More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the major solutions to terrorism
Religion and terrorism the connection
Impact of terrorism on the world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Research Essay: Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.“ This is a popular quote regarding the state of terrorism, and how certain people may consider terrorism justifiable.
Justifying terrorism is, however, not different from justifying innocent slaughter. Justifying innocent slaughter suggests that terrorists believe that political or religious conflicts are more prominent than a segment of typically uninvolved humans. Not only does terrorism cause deaths, but it also negatively affects a country’s economy and religion. Terrorism causes more problems rather than “solving” problems terrorists may have.
The first reason for asserting that terrorism cannot be justified is the slaughter of innocent people, which isn’t moral. Whether people uninvolved are killed isn‘t a concern to terrorists. Terrorism ignores the lives of many people completely and this directly conflicts with people who are close to those who have died in an accident due to terrorism. This is a reason why terrorism is atrocious and shouldn’t be justified.
This act of slaughter violates human rights says Igor Primoratz of Arena Magazine, “Human beings are to be respected as holders of rights, which circumscribe a
Fam 2
certain area of freedom, thereby both acknowledging and protecting personhood. The terrorist can't show this type of respect. For if you have any basic rights at all, surely the right not to be killed or maimed for a terrorist cause is one of them” (4). Each human needs respect and their own rights and terrorism obliterates those two basic principles. Treating human lives as a means to an end is hardly the proper way to go around things, and that is one of the largest consequences of terro...
... middle of paper ...
...d 50,000 casualties (Effective human rights work is the best weapon against terrorism). There are nonviolent ways of dealing with oppression, following Gandhi’s example, and even the Boston Tea Party which brought changes with little violence. This Chechen conflict has been on-going for over 200 years, and unfortunately terrorist leaders continue to think terrorism will advance their cause even after much time has passed (Dershowitz 166).
More often than not, terrorism hurts people, the economy, and religion. This is evident in many cases throughout history. Ultimately, terrorism isn’t a means to an end, and the sacrifices for success are too great. Many terrorists aren’t able to accomplish their ill-minded goals, and people’s lives and businesses and beliefs among other factors will completely be in vain. To this end, it seems like terrorism cannot be justified.
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
Everyone is a terrorist but everyone can also be labeled as a freedom fighter. It is said that “The ends justify the means” and in order to achieve an important aim, it is acceptable to do something bad. In America we have done both good and bad. Although people for instance President Barak Obama elaborates that one person’s terrorist is also another person’s freedom fighter. A “terrorist” is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of a political aim. A “freedom fighter” on the other hand is a person who takes part of a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order to overthrow their government. In making this comment, the synonyms of the word terrorist urges to
Terrorist drop suicide bombs on communitites with innocent people there, terrorist shoot people, behead people, or torture people to their deaths. There was also a shoot out in Boston between cops and Dzhokhars’ brother killing him and one of the cops bled to death during the shooting as well. Dzhokhar survived but, he was later caught and sentenced to death by the court. Terrorist are cold hearted killers and they feel that killing people is not evil but, killing is evil in the Bible the Ten Commandments the lord says, “ Thou Shalt not kill” ( Commandment number 6). Terrorists commit many sins when they kill or harm innocent people.
Terrorism refers both to the act (the verb) and its accomplishment (the noun). The effect of terrorism, the noun, is accomplished by various means. We can "read" back from the effect and recognize the means. The dead bodies are the effects, and we read back from those bodies and their circumstances, the means that produced them. Our understanding of peace as knowledge might productively begin then with the effects of war itself as terrorism--the demoralization, intimidation, and subjugation of people especially as a result of a political weapon or policy. The effect of terrorism is not so very different from the effect of war; in fact, the dividing line between terrorism and war has long depended upon the difference between the use of force legitimated by a state as opposed to the laissez faire or ad hoc use of force or threat by individuals and/or non-state groups.
Many analysts, researchers, and professors have tried to define the purpose of terrorism. Some believe that can only be achieved when we know how the mind of a terrorist works. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes terrorism as, “The systematic use of violence or threat of violence by organized groups to achieve specific goals. Terrorist activities may be directed against individuals, organizations or governments. Terrorism is employed by radical groups to obtain concessions from established governments, such as a change in policies unfavorable to them or the release of imprisoned members of their organizations…” (Encyclopedia Britannica. “Terrorism” 1987 T-169)
Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
Most religions specify that violence is not allowed and yet extremists will cause major destruction in the name of their God. However, some people are too quick to blame religion on terrorism (Winchester, 2). In actuality, it is the nature of human beings to prove that their way is right, there way of doing that is using fear and destruction (Winchester, 3). It is not religion that causes the terr...
“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
The concept of terrorism is exceedingly difficult to define. Author Gerald Seymour first said in his book Harry’s Game that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Each individual may view terrorism in a different light. Because of this, there is currently no universal definition of terrorism. However in recent years, it has become increasingly more important to form a definition of terrorism, especially while working in the media.
The word terrorism was first used during the French Revolution from the reign of terror inflicted by the French from 1784-1804 ("International Affairs"). It was used to describe the violent acts perpetrated on the French that inflicted terror on the various peoples and instilled fear within them. However, at the time it had a more positive connotation than the term that instills fear today. During the French Revolution this was because it referred to state-sponsored terrorism in order to show the need of state instead of anarchy, sometimes promoted by other groups (Hoffman 2). Therefore, even though terrorism has taken a new nature, terrorism can refer to official governments or guerrilla groups operating outside national governments ("International Affairs"). In order to encompass terrorism’s various sectors and explain it to the public, in both positive and negative aspects, many analysts have tried to put it into a few words. Terrorism is a method used by tightly of loosely organized groups operation within states or international territories that are systematic in using deliberate acts of violence or threats in order to instill...
Most Islamic would-be martyrs not only share these beliefs but have also grown up in a culture of despair: they have nothing to lose. Eliminate such poverty and you eliminate the breeding ground for terrorists. When the Bush administration speaks of eliminating terror, it does not appear to be talking about eliminating cultures of despair and the social conditions that lead one to want to give up one's life to martyrdom.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
In this world there are many different topics of controversy. With every controversial topic comes different views and arguments explaining why people believe what they do. There are problems that can be just within one country or throughout the entire world. Terrorism affects everyone in the world, specifically us as Americans, which is why it is one of the biggest controversial topics. Of course with a topic as big as terrorism, there are emic and etic perspectives involved. With past history, there are specific countries and religions that we think of when we hear the word terrorism, specifically Afghanistan, located in the Middle East and the Muslim religion in that general area. Being part of the American