Is Terrorism Always Wrong - Coursework Example

IS TERRORISM ALWAYS WRONG? 1. Introduction People particularly in the west generally perceived terrorism as evil because several terrorist attacks in past ruined their life. Similarly, a large number of people believed that terrorism is always wrong regardless of reason because it is intended to kill innocent civilians. Some says it can be justified if done correctly while others promote the idea that terrorism is self-defence and therefore legitimate. The following section explores the nature of terrorism and the conditions that lead to the perception that it is wrong regardless of reason. It will also discuss the principle of “just war”, authorized aggression, terrorism with consent, and the effects of terrorism on other states. 2. Terrorism and Civilians Terrorism is never easy to understand particularly when we look at the aftermath of a major terrorist attack such as 9/11. Although the purpose of terrorism such as fighting for your belief, love of country or God, it is often seen by many as mindless, horrible, and unforgivable. According to Townsend (2002), terrorism plays with our sense of vulnerability and insecurity as it makes us feel always under threat and worrying of our safety (p.1). Terrorism is capable of disrupting our normal day to day functioning or quality of life as it affects our emotional, behavioural, and cognitive reactions (Butler, et al., 2003 ). In addition, it generates serious emotional pressure that may affect the whole community (Begec, 2007). Personally, I think terrorism is more than just a threat or disruption of day to day functioning because the significant number of civilians or non-combatants who needlessly died from a terrorist attack is something we cannot ignore. However, I cannot directly say that terrorism is wrong because there are a number of reasons about the act that I must consider. For instance, Held (2008) argues that war also harm many civilians but it is not always wrong thus terrorism is not always wrong (p.77). This argument seems to suggest that like war, terrorism is right when it is not justified. However, how can one justify terrorism when the real intention is to hurt or kill innocent civilians such as 9/11, suicide bomber in a bus and others.Justifications to go to war such as self-defence or defending others who are oppressed by a regime are politically accepted because civilians are not intentionally targeted (Kapitan, 2007). In contrast, violates the rules of “ethically justifiable political violence” (Rigstad 2008, p.178) as the strategy is to create fear by killing innocent civilians. Furthermore, terrorism violates accepted principles of a just war theory (where violence is mostly limited to military) that is being recognized by various international conventions thus generally viewed wrong by most countries (Kapitan, 2007). In other words, terrorism can be justified if undertaken without civilian casualties. According to Nathanson (2007), most people denounce terrorism because it is a premeditated attack on innocent civilians (p.4). However, one cannot ignore the fact that the World War II firebombing of Japan that killed thousands of innocent people was a premeditated act of the United States government to terrify and force the Japanese to surrender (Record, 2003). Similarly, the killing of two thousand Palestinian civilians in 1982 that were perpetrated by Israeli-supported militias in Beirut and the mass killing of Bosnian civilians in 1990s were act of terrorism hidden under a different name as ‘retaliation’ or ‘counter-terrorism’ (Kapitan 2007, p.1). There seems to be a great misunderstanding between premeditated killing done by the U.S. and intentional civilian targeting strategies by the terrorist. In my point of view, premeditated or not, killing innocent civilian is wrong and should be condemned. The United States act of terrorism in 1945 was justified and nobody was calling the U.S government terrorist. In contrast, people who perpetrated the 9/11 killings are readily identified as evil terrorist (Rigstad, 2008). One reason according to Coady (2004) is that combatants and non--combatants in just war theory only applies to conventional war thus killing civilians outside this context is considered wrong. Moreover, there is a difference between “non-combatants” and “innocent civilians” in war as there are civilians that participate in armed conflicts such as those engaged in developing weapons (scientist, ammunition factory workers, and so on), political leaders, and ordinary people who support the aggression (p.774). The U.S. firebombing was operated during a conventional war while 9/11 and others were performed outside the recognised the environment. Although there was knowledge of innocent civilians in the target area, the ‘just war theory’ morally permit collateral damage for as long as it is not an intended result (Goodin, 2006). 3. Terrorism and Consent In view of the above explanations, the wrongness of terrorism seems permanently connected to the intention of targeting civilians to spread fear while the righteous of the same act during a war is linked to unintentional collateral damage. Clearly, any act of terrorism that is intended to hurt or kill innocent civilian is wrong regardless of reason and the righteousness of such act is just a matter of consent. For instance, if the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1990 and cluster bombing of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004 that resulted to over two thousand civilian casualties were done with approval and consent, the continuous attack of the Hamas militia to Israel which was considered a terrorist group was based on a law legitimating attacks to Israeli targets (Underwood 2007). Similarly, atrocities done by others states were compatible with international conventions or local laws. According to Hawthorne (2009), what makes terrorism objectionable is the fact that it is not authorized by some larger group or a state (p.363). In addition, it cannot be legalized because it dejects the rule of law (MacNiven, 1993). Apparently, an act of terrorism outside the accepted environment and beyond the law is wrong. Since most terrorist operates on small groups, unauthorized, and does not represent any state (Stout, 2002), any action they will take particularly those that involve civilian casualties will be automatically judged wrong by the international community. 4. Terrorism and its consequences to other states Attack by a non-state group to a certain state is generally problematic in terms of self-defence (Duffy, 2005). This is because these non-state groups are based in other states territory that has nothing to do with their activities. Consequently, the affected state cannot retaliate or apply the principle of self-defence for their convenience. The Afghanistan invasion was not mandated by the UN Security Council because it can only permit the use of force when it is self-defence (Williamson, 2009). However, due to 9/11 and existence of Al-Qaeda training camps in the country, a major invasion was conducted by the U.S. despite strong resistance from the international community. As a result, the unsuspecting state of Afghanistan got involved and suffers the consequences of war against terrorism. Terrorist act by non-state groups such as Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda leads to other destructive consequences such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Although evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 is weak, there is sufficient evidence to link Sadam Hussain to a variety of terrorist group (Rai & Chomsky, 2002) thus the people of Iraq suffered the same fate as Afghanistan. Terrorism not only harms innocent civilians directly but causing deaths and destructions to other states. The cost of terrorism is extremely large and beyond forgiveness thus it cannot be right. I honestly believed that justifying terrorism through certain laws, theories, norms, or international conventions is exemplifying the need to kill human beings and destroy properties for a reason. Similar to war with large human casualties, a terrorist act regardless of intention or consent is not acceptable. Moreover, killing no matter how adequately justified is a “bad event or occurrence” (Singer 2006, p.389) where the victim is deprived of his or her right to live and future goods of life. Although it may not be exactly acceptable, killing in self-defence should be applied only when all diplomatic means are exhausted. In my view, any form of violence is wrong thus war and terrorism are at the same level. As discussed in the previous section, killing innocent civilian is wrong regardless of reason, intention, and consent thus anyone who perpetrated the act is accountable. 5. Terrorism and Self-Defence Justifying the killing of defenceless civilians in a “just war” has large implications as those who believed that war can be justified must also accept the reality that political violence such as terrorism can be justified (Lee, 2007). Similarly, if people can accept that soldiers in a war can be killed without any moral and legal issue then they must be also ready to accept the fact that killing a significant number of civilians through terrorism is acceptable. The point is that killing anyone is wrong and such idea should not advanced or justified by any morally permissible acts of war based on political interest. The common justification to the use of force is self-defence (Gazzini, 2005) thus it is also possible to justify a terrorist act under the principle of self-defence. According to Wilkins (1992), terrorism in some situation can be use as a vehicle for self-defence (p.21). Some terrorist in the Middle East according to Pedahzur & Perliger (2009) were inspired by their nations struggle and most of them are committing acts of terrorism founded on self-defence (p.10). Almost anywhere, in Jews, Islam, and Christian, the most cited reason to justify violence is self-defence and protecting or stopping the killing of others (Al-Khattar, 2003). From this information, it may be possible to assume that Al-Qaeda’s justification for killing thousands of innocent people in September 11, 2001 is self-defence or protecting the killing of others. In the 9/11 Commission Report, the primary reason of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the brain behind the 9/11 attack) is the favour being given by the United States to Israel. The two suicide pilots who rammed the commercial jets were also disgusted over the protection being given to Israel by the U.S. government while Bin Laden is more interested in restoring the caliphate in the Middle East (Sanchez, 2007). Apparently, these are reactions to U.S. systematic intrusion in Arab affairs and to protect the Palestinians from the hands of a well-known U.S. ally. The 9/11 attack therefore was motivated by self-defence but was wrong. There seems a double standard in which self-defence can be employed. For instance, U.S. attack Afghanistan and launched a pre-emptive strike in Iraq in self-defence but was right as far as the Bush administration is concern. Whether or not the act of killing is done in self-defence, killing one another is wrong particularly when those that were killed have no direct participation in the conflict. 6. Conclusion Terrorism is complex and its consequences are never easy to accept. Although there may be some valid reasons for launching a terrorist attack, killing innocent civilians seems too much and unforgivable. Terrorism is more than just sending a message or creating fear as it commonly intended to kill more people as possible. It is not right to justify terrorism as people rationalize war because none of them is right. A “just war” as far as I am concern only exist in the minds of those who persistently aspire to advance their political objectives. There is nothing good in inflicting harm and destruction thus justification is not necessary. The firebombing of Japan’s mainland in 1945 and the 2001 terrorist attack in New York is terrorism as they were both executed to create fear by killing innocent civilians. I cannot see any major difference aside from the fact that the former is based on war theory supporting the notion that it is alright to kill for as long as you are ‘authorized’ while the latter wants to kill innocent civilians in order to defend the Palestinians against a U.S. ally. It seems odd to pursue the killing of thousands of innocent civilians just to force some people in government to decide or to kill a large number of Americans (who do not even met any Palestinian in their life) just because the U.S. government supports Israel. Finally, regardless of justification, authorization, and consent, killing people is wrong thus terrorism is always wrong. 7. Reference List Al-Khattar A. (2003), Religion and terrorism: an interfaith perspective, US: Greenwood, Publishing Group Begec S. (2007), The integration and management of traumatized people after terrorist attacks, Netherlands: IOS Press Butler A., Panzer A., & Goldfrank L., (2003), Preparing for the psychological consequences of terrorism: a public health strategy, US: National Academies Press Charles T. (2002), Terrorism: a very short introduction, US: Oxford University Press Coady C., (2004), Terrorism, Morality, and Supreme Emergency, US: University of Chicago Press Corlett A. (2002), Terrorism: a philosophical analysis, Netherlands: Springer Duffy H. (2005), The "war on terror" and the framework of international law, US: Cambridge University Press Gazzin T. (2005), The changing rules on the use of force in international law, UK: Manchester University Press Goodin R. (2006), What's wrong with terrorism?, UK: Polity Hawthorne J. (2009), Philosophy of language, UK: John Wiley and Sons Held V. (2008), How terrorism is wrong: morality and political violence, US: Oxford University Press Kapitan T. (2007), Can terrorism be justified?, US: Northern Illinois University Lee S. (2007), Intervention, terrorism, and torture: contemporary challenges to just war theory, US: Springer Nathanson S. (2007), Terrorism and the Ethics of War, US: Cambridge University Press Pedahzur A. & Perliger A. (2009), Jewish terrorism in Israel, US: Columbia University Press Rai M. & Chomsky N. (2002), War plan Iraq: ten reasons against war on Iraq, UK: Verso Record J. (2003) Bounding the global war on terrorism, US: Department of Defence Rigstad M. (2008), The Senses of Terrorism, Review Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 6, Issue 1, p.1-28 Sanchez J. (2007), Terrorism & It's Effects, US: Global Media Singer P. (2002), A companion to ethics, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Stout C., (2002). The Psychology of Terrorism: Theoretical understandings and perspectives, US: Greenwood Publishing Group Underwood J. (2007), Terror by consent: the modern state and the breach of the social contract, US: Peter Lang Wilkins B. (1992), Terrorism and collective responsibility, US: Routledge Williamson M. (2009), Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Read More

178) as the strategy is to create fear by killing innocent civilians. Furthermore, terrorism violates accepted principles of a just war theory (where violence is mostly limited to military) that is being recognized by various international conventions thus generally viewed wrong by most countries (Kapitan, 2007). In other words, terrorism can be justified if undertaken without civilian casualties. According to Nathanson (2007), most people denounce terrorism because it is a premeditated attack on innocent civilians (p.4). However, one cannot ignore the fact that the World War II firebombing of Japan that killed thousands of innocent people was a premeditated act of the United States government to terrify and force the Japanese to surrender (Record, 2003).

Similarly, the killing of two thousand Palestinian civilians in 1982 that were perpetrated by Israeli-supported militias in Beirut and the mass killing of Bosnian civilians in 1990s were act of terrorism hidden under a different name as ‘retaliation’ or ‘counter-terrorism’ (Kapitan 2007, p.1). There seems to be a great misunderstanding between premeditated killing done by the U.S. and intentional civilian targeting strategies by the terrorist. In my point of view, premeditated or not, killing innocent civilian is wrong and should be condemned.

The United States act of terrorism in 1945 was justified and nobody was calling the U.S government terrorist. In contrast, people who perpetrated the 9/11 killings are readily identified as evil terrorist (Rigstad, 2008). One reason according to Coady (2004) is that combatants and non--combatants in just war theory only applies to conventional war thus killing civilians outside this context is considered wrong. Moreover, there is a difference between “non-combatants” and “innocent civilians” in war as there are civilians that participate in armed conflicts such as those engaged in developing weapons (scientist, ammunition factory workers, and so on), political leaders, and ordinary people who support the aggression (p.774). The U.S. firebombing was operated during a conventional war while 9/11 and others were performed outside the recognised the environment.

Although there was knowledge of innocent civilians in the target area, the ‘just war theory’ morally permit collateral damage for as long as it is not an intended result (Goodin, 2006). 3. Terrorism and Consent In view of the above explanations, the wrongness of terrorism seems permanently connected to the intention of targeting civilians to spread fear while the righteous of the same act during a war is linked to unintentional collateral damage. Clearly, any act of terrorism that is intended to hurt or kill innocent civilian is wrong regardless of reason and the righteousness of such act is just a matter of consent.

For instance, if the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1990 and cluster bombing of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004 that resulted to over two thousand civilian casualties were done with approval and consent, the continuous attack of the Hamas militia to Israel which was considered a terrorist group was based on a law legitimating attacks to Israeli targets (Underwood 2007). Similarly, atrocities done by others states were compatible with international conventions or local laws. According to Hawthorne (2009), what makes terrorism objectionable is the fact that it is not authorized by some larger group or a state (p.363). In addition, it cannot be legalized because it dejects the rule of law (MacNiven, 1993).

Apparently, an act of terrorism outside the accepted environment and beyond the law is wrong. Since most terrorist operates on small groups, unauthorized, and does not represent any state (Stout, 2002), any action they will take particularly those that involve civilian casualties will be automatically judged wrong by the international community. 4. Terrorism and its consequences to other states Attack by a non-state group to a certain state is generally problematic in terms of self-defence (Duffy, 2005).

Read More