Since the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York City the modern world was woken up to the reality of what is outside their borders. Fear swept all across the United States anticipating another attack and evasive actions such as closing down all air traffic were put into place in order to protect the people. After 9/11 the world changed drastically, people searched for answers to all the losses and in the end turned against the Muslim faith. Just to watch the video footage of planes being weaponized to destroy two symbols of capitalism invoked many different reactions such as hatred, anxiety, grief, sadness but nothing that shows the public responded positively to such an event. This brings up the question of whether or not terrorism can be morally defensible even through the destruction most terrorist acts demonstrate. The answer is simply that terrorism is in no way morally justifiable because it cannot accurately be defined. To argue against terrorism it is important to understand what it is and why it cannot be morally justifiable. The following methods will be used to examine how terrorism effects people and its lack of integrity in society: The definitions of terrorism, what is a terrorist, what is morality.
Currently, to most of the modern world, one of the most notorious issues today are issues revolving around terrorism and to many these concerns emerged after the September 11th attacks. As a result, it has climbed up in the ranks involving global concern. Because there is no particular formula to terrorism due to its capability to take many different forms, the definition should be approached carefully and any concerns or questions should be tended to for such a serious topic. Most people have a very general desc...
... middle of paper ...
...s quote on justifying his actions shows the difficulty in defining terrorism because his political violence is not terrorism, they are two different things. Although many lives were lost and in a very uncivilized manner, to define terrorism is nearly impossible because everyone including the terrorists themselves have a different explanation to what it is. To conclude, terrorism can not be morally justifiable because the definitions conflict with each other. One side has many definitions and clauses which can label terrorism as a negative act and terrorists themselves as a certain type of people, ones who aim to destroy society for their own gains. On the other side however, the minority technically justify themselves and morals but their explanation to justify themselves is delusional and makes no logical sense which shows that terrorism is not morally justifiable.
...agree with. The hardest aspect of determining whether or not terrorism is morally right or wrong is the various definitions that it can have. As mentioned earlier I relate to Walzer’s definition of terrorism and understand it as he does. As discussed I feel that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets and when, and no one has immunity. There are objections to this argument which is that conventional war is worse than terrorism therefore if war is justifiable then terrorism can be as well. As argued the difference between war and terrorist is the way of choosing your victims, which in my mind refutes this objection. Terrorism exists and whether it is right or wrong can be argued respectfully.
In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism is wrong, he defines what terrorism is, what causes terrorism, and what people believe terrorism to mean. With a working definition in place, Khatchadourian examines terrorism’s role in a just war and shows that terrorism is never just, even during war. With the assertion that terrorism, even during wartime is unjust, Khatchadourian analyzes the variations of innocence and non-innocence surrounding the victims of a terrorist attack. The analysis of innocence and non-innocence is accomplished through review of the principal of discrimination and the principal of proportion and how each relates to terrorism. From these philosophical and ethical standpoints, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism is unjust and wrong because of the way it groups and punishes the innocent with the guilty, not allowing the victim to properly respond to the charges against them. Finally, Khatchadourian looks at how terrorism is always wrong because of the way it denies a person their basic human rights. In examination of person’s human rights, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism specifically “violates its targets’ right to be treated as moral persons,” as it inflicts pain, suffering and death to those who are not deserving (298).
The topic of my paper is types of terrorism. There are several types of terrorism for which to choose for my paper, state, dissident, religious, left-wing v. right-wing, and international. In this paper I have chosen state terrorism, religious terrorism, and international terrorism as the types of terrorism that I am going to discuss. I will discuss what they are in my own words and give examples of two different groups for each type that represent that type of terrorism. Then I will compare and contrast the three types of terrorism that I chose.
Finally, Ganz suggests that we limit the definition to include civilian noncombatants only, in accordance with the Geneva conventions. His definition is “Terrorism is the international use of, or threat to use, violence against civilians or against civilian targets in order to attain political aims” (294).
During the 21st Century acts of domestic and international terrorism have significantly increased. Thus the international community of nations has the challenge to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime. The challenge at present is for the international community of nations to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime (Lawless, 2008). In fact, terrorism is an international crime it requires the international community to act in the prevention of terrorism and the sanction of individuals perpetrating acts of terrorism(Lawless, 2008). The September 2011 attack on the United States has presented an opportunity for the internationalist forces to come to the forefront of the global political agenda. ...
It is easy to just assume that all terrorist activities are wrong, but doing so is wrong. Terrorism and political violence are tools, methods for accomplishing a goal. And no tool is ever immoral. It is what you plan on accomplishing with that tool and how you use it. While terrorism is more extreme than other political tools like protest and lobbying, there exist situations in which it is the correct, and possibly only, course of action. When these situations do arise it is inappropriate to classify them as immoral without first unbiasedly analyzing the situation. In most cases that results will probably come back as expected, with the terrorists being immoral, but that won’t always be that case. There is always the chance that the terrorists you were ready to label the enemies of humanity are actually fighting to make the world a better place.
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.
As stated by Haddow, C., Bullock, J., Coppola, D.P., Terrorism is a global problem. From 1969 to 2009, over 38,000 terrorist attacks were reported worldwide. Three thousand, or 8 percent of these, targeted Americans or American interests both inside the United States and overseas, leading to the deaths of almost 5600 people and injuries to over 16,000 more (p. 309).
Defining terrorism has remained a highly contentious terrain with even International organisations like the League of Nations and the United Nations finding it extremely difficult to build and develop a consensus upon .But different scholars have attempted to define this concept:
The U.N description of terrorism as “any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by
The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism as, “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological”. Whereas the Belgium Red Cross says that terrorism is committed “for the purpose of intimidating the population, forcing a third party to act or destablishing or destroying the fundamental structures of a country or of an international organization”.
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.
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,
Terrorism has many forms, and many definitions. “Elements from the American definitional model define terrorism as a premeditated and unlawful act in which groups or agents of some principal engage in a threatened or actual use o...
On September 11, 2001, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the mindset and the opinion of nearly every American on the one of the most vital issues in the 21st century: terrorism (Hoffman 2). Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a perverse method of political change, one must first begin to understand what terrorism is, where it is derived from, and why there is terrorism. These issues are essential in America’s analysis of this phenomenon that has revolutionized its foreign policy and changed America’s stance in the world.