What Is Terrorism, Is It Wrong, And Could It Ever Be Morally Permissible?

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

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 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

“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).

The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather

I believe that each of these agencies have a different definition for the term terrorism, because they each have different priorities, and focus on different jurisdictions. In my opinion, I feel that there is no universal definition of terrorism, because they do not want to involve any racism in it, they prefer to just blame, whichever person, or group is suspected of terrorism. However, the most common definition of terrorism is, “The deliberate, unlawful use of threats, force, or actual violence to inculcate fear” (Taylor & Swanson, 2016 P.8). For this reason, I do believe that by not having a universal definition for this term, it does limit the capabilities of countering terrorism, because it causes miscommunication. One agency might

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

The U.S Law definition of terrorism is defined an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (U.S. Legal). Today’s terrorism would be best described as “mala in se” concept of the criminal justice system. Just look at the memorable U.S. terrorist attack, September 11, 2001, resulted in 2996 innocent deaths. This attack was premeditated attack against innocent non-combatant civilians. The acts of September 11th 2001 were morally proscribed offenses are those that cannot be justified in a sophisticated society. In our textbook the moral convictions of a terrorist is “unambiguous certainty of the righteousness of their cause; to them, there are no gray areas” (Martin, 2010). Terrorist feel that their interest are the only way and no one can reprimand them for their action because they are justified by their interest. Some terrorist group’s moral convictions most time come from them feeling as though they have been wrong by a more powerful evil. Others group’s moral convictions come from the superiority complex, these groups

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,

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).