Every Act of Terrorism is a Wrongful Act - Essay Example

Every Act of Terrorism is a Wrongful Act Introduction Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the of terrorism did not loom so big in philosophical discussions. Philosophical literature contributed to just a few monographs, as well as a single collection of paper devoted largely to issues to do with terrorism (Chaliand & Blin 2007, p. 12). The 9/11 attacks and their consequences put on terrorist activities on the philosophical agenda: terrorism is now the topic of a number of publications. Whereas social sciences research the causes, main varieties, as well as the consequences of terrorism, its historical traces and efforts to explain why terrorism has seemed to evolve overtime, philosophy centers on two questions, which are related (Brzoska 2014, p. 67). The first question is "what is terrorism" and the second question is " can the act of terrorism be morally justified" or to put it on the focus of the paper, whether terrorism is always wrong or not. Philosophers have presented a variety of positions on both questions. With regards to the definition of terrorism, their dominant view looks to allow the core meaning "terrorism" has in universal use. Terrorism is considered as a form of violence (Brzoska 2014, p. 67). A number o definitions stress the experience of fear or terror as the main of that violent act. Neither terror nor violence is inflicted for its own personal sake, but instead for the sake of an unrelated aim like coercion or political goal (Primoratz 2012, p. 23). However, there are definitions, as well, which sever the abstract connection of terrorism with terror or with violence (Wright 2007, p. 21). With regards to the moral stance of terrorism, many philosophers have different opinions on how that is to be determined, as well as what the determination is. Consequentialists recommend to view terrorism, like everything else, taking into consideration its consequences (Walzer 2006, p. 3). Nonconsequentialists claim that its moral stance is not just a matter of what effects, on balance, terrorism has, but is instead determined, whether only or mainly, by what it is. Stances on the ethics of terrorism vary from justification when its effects on balance are upright, or when some deontological moral needs are contended, to its almost absolute, absolute or rejection (Honderich 2004, p. 14). The essay is going to discuss whether terrorism is always wrong. To make that reader understand this, the paper will dwell on the history of terrorism, the major terrorists in the world, reasons why the terrorists make the lives of people miserable, acts of terrorism that affect the people and recommendations to stop terrorism. History of terrorism The history of terrorism is perhaps coextensive with the history of political violence. The phrase "terrorism" nevertheless, is relatively r The first incidences of modern terrorism occurred during the Reign of Terror headed by Maxmilien Robespierre in the French Revolution. Robespierre made sure that the enemies of the French revolution were killed. He dictated the citizens in the country to do whatever he wanted. Levi (2010, p. 650) stated that Robespierre justified slaying innocent civilians as a necessary demand in the transformation of the kingdom to an open-minded democracy. This type of leadership laid a foundation for the modern terrorists in the world since they realized that the use of violence facilitates better systems in the government. Through the leadership of Robespierre, people characterized terrorism with state action but in the 1950’s the idea of terrorism as a strategy to disobey political orders became famous to citizens (Levi 2010, p. 650). Later on other non-state actors, started using violence to defend their rights in the society for example groups supporting nationalist agendas. Some groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka used suicide bombs and other queer methods to frustrate the government for them to get independence from the Sinhalese government (Sageman 2008, p. 42). Terrorism started becoming a serious threat when many people started participating in bloody events and setting off bombs in airplanes. In the 1990s religious groups mainly the Islamic groups became a threat to other religions such Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism. The Islamic groups are the biggest threats in terrorism because their religion supports violence and the more they kill people, the more they are viewed as prominent people in their society (Allison 2005, p. 78). Terrorist groups There are various groups of organizations that are known to be terrorists. Examples of terrorist groups include; the communist and socialist groups that participated in terrorism activities, examples include the Weather Underground Organization in The United States of America, Red Brigades in Italy, and Shining Path in Peru and Revolutionary Struggle in Greece. The National liberation groups that participated in terrorist activities to liberate their countries from bad governance include: Tamil Tigers from Sri Lanka, PKK from Kurdish and Fatah from Palestine. There are also Religious-political groups that facilitate religious terrorism and use religious idioms to define their terms. The goals of the religious groups are political since they revolve around gaining recognition, territory, and power. Examples of religious groups include the Al Qaeda who are transnational Islamists, Aum Shinrikyo who are Hindus and Buddhists from Japan, Boko Haram who are Islamists from Nigeria, and Klu Klux Klan who are Christians from The United States, and Hamas who are Islamists from Palestine. The Moral Issue Can the act of terrorism ever be justified (morally)? There is certainly no single answer to such a question, because there is no single idea of what terrorism is. If we put aside the definition, which depart too much, we still have to choose whether the question captures a narrow or wide understanding of terrorism. A narrow conceptions appears to be slightly better suited to moral investigation (Allison 2005, p. 80). In addition, philosophers who use the wide definition normally assume that terrorism, which aims at innocents lives or non-combatants, is more difficult compared to selective terrorism, which targets only people who cannot reasonably claim innocence of the oppression or injustice at issue. One can try to validate some terrorist acts in two forms. One could claim that the victims might be common citizens or non-combatants, but, nonetheless, are not innocent of the ills the terrorists are advocating against. On the other hand, one can concede the blamelessness of the victims and claim that attacks on them are, however, justified, either through their consequences on balance or through some deontological considerations. If the earlier line of argument is successful, then will it prove too much? In proving that a case of violence was justified since those aimed at were not, in reality, innocent, we will have proved that the violence act was, in reality, a case of terrorism. This might be simply an issue of semantics. There is even a much more damaging objection (Juergensmeyer 2003, p. 78). A terrorist act is characteristically the injuring or killing of a random group of citizens who unluckily fall at a certain place at the time of the event. Claims to the effect that these individuals are not innocent of the wrongs the terrorist advocates against will, thus, have an overly wide reach, and will, therefore, be rooted on some simplistic conception of collective responsibility (Gabriel 2010, p. 34). These claims will the sort of presented, for instance, by Emile Henry, a 19th century anarchist. Henry planted a bomb at a mining company office that would have killed a number of people if it went off. He also planted another bomb at a cafe, which, this time, went off and injured 20 people. During his trial, Henry asked, "What about the innocent casualties?... The building was the mining company had set up was inhabited simply by the working class, therefore, there would be no innocent victims. The entire working class lives through the exploitation of the unfortunate of society, and must therefore expiate its crimes together" (Juergensmeyer 2003, p. 79). This is a completely questionable view of liability and responsibility. It holds that every members of a social class is liable to be maimed or killed: some for utilising the system of exploitation, others for endorsing it, and still others for taking advantage of it. Even though, we endorse Henrys harsh moral disapproval of capitalist society, not each and every type and level of involvement with it can validate the use of such extreme violence. Benefiting from the system or offering it political support might be ethically objectionable, but is, for sure, not enough to make one responsible to be blasted to pieces (Howard & Hoffman 2011, p. 56). This is an absurd understanding of liability and responsibility too. For it argues that every citizen is eligible to be maimed or killed: some for implementing or devising their countrys policies, others for taking part in the political procedure, still others for simply paying their government dues (taxes) (Howard & Hoffman 2011, p. 56). Even though, we grant Bin Ladens harsh condemnation of such policies, not every degree and type of involvement with them can excuse the utilisation of lethal violence. For sure, paying taxes or voting in elections is not adequate enough to make one fair game. Efforts at validation of terrorism, which admit that its victims are innocent appear more promising. They fall into two clusters, relying on the kind of ethical theory in which they are derived. Consequentialism Supporters of consequentialism deem terrorism, like any other practice, only by its effects. Terrorism is not judged as wrong in itself, but simply if it has bad effects on balance. The blamelessness of the victims does not alter this (Howard & Hoffman 2011, p. 56). This is an example of a key characteristic of consequentialism frequently stressed by its critics, for instance in the debate on the moral validation of legal punishment. A normal objection to the consequentialist loom to punishment has been that it means that punishment of the blameless is justified, when its effects are good on balance. This objection can get off the ground since consequentialism refuse that in such issues, an individuals innocence is ethically important in itself. Those who deem terrorism from a consequentialist viewpoint vary in their assessment of its ethics (Howard & Hoffman 2011, p. 56). Their opinion on terrorism lies on their view of the good to be endorsed by its use, as well as on their assessment of the usefulness of terrorism as a means of endorsing it. There is room for disparity on both sides. Terrorism justified Honderich (2004) approaches issues to do with political violence in general, as well as terrorism particularly as a consequentialist in morals plus a socialist in politics. The utilisation of neither can be excluded categorically; it all relies on their utility as a technique that can be used to attain politically and morally worthwhile goals like “a fully socialist society” or freedom from colonial rule. Honderich (2004) has a wide definition of acts, but his cases reveal that the blamelessness of the casualties of terrorism makes no difference to its validation, i.e., his conclusions relate to terrorism in both the narrow and wide sense. In Honderichs (2004) view, terrorist acts should be justified by their political consequences and their moral effects. They are validated when (1) they are politically helpful tools in the revolutionary fight and (2) after everything is considered, there are solid grounds for thinking that, through the use of that kind of violence instead of no violence at all, then there will be somewhat less suffering, injustice as well as degradation in the world than would otherwise have been the case (Honderich, 2004). Historical experience, in Honderichs (2004) view, tells people that terrorism on a small scale, used as the only method of struggle so as to provoke people into revolutionary action, is unsuccessful and often counterproductive. Alternatively, terrorism used together with guerrilla warfare in a prolonged war of liberation might well prove useful and, hence, also validated, as it did in South Vietnam and Algeria (Jordan et al. 2008, p. 45). Acts of terrorism that were wrongful acts Terrorism causes a lot negative impacts in the society, economically, politically, and socially. Effects on the economy Terrorism leads to negative impacts in the economy by destroying what people have build in years. Structures, towns, and cities are destroyed when terrorists attack and leave the business owners with nothing to look up to and have to start investing from the start again. Gabriel (2010, p. 56) stated that the economy of a country is affected when both local and foreign investors fear investing in the business opportunities available in the country because of terrorist threats. The economy also slows down because of damage of consumer confidence and hence goods and services produced in the country are wasted due lack of market to sell the goods and services (Ives-Allison 2014, p. 187). Terrorism is wrongful acts as it makes tourists fear to visit places that are prone to attacks or that have been attacked before hence the country loses revenues that benefit the economy (Gabriel 2010, p. 56). When terrorists attack the governments’ issues restriction orders to tourists and travel advisories, which influence the tourism sector negatively (Ives-Allison 2014, p. 187). Case example of September 11, attacks Ives-Allison (2014, p. 190) stated that one of the major terrorist attacks happened in the United States of America on September 11, 2001, when Al Qaida members captured four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into twin towers in New York City, the third plane crashed in the Pentagon building near Washington, D.C and the fourth plane crashed near Pittsburgh. This plane crashes led to deaths of many people who were in the planes and the surrounding areas that the crashes happened. Many people were also injured and had to lose some parts of their bodies. The economy of the United States was also affected with the collapse of the World Trade Center complex and destruction of the Pentagon. Ives-Allison (2014, p. 190) stated that September 11 2001 attacks in the United States affected the financial markets since the New York’s financial markets remained closed due to the destruction of the communications systems that were located in the World Trade Center. The attacks in the United States affected their economy since major changes had to be done to the overall supply chains. They had incur extra costs that is in terms of money and time to ensure security at land borders and ports to prevent any other unplanned attacks by terrorists. The homeland security had to be increased in the country thereby having a negative impact on the economy since they now spend US$ 500 billion annually on the departments preventing attacks by terrorists (Kattelman 2013, p. 67). Social effects Terrorism is a wrongful act as it makes people in society live in fear because of the violence involved. Terrorist express their anger on innocent people to show they are unhappy with the government (Kattelman 2013, p. 67). Terrorists use tactics such as bombs, suicide attacks, hijacking, nuclear attacks, and aircraft attacks to instill fear to people in the society. All these tactics lead to destruction of property and loss of human lives. Human life is sacred and a human right but the terrorists ignore the importance of human dignity and kill as many as they can to prove a point to the government (Kattelman 2013, p. 67). Terrorism is a wrongful act as innocent children are killed or left as orphans when their family members are shot. Terrorism affects the mental and physical processes of people when they think about their lost loved ones and their properties lost in the attacks (Kattelman 2013, p. 67). Case example of Boko Haram attacks Boko Haram are terrorists in Nigeria who have made the lives of people miserable by burning pupils in boarding schools and shooting students to prove to the government that the Islamic people cannot be led by a Christian president and that they are fighting for an Islamic State in Northern Nigeria (Zellen 2013, p. 98). The Boko Haram terrorists have killed many people from the Christian religion by attacking them in churches and burning the churches during services to show that they are superior (Zellen 2013, p. 98). All these acts of terror by terrorists are wrong and make people live in fear because they could be killed any time with unreasonable groups revenging against the government (Zellen 2013, p. 98). Political effects Terrorism is a wrongful act as it instills fear in the leaders of a country because most of the attacks are meant to prove a point to the government. The terror attacks are normally planned to make the government leaders change their opinions about different controversial issues in the government (Ramsay 2013, p. 76). Terrorism activities create a bad image for the country as it shows that the government is not working well enough to ensure security in their country. Some governments for example in Nigeria are being frustrated by Boko Haram terrorists who are fighting to make the Northern part of the country an Islamic State by making people suffer and they have no one to help. Hellmich (2013, p. 243) stated that governments are likely to fail prematurely when they are affected by the terrorist attacks. On the other hand, the governments that rein their territories with violence and use dictatorship like Robespierre during the French revolution are wrong because they make people suffer and kill innocent civilians (Hellmich 2013, p. 243). Containment of acts of terrorism Terrorism is a criminal act since it leads to loss of lives and destruction of property and should be avoided. The government should come up with policies that ensure serious punishment for perpetrators of terrorism activities (Sageman 2014, p. 565). Recommendations in stopping terrorism Reduction of military assistance The government with strong military powers should stop helping other countries like providing them with improved military hardware as this makes some of the individuals take advantage and use these materials to attack them (Abrahms 2006, p. 67). For example, when the United States government provided military assistance to Israel’s enemies, it made them a target of attack by the terrorists that supported the war in Israel (Abrahms 2006, p. 67). Stop illegal firearms transfer The governments should enact policies that prevent the transfer of illegal firearms. This will reduce terrorism since the attackers will not have tools to use to intimidate individuals in the society (Capella & Sahliyeha 2007, p. 271). Terrorist use firearms made from improved technology from the developed countries, when the transfer of these firearms is stopped, the terrorists will lack materials to facilitate their attacks (Capella & Sahliyeha 2007, p. 271). Non-interference The governments of various states should stop interfering in other countries’ disputes and stop providing firearms for foreign governments to reduce the terrorist pressure on the States that are stable (Pieth 2006, p. 1075). When a government helps another country to solve its issues in the name of protecting human rights around the world, it becomes a target of the terrorists since they view the government helping its enemy as a threat (Pieth 2006, p. 1075). Poverty alleviation Individuals from poor countries easily join terrorist groups because they are sure that after intimidating people in the society, they will be paid a lot of money and become rich. Reducing poverty in the country by educating the youth on the consequences of terrorism enables the young people to aim at better things than being lured into terrorist activities (Levi 2010, p. 655). End of injustice Injustice in the government has led to formation of terrorist groups where individuals take the law in their own hands. The rich people in the developing countries are becoming richer and the poor individuals becoming poorer, Brzoska (2014, p. 67) stated that this gap has led people toward terrorism as they need basic needs to survive and the leaders of terrorist groups assure them that they provide all those needs. The governments should therefore end injustice and distribute resources equally to all the people to ensure that their people are not lured into terrorist activities (Brzoska 2014, p. 67). Conclusion Terrorism is violence against innocent individuals in the society and causes lose of human lives and destruction of properties. Terrorists use tactics such as bombs, suicide attacks, hijacking, nuclear attacks, and aircraft attacks to intimidate and instill fear to people in the society for political reasons. Modern terrorism was started during the French revolution where the leader Robespierre dictated the people and killed the enemies of the revolution to ensure people followed his rules. The causes of terrorism are discrimination, religion, and political grievances. Terrorist attacks affect the people economically, socially, and politically leaving them frustrated and hopeless. The acts of terrorism can be reduced by the governments of various states enhancing policies that ensure serious punishments for those people who participate in terrorist activities. The governments of should stop the transfer of illegal fire arms, stop interference in disputes in other countries, end injustice, educate people in their countries to reduce poverty and to stop providing military assistance to countries that are in war in order to stop terrorism. References Abrahms, M 2006, Why terrorism does not work, International Security vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 42-78. Allison, G 2005, Nuclear terrorism: the ultimate preventable catastrophe, Holt Paperbacks, New York City. Brzoska, M 2014, Consequences of assessments of effectiveness for counterterrorist financing policy, Administration & Society vol 6, no. 2, pp. 67-81. Capella, M B & Sahliyeha, E 2007, Suicide Terrorism: is religion the critical factor? Security Journal vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 267–283. Chaliand, G & Blin, A 2007, The history of terrorism: from Antiquity to Al Qaeda, University of California Press, Oakland, California. Gabriel, B 2010, They must be stopped: why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it, St. Martins Griffin, New York City. Hellmich, C 2013, How Islamic is al-Qaeda? The politics of Pan-Islam and the challenge of modernisation, Critical Studies on Terrorism vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 241-256. Honderich, T 2004, After the terror, McGill Queens University Press, McGill. Howard, R & Hoffman, B 2011, Terrorism and counterterrorism: understanding the new security environment, readings and interpretations, McGraw-Hill, New York. Ives-Allison, N D 2014, “Night fell on a different world”: experiencing, constructing and remembering 9/11, Critical Studies on Terrorism vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 187-204. Jordan, A, Taylor, W J & Michael J. Meese et al. 2008, American national security, 6th edn, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Juergensmeyer, M 2003, Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence, 3rd edn, University of California Press, Oakland, California. Kattelman, K 2013, Operation enduring freedom: institutional constraints, alliance commitments, and the power capabilities of counterterrorism, Journal of Terrorism Research vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 67-78. Levi, M 2010, A history and assessment of the control of ‘threat finance’, British Journal of Criminology vol. 50, no. 4 pp. 650-669. Pieth, M 2006, Criminalizing the financing of terrorism, Journal of International Criminal Justice vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1074-1086. Primoratz, I 2012, Terrorism: a philosophical investigation, Wiley Publications, London. Ramsay, G 2013, Jihadi culture on the World Wide Web, Bloomsbury, New York. Reich, W & Laqueur, W 2007, Origins of terrorism: psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind, 6th edn, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, D.C. Sageman, M 2008, Leaderless Jihad: terror networks in the twenty-first century, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Sageman, M 2014, The stagnation in terrorism research, Terrorism and Political Violence vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 565-580. Walzer, M 2006, Terrorism and just war, Philosophia vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 3-12. Wright, L 2007, The looming tower: Al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11, Vintage, New York. Zellen, B S 2013, State of recovery: the quest to restore American security after 9/11, Bloomsbury, New York. Read More