For Waltzer the main distinction between terrorism and revolutionary violence is whether aim is taken in a certain fashion. He argues that appropriate aim is targeting “particular people because of thing they have done or are doing.” Whereas, inappropriate aim, which he believes is the aim of terrorist, is targeting “whole groups of people, indiscriminately, because of who they are.” Overall, Waltzer suggest that terrorism is reprehensible because it falls outside the political code, which recognizes principles such as noncombatant immunity, that is in place. Waltzer view also seems to be rooted the traditional conception of sovereignty, which leads him to put forth a view that suggest terrorism is a civilian strategy and that when states use terroristic tactics they are engaging in something different. This can be referred to as pro-state bias, which is concept that will be discussed more in Coady’s
Similarly, the usage of transnational pre-emptive force is irrelevant to a definition. I disagree with Moeller in her assertion that terrorism is targeted at civilians. Terrorism can be targeted at military troops as well, as they are a population. Whenever the nature of an attack is to invoke fear over causing direct damage, it qualifies as terrorism. My definition is broad, encompassing many actions not always considered terrorism, and seeks to avoid entangling terrorism with other topics.
While some theorists assert the just war theory ignores the consequences of war, which are death and destruction, the theory includes several conditions that prohibit entering a war if its consequences are in any way undesirable. The jus ad bellum section asserts that a war must have a reasonable hope for success while achieving just cause and other significant benefits. If it does not, then the purpose of the war is wrong. Moreover, if a war does accomplish its intended benefits, it will be wrong if the destruction it creates is unwarranted, or greater than the benefits. Also, the just war theory includes a last resort condition that prohibits war if its benefits although significant could have been achieved by diplomacy or less destructive means.
As George Bruce states in his article Definition of Terrorism: Social and Political effect, “Social structure and order, governance of society and politics are dependent on good communication, and good communication requires agreement on definit... ... middle of paper ... ...ot only gives states the ability to prosecute the terrorist under war crime laws but it also regulated the tactics a state can use in combating terrorism. The negative effects stated by Schaf in my view strengthen the argument even more. It gives terrorist organization legitimacy in the eyes of the state and this is precisely what most terrorist organizations are aiming for. Furthermore it forces terrorist organizations themselves to finally follow a criteria that would that would deem them important and legitimate with certain right while simultaneously distancing them from attacking civilians. Schaf made a big point about how any military personnel or installation would become fair game.
In the case of the War on Terror waged by the United States against terrorist attacks the argument of a last resort is debatable. Because the attacks have yet... ... middle of paper ... ...fists can be uneffective in a war minded society. If an aggressor is attacking with no opposition, one cannot rely on the morality of the aggressors to halt the attack. Intervention of the attacks would be impermissible by the standards of absolute pacifism, as it would contribute to the overall amount of violence. The absolute pacifist would become a martyr for their beliefs, and without opposing the aggressive force societies would be annihilated.
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.
The terrorists themselves have been labeled enemies of humanity, but are such accusations true? Are they really criminals committing immoral and unjust attacks, or are they just fighting a war the best way they can? Questions like this are difficult to answer impartially. The general population of the world has such negative views on terrorism because we are the victims, the targets. But to the people committing these acts they must be morally acceptable.
Why does this aversion to negotiate exist? Many of those that argue for truth of this assumption have stated that negotiating with terrorists legitimizes them and in the process weakens democratic governments, leading to continued terrorist actions. Is this assumption valid? It is very important to study this assumption because it addresses both academic and social needs. From an academic standpoint, taking a strong stance against negotiations means preventing a ‘systematic exploration’ of the best way to tackle negotiations.
These root causes can range from poverty to political grievances. Some may argue that a terrorist act is a terrorist act and should all be dealt the same way. I believe the analysts that are reluctant to consider root causes would rather use military action instead of another logical means of preventing terrorism. There are ways around military action depending on the root causes of the terrorist act. An example of pros and cons is the government that has a lot of people in poverty whom are conducting terrorist a... ... middle of paper ... ...could have been used to prevent this terrorist act would have been to tighten security on terrorist’s targets of opportunity (Government and Federal Buildings).
Also this definition has proved controversial various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions for the word terrorism in their national legislation. The reasons why people become terrorists are because of picking up a gun or blows themselves up are ineluctably personal born variously of grievance and frustration or the desire for system socio-economic change irredentist conviction or commitment to revolution. They also believe that they are lawful combatants fighting for a specific cause for example religious freedom. They don't see themselves as terrorists. It is like the saying one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.