The Crucial Difference between Legitimate Wars and Terrorism - Assignment Example

Assignment: Dialogue Task: To select a topic and write a philosophical dialogue about that topic Topic: “The crucial difference between legitimate wars and terrorism is that terrorists deliberately target civilians”. Student’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: (Reading one of the local dailies Bill comes across a column carrying the headline; “38 civilians ambushed and killed in Northern Kenya by suspected Al-Shabaab militants”. With a frowning face Bill turns to Ken.) Bill: Why? Did they have to do that? Ken: Who? What did they do? Bill: The Al-Shabaabs are at it again, killing civilians at random. This ought to stop like yesterday. In their fights against the Kenyan government, they should leave the civilians out of this. The rules of war are very clear and explicitly draws a line between combatants and non-combatants outlining that during armed conflicts the unarmed people together with property should be spared.1 Ken: In war sometimes the distinction between civilians and combatants is separated by a very thin line. We should also bear in mind that these insurgents proclaim the Islamic faith and their allegiance to the Quran. And in quoting the Quran 47: 4 “when you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads ….” In interpreting this verse they might as well not spare the non-combatants of harm.2 Bill: Oh my God! There is no faith that supports the maiming and killing of innocent civilians. 1 Ken: Am not saying that Islam supports killing of innocent civilians during war. What am saying is that a few individuals have taken it upon themselves to misinterpret the Quran and have ended committing atrocities in the name of religion. Bill: The problem with terrorist groups is that they target innocent civilians. Ken: Immunity for non-combatants should not only be based on the assumption of innocent and harmless but also on the basis of innocent and blameless.3 Bill: The rights of non-combatants are clearly spelt out; life and liberty. And so long as these people don’t carry arms or take any part in the conflict, I believe they are blameless as well.4 Ken: In any conflict the killing of non-combatants is wrong and bad. On that I agree with you. Yet it proves difficult for one to come with clear concise reasons as to why non-combatants should be entitled to immunity during armed conflicts.5 Bill: So what are you saying? So they should be maimed as well? Ken: You are putting words in my mouth. What I am trying to elaborate here is the fact that it is difficult to tell the level of involvement of the non-combatants in the war. During armed conflicts deciding who is a combatant and who is not is a trick affair. 2 Bill: Are you in essence trying to justify the air strikes carried out by the Israel army on the Gaza strip and eventually killing innocent civilians? Remember children and women were among the victims. And remember they declared war on the Palestinians without approval from the UN Security Council which is actually a requirement for just war.6 Ken: I also want to bring it to your attention that it is the same UN body which gives a leeway to nations to declare war against their enemies without approval if and only if such nations are acting in self-defence.7 And mind you Israel was responding to numerous attacks on its nationals by the Gaza strip based Hamas group. Bill: So was Israel defending itself against harmless children, women and the elderly? Because from that conflict most of the affected were women, children and the elderly. Ken: In this case Israel was trying to protect the basic rights of its people at whatever cost. Bill: Does that cost also including the trampling on the rights of other people, In fact to be precise the harmless? Ken: A war is justified to be just when it also involve a struggle to preserve the basic rights of a people even to the level of that struggle attacking the rights of others.8 Bill: I can’t believe am hearing this from you! Ken are you a terrorist? 3 Ken: oh my God! Bill you need to withdraw that. Bill: Dont be offended. Am just saying you are supporting them so much. Ken: It is not that I am supporting them. It is only that I am being objective in this discussion. Bill: The only person who is objective in this case is me. Ken: Then it seems there is another perspective of objectivity that I am not aware of. Bill: You mean to tell me that atrocities are permissible? It is my opinion and my moral stand that atrocities especially those directed towards innocent civilians should be condemned and such acts should be severely punished. Ken: Let me take you back a little, How do you know that these groups of people are innocent and these others are guilty? Do you carry out a survey using questionnaires? And remember this is an armed conflict. Bill: (Laughing). Come on Ken, administering a questionnaire in a battle field is unheard of. But it is my responsibility to enlighten you. Those who bear arms during armed conflicts and also those who participate in the production of arm and weapons.9 Ken: (scarstically). Thank you, that enlightens me right there. 4 Bill: Ken, this is a serious discussion. Do you realise it involves people dying. I hope we handled this discussion with the importance that pertains to it. Ken: Do you know what else I am realising in this conversation? Bill: I am listening. Ken: I am realising that in this debate only one person is giving this discussion the weight it deserves. And that person is me. Bill: You think am not being serious in this discussion? I am the only person here being sympathetic to those who are caught in the crossfire and yet they are innocent. Can you tell me how that isn’t serious? Ken: Oh yes I knew it. Bill: You knew what? Ken: That you are letting emotions get the best of you in this discussion. In any discussion one cannot be objective if emotions get on the way of the discussion. Bill: Am not emotional. The emotional person here is you Ken: Look who is talking. How am I emotional? Bill: At least me because am directing my sympathies to the right group. Actually they deserve my sympathies. But you, you are sympathetic to terrorists. You are misplaced. Ken: Preach preacher. Bill: You can call me names. But at least I know I am morally right as far as this discussion is concerned. Ken: So in your argument you seem to deduce that some killings are justified? Bill: Yes the killing of terrorists. In my opinion it should even be rewarded. Ken: And you dare stand in front of me and claim that your morals are unquestionable and up tight? Bill: I can’t claim otherwise. Ken: (to himself) May the good Lord help his people. Bill: Yes may He intervene and help the terrorists who deliberately attack and maim the innocent. Ken: You too. You also need the intervention of the supernatural one to help you understand some of these issues. Bill: Since you seem too have met the supernatural one already can you shed more light on these aspects. Ken: At last somebody is admitting to his lack of information. This information I give freely. And thee the ignorant come forward and receive your share. Bill: In this particular argument, I doubt whether am in the right company. Ken: Relax. You couldn’t in be in the right company. Bill: With you as a mentor I risk being radicalized. Ken: I am going to be really generous with you not because you are my friend but simply because you are ignorant. And I am doing this for me. You know ignorance is contagious and since you stay with me that is kind of serious that you are ignorant. Bill: Spare me the crap roommate or should I call you terrorist? Ken: I want you to answer this roommate. And please do answer after engaging all your mental faculties. Bill: If you haven’t noticed I am the only one who has been engaging all the mental faculties in this argument. Ken: A fancier of unjust war and who is also interested in its unjust ends and commits to it by giving it his or her vote and voice. This individual also participates in the initial stages of planning the unjust war and sees the implementation of the same by committing his or her savings and waits and anxiously to leap from the unjust war if at all it succeeds.10 And remember in all this the same individual has not taken up arms. Bill: Can you get to the point. Stop taking me round the bush. Just get in the bush. Will you please? Ken: Now answer me. Is that individual classified as a combatant or a non-combatant? Bill: A combatant I guess. 5 Ken: Now you are guessing. What happened to the Bill who claimed just minutes ago to having been engaging all his mental faculties in this argument? Bill: Morally speaking that individual ought to be classified as a combatant in an armed conflict. Ken: But basing on your early preposition a combatant is one who takes up arms and actively participates in the war. Bill: Yes I know I said that. But I was basing my argument on available literature on humanitarian law and the criteria used to identify combatants and non-combatants in armed conflicts. Ken: May be this other analogy will juggle your mind a little bit and make you think straight. An ignorant young man is forcefully picked from his village, trained and sent to the battle field carrying ammunitions against his wish. At the back of his mind the young wishes to go back to his old way of life; taking care of livestock in the village.11 Is that young man a combatant? Bill: Yes of course. He has the means of committing atrocities and mind you has ammunitions in his possession. Ken: Labelling that young man as a combatant is vague in that it lacks the aspect of moral consideration in it.12 6 Bill: No way. That boy during war he will not hesitate to aim and shoot Ken: Bill Bill. How come you are performing poorly in your favourite subject of morality? Just minutes ago you claimed that your morality is above board. Bill: And that remains to be so my brother. Ken: So you believe that terrorists intentionally target and kill civilians? Bill: Yes I do. Take for instance the Isis terrorist group in Syria who have abducted innocent civilians most of them being journalists and beheading them. Ken: And if I may I ask, are there wars that are legitimate? Bill: Yes. Like the one that the United States of America declared against the Iraq government that was killing and oppressing its innocent civilians. And that country was saved from the hands of the dictator Sadam Hussein. Ken: The self- defence pretext that the United States of America used to wage war against Iraq was not reason enough to do that. And after all nuclear and chemical weapons were non-existent in Iraq. That contravened the Just war theory which asserts that in order for a country to wage war against one another in the reasons of self-defence, the danger posed by the latter must be clear and inevitable.13 7 Bill: Are you forgetting that that bold move by the United States of America was able to liberate the Iraq people? Ken: Did the Iraq people ask to be liberated? The self-righteous approval by the United States of America and enforcing a regime change in Iraq not only contravenes the Just War Theory but the idea of forcing a regime on a people cannot be justified even if it is done under the blanket that it is for their own benefit.14 Bill: My view still holds that terrorists intentionally target civilians. Look at the terrorist group; Boko Haram getting into villages and abducting young girls. Ken: As much as that is true. I cannot classify any war as being legitimate or illegitimate because irrespective of which type of war at the end of the day civilians end up being killed and displaced. In fact we should not be classifying war instead we should be condemning war from all angles. Bill: True brother. I don’t support any class of war. But the 8target of the most vulnerable by the terrorist groups does not go down well with me either. References Bertosa, B 2008, ‘The treatment of prisoners of war and non-combatants in the Quran’, viewed 27 March 2015, http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no1/bertosa-eng.asp Blahuta, J 2013, ‘Re-evaluating the status of non-combatants in just war theory and terrorism’ Ethics and War, pp. 253-263 David, C 1997, ‘International terrorism and the just war’, Stanford Journal of International Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 21-37. Enemark, C and Michaelsen, C 2005, ‘Just war doctrine and the invasion of Iraq’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 545-563. Gaubatz, KT 1999, ‘Changing interests and persistent rules: The protection of non-combatants in war’, viewed 27 March 2015, http://kktg.net/kurt/publications/pubs/Non- Combatants.pdf Lackey, D 1982, ‘A modern theory of just war’, Ethics, vol. 92, no. 3, pp.533-546. Luban, D 1980, ‘Just war and human rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 160-181. Mavrodes, GI 1975, ‘Conventions and the morality of war’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 117-131. Zehfuss, M 2012, ‘Killing civilians: Thinking the practice of war’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 14, pp. 423-440. Read More

7 And mind you Israel was responding to numerous attacks on its nationals by the Gaza strip based Hamas group. Bill: So was Israel defending itself against harmless children, women and the elderly? Because from that conflict most of the affected were women, children and the elderly. Ken: In this case Israel was trying to protect the basic rights of its people at whatever cost. Bill: Does that cost also including the trampling on the rights of other people, In fact to be precise the harmless?

Ken: A war is justified to be just when it also involve a struggle to preserve the basic rights of a people even to the level of that struggle attacking the rights of others.8 Bill: I can’t believe am hearing this from you! Ken are you a terrorist? 3 Ken: oh my God! Bill you need to withdraw that. Bill: Dont be offended. Am just saying you are supporting them so much. Ken: It is not that I am supporting them. It is only that I am being objective in this discussion. Bill: The only person who is objective in this case is me.

Ken: Then it seems there is another perspective of objectivity that I am not aware of. Bill: You mean to tell me that atrocities are permissible? It is my opinion and my moral stand that atrocities especially those directed towards innocent civilians should be condemned and such acts should be severely punished. Ken: Let me take you back a little, How do you know that these groups of people are innocent and these others are guilty? Do you carry out a survey using questionnaires? And remember this is an armed conflict.

Bill: (Laughing). Come on Ken, administering a questionnaire in a battle field is unheard of. But it is my responsibility to enlighten you. Those who bear arms during armed conflicts and also those who participate in the production of arm and weapons.9 Ken: (scarstically). Thank you, that enlightens me right there. 4 Bill: Ken, this is a serious discussion. Do you realise it involves people dying. I hope we handled this discussion with the importance that pertains to it. Ken: Do you know what else I am realising in this conversation?

Bill: I am listening. Ken: I am realising that in this debate only one person is giving this discussion the weight it deserves. And that person is me. Bill: You think am not being serious in this discussion? I am the only person here being sympathetic to those who are caught in the crossfire and yet they are innocent. Can you tell me how that isn’t serious? Ken: Oh yes I knew it. Bill: You knew what? Ken: That you are letting emotions get the best of you in this discussion. In any discussion one cannot be objective if emotions get on the way of the discussion.

Bill: Am not emotional. The emotional person here is you Ken: Look who is talking. How am I emotional? Bill: At least me because am directing my sympathies to the right group. Actually they deserve my sympathies. But you, you are sympathetic to terrorists. You are misplaced. Ken: Preach preacher. Bill: You can call me names. But at least I know I am morally right as far as this discussion is concerned. Ken: So in your argument you seem to deduce that some killings are justified? Bill: Yes the killing of terrorists.

In my opinion it should even be rewarded. Ken: And you dare stand in front of me and claim that your morals are unquestionable and up tight? Bill: I can’t claim otherwise. Ken: (to himself) May the good Lord help his people. Bill: Yes may He intervene and help the terrorists who deliberately attack and maim the innocent. Ken: You too. You also need the intervention of the supernatural one to help you understand some of these issues. Bill: Since you seem too have met the supernatural one already can you shed more light on these aspects.

Ken: At last somebody is admitting to his lack of information. This information I give freely. And thee the ignorant come forward and receive your share. Bill: In this particular argument, I doubt whether am in the right company. Ken: Relax. You couldn’t in be in the right company.

Read More