Terrorism Vs Terrorism
analytical Essay
2633 words
War is commonly perceived as a conflict between combatants, with military targets, but sometimes ‘unintentionally’ harming non-combatants. It is distinctive from terrorism in the sense that its success is not dependent on the extent of combatant/non-combatant casualties. Many attempt to create a moral distinction between the two by indicating that terrorists seek to intentionally harm civilians. However, this criterion is inconsistent and contains many flaws. When distinguishing between war and terrorism, several questions will arise. Can states ‘unintentionally’ killing civilians be perceived as terrorist attacks? Can soldiers ever be victims of terrorist attacks? Is the targeting of civilians and the use of fear even a defining characteristic of terrorism? The essay will examine differing attitudes towards the justification of war and terrorism such as humiliation and self-defence, as well as assessing the motives and intentions by which they are guided; this will determine whether their differences are morally significant.
Typically, we can distinguish between acts of terrorism and war based on the killing of innocents and the differences in their aims. We understand that both utilize various forms of violence; however, the distinction is that in war, states have aircrafts and sufficient resources. In contrast, terrorism only has people willing to die for the cause(Simic,2014). This is due to limited membership and a lack of resources. This makes terrorism morally distinct from war, because of its implicit and deliberate use of fear towards a group(Scheffler,2006,p15). Terrorists aim to spread fear amongst a broader population in order to gain a political advantage(Goodin,2006,p49). This suggests that global attention and publ...
... middle of paper ...
...on-democratic regimes around the world. Pogge(p13) reinforces this by pointing out unjustified moral appeals and assertions on both sides, such as Bush claiming that “America must defend freedom against the enemies of freedom”. Now since neither terrorism nor war can be justified, but one is not significantly worse than the other. Why is war accepted, but terrorism not justified to the point that even the political objectives are not considered or even looked at? This all indicates that there may not be any morally significant differences between war and terrorism, except for the manner in which the conflicts are fought. This excludes the protection of non-combatants, but sometimes defends the prohibition of excessive and unnecessary warfare banned under the Geneva protocol. This essay thus suggests, that war and terrorism may be significantly morally indifferent.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that war is often perceived as a conflict between combatants, with military targets, but sometimes ‘unintentionally’ harming non-combatants. it is distinctive from terrorism in the sense that its success is not dependent on the extent of combatant/non-combatant casualties.
- Argues that terrorism is morally distinct from war because of its implicit and deliberate use of fear towards a group.
- Analyzes the inconsistencies between the un's distinction of war and terrorism, as it holds legitimate political violence to be conducted by recognized states only.
- Argues that the distinction between terrorism and war could simply be whether those involved are members of their respective armed forces.
- Argues that terrorism is an equally legitimate self-defence response, arguing that the allied bombing of germany in wwii was justified because it didn’t ‘deliberately kill innocents’.
- Argues that the u.s right wing neo-conservatives believe that all terrorism is alike, and that there are significant moral differences.
- Analyzes how pogge puts forth four burdens of proof that must be accommodated in order for violence to be justified. kristof agrees that war is distinct from terrorism but acknowledges aspects of moral clarity that allow moral revulsion towards non-combatant deaths.
- Argues that terrorism appeals directly to morality but not the law. terrorists utilize the constant use of private judgement with no legitimate backing.
- Analyzes how held rejects both claims to the justification of violence as she indicates that "using violence for change is not morally worse than using violence to prevent change." macklem suggests that violence on both sides of war and terrorism cannot be justified unless all alternative means of achieving political aims have been exhausted.
- Analyzes how barber suggests that terrorism becomes the choice of those neglected by the political order.
- Concludes that there is no real moral distinction between war and terrorism, if the killing of innocents and the instilment of fear are the main criteria.
Related
- analytical
- opinion
- Terrorism is Wronganalytical essayTo 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 this essay, the author
- Analyzes lionel k. mcpherson's article "is terrorism distinctively wrong?", which criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong.
- Analyzes how mcpherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states.
- Opines that terrorism actions contribute nothing to their political ends, and that terrorists deliberately inflict suffering on others for pointless political purposes.
- Argues that non-combatant deaths and injuries are inevitable in wars, since the people are capable of living under a more stable society after the war.
- Concludes that terrorism is wrong because it violates the sanctity of life. if individuals or organizations come into conflict with the government, they should resort to peaceful and lawful acts like holding a demonstration.
615 wordsRead More - Analysis Of Just War Theory And The US Counterterror Waranalytical essayThe analysis over Crawford’s definition for Just War Theory can reinforces the statement above. Crawford’s argument talks about the prevention of greater harm as long as “moral judgments about right action [are] rooted” toward each particular component of the definition. However, it was noted that Crawford’s conclusion about terrorist wasn’t completely true and excluding them from the Just War Theory was more complicated. Byford uses different arguments to explain the difficulty of excluding terrorists as states. Within his comparison there are different war times when states acted as radical as terrorist but we never labeled them as
In this essay, the author
- Explains that terrorist attacks are a major crisis for states and states must act accordingly to protect their state. the president of the united states proposed military intervention in both iraq and syria.
- Explains that just war theory has three components — jus ad bellum, in bello, and post-bellum. the president's response to the attacks against the american embassies is justified through terrorist groups lack of structure and deterrence.
- Explains that the president's plan to go to war can be morally justified by jus in bello (just conduct of war).
- Concludes that the last component of just war theory is jus post bellum (justice after the war). the president's plan includes the reclamation of lost territory in iraq, the destruction of isis, and the fall of president assad.
- Analyzes how crawford argues that terrorists, such as isis, do not distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, thus there is a big difference between states and terrorist.
- Analyzes how crawford's definition of just war theory reinforces the statement above. byford uses different arguments to explain the difficulty of excluding terrorists as states.
1003 wordsRead More - War and Criminal Justiceanalytical essayHowever, in more modern times, new reasons for waging wars have emerged. One of this is terrorism. Terrorism has taken the center stage in the international arena popularly known as “the war on terror” .Nations have been drawn into the conflicts from every part of the globe (The Future of International Justice 1).
In this essay, the author
- Opines that war on terror is the responsibility of every nation against those who breach the peace. every democracy in the world is bound by the rule of law.
- Explains that criminal justice forms the cornerstone of international criminal law with jurisdiction over individuals and states for acts of genocide, acts against humanity, and war crimes. however, these international courts lack the means to enforce their rulings as they are not legally binding.
- Opines that disputes should be resolved amicably to ensure a smooth transition between states and peaceful coexistence.
- Explains that the geneva conventions, articles and protocols provide explicit definitions and distinguish acts of terrorism and just war and the enforcement of fundamental human rights.
- Argues that international conventions and legal frameworks distinguish war form terrorism, but the international laws are ineffective soldiers involved as combatants, civilian’s rights abridged, and the politicizing of human rights are core elements worthy of focusing on.
- Explains that man has always lived in perpetual fear of his enemies, which has been the basis of both old and new wars.
- Argues that governments have created legal frameworks and policies that infringe upon the basic human rights of citizens, prisoners of war and refuges.
- Argues that the moral justification for war is illegal under the international legal framework.
- Opines that the war on terrorism does not fall under the jurisdiction of international law, but an extrapolation from positive law justifies it.
1793 wordsRead More - A Critical Analysis Of Thomas Nagel's War And Massacreanalytical essayRelations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. when conflicts escalate, resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars occur. moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them.
- Analyzes how nagel demonstrates his opinion from the perspective of absolutism, which holds the belief that there are always rules that should not be broken no matter how good the outcome will be.
- Argues that nagel's claim about the immorality of using weapons that cause extra pain is based on the side effect of what people have done to them.
- Analyzes how nagel proposes that whatever one does to the target must be directed toward exactly what provokes one's intention to attack.
- Analyzes nagel's objection to using chemical weapons, dum-dum bullets, and flamethrowers as means of stopping the threat. they suggest that only those who contribute to the enemies' threats should be regarded as eligible targets.
1542 wordsRead More - Question number one is, “Are deliberate attacks against civilians’ legitimate acts of war?” This question not only includes attacks that are of the physical nature, it also addresses the use of psychological warfare or attacks against civilians. The deliberate attacking of civilians as legitimate acts during war utilizing aggressive means such as bombings and prisoner capture can be legiti...
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the united states has fought many significant wars and battles throughout its history. they state that germany and japan adopted the strategy of total warfare during world war ii.
- Explains that the shift in policy was not immediate and over time became accepted by the citizens of the united states as more and more acts of aggression were perpetrated.
- Explains that the hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 addressed the issue of war and put in place specific rules when engaged in combat.
- Opines that the conclusion of the nuremberg trials resulted in the declaration that total warfare has become a standard practice of war.
- Explains that psychological warfare is a relatively new method of warfare. the psyop doctrine categorizes psychological war activities under three typologies: tactical, operational, and strategic.
- Explains that americans were reluctant to support attacks on civilians during world war ii. as attacks mounted and japan destroyed entire cities, americans became more accepting of the need to target civilian populations.
- Opines that the actions taken by the allied forces were for the purpose of stopping a tyrannical force bent on world domination and inflicting genocide on specific peoples and regions.
- Opines that the second world war is regarded as the ultimate horror, at least in the modern age.
- Explains that the attack on pearl harbor and the purposeful extermination of jews by the germans are specific acts of terrorism that were conducted under the guise of military actions.
- Asks whether attacks on civilians were justifiable acts of terrorism. germans and japanese were attempting world domination and suppression of individuals.
- Explains that the united states resisted all requests for involvement in the war until involvement became necessary due to the terrorist attack conducted by japan on pearl harbor.
- Argues that there is a thing as justifiable terrorism in the context of war. terrorist acts can be justified in war times if the opposing force can conduct acts that do not result in harming people.
- Opines that total war by individuals or small and poorly armed groups is different from the practice by nations and standing armies.
- Analyzes how loosely organized groups justify their actions by arguing that they have been wronged by government or other strong entity. in the middle east, terrorist acts are justified by perpetrators as being in the name or a specific religion.
- Concludes that the use of total warfare has evolved significantly since world war ii due to technological advances in weaponry. having the ability to accurately direct and pinpoint targets with guided weapons has reduced civilian casualties during war time.
- Opines that the killing of innocent civilians is difficult to justify, but there are rare times when it is justified. the attacks on japan and the bombing of germany by great brittan were necessary.
- Cites förster, s., marcus, d. and wall, t.
1420 wordsRead More - Civil War Victimization Analysisanalytical essayThis article explores the idea that governments knowingly victimize civilians under war when they feel weakened or defenceless. The article provides two main reasons that states engage in victimization of civilians; desperation or appetite for territorial conquest. The former refers to lowering costs of war on the states part by increasing the enemy’s cost and lowering the enemy’s morale for continuing the battle. The latter refers to a states want for more land to claim, using force and death to get what they want, by subduing or eliminating the enemy. The civilians who are targeted for these purposes are also chosen strategically. Mistreatment of civilians of the enemy occurs when specific values or traditions are seen as barbaric to the
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how the article explores the idea that governments knowingly victimize civilians under war when they feel weakened or defenceless.
- Analyzes how the article focuses on the long-term effects of war victimization.
- Explains that the u.s. violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the iraq war, but it was done indirectly, and more secretive.
- Explains the un peacekeeping (pkos) role when it comes to civilian targeting and victimization. peacekeepers can intervene reducing hostility and mitigating the armed forces incentive to target civilians.
681 wordsRead More - The Just War Theoryanalytical essay“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how saint augustine offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible based on the qualifications of the just war theory.
- Argues that a just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. treaties are often used to avoid war, but the intention of resolutions should be to preserve moral justice.
- Analyzes how the just war theory is applied to modern as well as historical wars. the president's self-defense argument was a moral problem from the start.
- Argues that the only way to avoid unjust war is to eliminate war entirely. pacifists believe that violence is morally wrong and is used to promote justice and human rights.
1705 wordsRead More - Acts of Terrorism and Social Change in the United Statesanalytical essayKurtulus, E. N. (2011). The “New Terrorism” and its Critics. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 476–500.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the united states has become known as the melting pot of culture due to the diversity of citizens. domestic events have a more direct impact on american policy and the livelihood of her citizens; international terrorism may impact in ways not directly understood by the american people.
- Explains that terrorists hijacked four planes scheduled for international flights and used them as flying bombs. the department of homeland security created counter-terrorism task forces and developed training to deter future terroristic activities.
- Explains that sandy hook elementary school is a gun-free zone in connecticut, but the shooting at columbine high school impacted the views on weapons in the united states and led to the passing of the investigative assistance for violent crimes act of 2012.
- Describes how james holmes opened fire on movie goers in aurora, colorado, during the july 20, 2012 opening night of a the dark knight.
- Describes how tamerlan and dzhokhar tsarnaev shared extreme religious ideologies at the finish line of the boston marathon.
- Opines that the united states must remain poised in order to diminish the impact felt in the aftermath of terrorist acts.
- Analyzes barack's we need a strategy that reflects this resilient spirit. vital speeches of the day, 202-208.
- Explains that a study published in 2011 by the heritage foundation found 471 terrorist attacks against the united states, of which only 91 were homegrown.
- Analyzes how the 1995 oklahoma city bombings brought about nominal change to the nation, and how eric rudolph's extreme religious ideologies led him to conduct multiple terroristic acts during the 1996 atlanta olympic games.
- Explains how terrorists' actions are influenced by structural and cultural factors, such as technological advances and socioeconomic status, and the impetus of change.
- Cites eisenberg, silver, and rothenburger as s of "growing up in the shadow of terrorism".
3109 wordsRead More - Just War Theoryanalytical essayThe act of warfare is one that is markedly complex when viewed from an ethical and moral standpoint. Encompassed within warfare are many acts such as murder, espionage, abduction, torture, and other such violent behaviors that within the scope of normal society in traditional civilian life would be viewed as crimes. Such crimes would be subject to the severest of punishments, including the death penalty in those states in which it is active, as the water-boarding, torture, and execution of a non-combatant would be 1st degree murder with a bevy of other charges. Within the scope of warfare in pursuit of intelligence, such behaviors are not only accepted, but at times common. Herein, the designation between combatant and non-combatant will be explored in relation to the concept of ethically just war. According to Margalit and Walzer (2009) “Conduct your war in the presence of noncombatants on the other side with the same care as if your citizens were the noncombatants”. This is an important precept and should be followed within warfare, the reasons of which will be explored extensively herein.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the act of warfare is complex when viewed from an ethical and moral standpoint. the designation between combatant and non-combatant is explored in relation to the concept of ethically just war.
- Opines that the delineation between combatant and non-combatant within the confines of war is essential to limiting the collateral damage that is realized therein.
- Explains that walzer's just war theory is characterized by the proposition that the single justification for going to war is the defense of two basic human rights.
- Analyzes the importance of clarifying the difference between combatants and non-combatants within the scope of walzer's just war theory.
- Explains that the principle of double effect highlights the nature of war as relatively without morality given its inherently deadly nature.
1773 wordsRead More - Terrorists: How different are they?analytical essayTerrorists: How different are they? Ever since September 11th, terrorism has been on virtually all of our minds. And now, some eighteen months later, as the nation perches on the brink of war with Iraq, our fears remain. The frustration that most people experience in the aftermath of extreme violence is largely the result of the question why. Why would anyone want to commit so heinous a crime?
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the path that future terrorists follow is a gradual one, since it is almost impossible for someone unaccustomed to killing, to suddenly be able to do so.
- Explains that a new system called "brain fingerprinting" has been developed for installation at airport security checkpoints.
- Argues that terrorism is a widely researched topic, but it seems to be particularly salient now, as it hits closer to home.
- Argues that terrorists' motivation to kill is comprised of a combination of factors. they may kill for political or economic reasons, but also for the sense of power it generates.
1767 wordsRead More