from? Well for starts it comes from the French Revolutionary war when people went against the government during this war many innocent people died. History has also had some terrorist actions for instance during world war one and two, the Holocaust is one when more than 800,000 jews were killed for no reason killing innocent lives. Alos the Vietnam war was an act of terrorism when the United States was trying to stop communism to spread, but this lead to the cold war.

The novel, ‘Tomorrow When The War Began’, by John Marsden uses teenage characters who must change because of an invasion. They must fight their enemies to protect their families and friends. Marsden explores the idea that war forces people to change their attitudes, values and beliefs. He achieves this by using the text structure of the plot, and language features such as emotive and descriptive language The plot of the book ‘Tomorrow When The War Began’, by John Marsden uses many teenagers with different personalities.

In the first chapter of Terror in the Mind of God it goes over a few terrorist incident examples. There were ethnic shootings in California and Illinois, attack on american embassies, abortion clinic bombings and other terrorist acts. All of these incidents and other violent attacks are associated with American religious extremists. So these are attacks by groups named Christian Militia, The Christian Identity Movement and Christian Anti-abortion activists. For many people in the Middle East terrorist attacks have become a way of life. All of the Terrorists attacks have two similar characteristics, First they have been very violent and terrifying. And second they have been motivated by religion. So the attacks are by people that think they are doing good for their religion.The fact that violent acts find their justification in religion can be studied by analyzing the deeds of those terrorists. The definition of a terrorist attack is that people are terrified not the people doing the acts. People and the media talk about the public acts of destruction which causes mass sense of fear. Most people feel that religion should provide tranquility and peace not terror and violence. For the terrorists attacks that are mentioned many of the cases religion has supplied the motivation for the terrorists. So in this first chapter in relation to ethics it says that the people thought they were doing the right thing. For example since they were blowing up

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

Of the many problems that society faces today, terrorism is one that is more serious. The presence of terrorism can be felt across the globe, which make this issue a global concern. In all countries, whether they are developed or in the process of developing, this issue is always up for debate in todays society. History has shown us the clear evidence that the presence of terrorism is very much real and has gone through tremendous changes over the years. Terrorism now has become more difficult to control, more widespread, and more lethal. In todays society, terrorism is a serious challenge because of its presence around the world. Terrorists create chaotic conditions leading to mass murder and destruction to undermine the stability of society,

Traditionally, students have been taught that differences between northern and southern economies caused the Civil War. The industrial revolution in the North, during the first few decades of the 19th century, brought about an economy that revolved around a machine age which relied on wage laborers, not slaves. At the same time, the warmer Southern states continued to rely on slaves for their farming economy and cotton production. Southerners made huge profits from cotton and slaves and fought a war to maintain them. Northerners did not need slaves to establish or maintain their economy and fought a war to free them. Everything else, we are led to believe, was tied to that economic difference that was focused on cotton.

One other juxtaposition of this film is war. In this scene, It detonates the firebombing of civilians which is an act of 'war crime' and the colour red connotatively being the sign of danger. Therefore by reading this scene, it is a reflection of Miyazaki's anti-war pacifism and disapproval to war. It also signifies civilians being victimised in this film while the palace is protected by magic. Suggesting that politicians are allowed to stay in a safer place, while civilians are victimised despite the fact that they are not directly responsible for pursuing the war.

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.

For these reasons, historians of terrorism normally work with a wide definition, and social scientists do so much of the time. But philosophers may well prefer a narrow definition. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of (what one considers) an unjust and oppressive government, and planting a bomb in a tea shop and killing a random collection of common citizens, including children. While both acts raise serious moral issues, these issues are not identical, and running them together under the same heading of “terrorism” will likely hamper, rather than help,

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.