Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Terrorism Justified?
When looking at the principles of war theory, the moral distinctions made between state-sponsored warfare and terrorism by stateless nations may not always be justified. The examiner must consider both the jus ad bellum, or justification for going to war, and the jus in bello, or how the war is prosecuted. Some ethicists state that acts of war can only be justified when committed by one nation against another, and that groups within states cannot have that status. Therefore, any means such internal groups use to prosecute a war are by definition, wrong. However, by this standard, the United States exists because of acts of terrorism.
The question becomes, then, to define terrorism and then to evaluate acts of terrorism according to whether they are acts of a just war or not. If groups of people who are politically organized but do not have a nation of their own prosecute a just war, their acts may be justified. This requires that we look at the intentions of the group prosecuting the war, and whether they have just cause or not.
It stands to reason that probability of success must be considered in a just war; otherwise the soldiers and civilians are likely to endure great hardship for little...
However, fights for self-determination, liberation or freedom may not have a guarantee of success at the onset. However, when a sub-nation of people is oppressed, denied basic civil liberties or systematically repressed by the ruling government, some could view as those goals as so compelling that they would justify the attempt. The United States exists because a political group within a state believed this to be true.
The most compelling argument against any legitimacy for terrorists might be the concept of "legitimate authority." However, the fact of sovereignty does not automatically confer moral authority. If that were the case, Hitler would have had a legitimate right to Poland, and racial segregation would be acceptable if the government said so. There is no question of sovereign authority when a nation wages war, but it is more difficult when the war is waged by a stateless nation. However, the world has multiple populations who are stateless through no fault of their own and who want to liberate themselves to be self-determining nations. If these groups of people see themselves as a national entity with just cause, their prosecution of war should be judged by the same standards applied to nations already formed. To have…
They now work together in what has become an ideological battle against the U.S. In this vicious battle against the terror outfits, our people have been robbed of their cherished freedom, which has always been the cornerstone of our constitution. As history has time and again illustrated, 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. This can be extended to the patriot act, which has given absolute power to the law
Fundamentally, the insurgents are fighting an enemy with superior weaponry, technology, and resources, so therefore, must seek avenues to mitigate these disadvantages. In other words, insurgent forces out vastly outdone in the traditional aspects of warfare, so they are forced to resort to unconventional modes of attack. Early in his book, the Army and Vietnam, Krepinevich provides the broad game plan an insurgent force must follow to achieve final victory: As
That Duke's followers believed it was all that mattered. As always it was easy to believe that the failures of today were the result of interlopers and insidious conspiracies by inferior types. Duke was elected to the Louisiana state legislature in 1989. Though the campaign focused to a considerable extent on his Klan connections it ignored his wider philosophical associations and social and political connections. Duke was heavily involved
people commit acts of terrorism? At one level, this question is unanswerable in the same way child abuse and rape are incomprehensible. For people who do not believe that violence is ever acceptable except to defend oneself or other innocent people, it is impossible to fathom what would motivate people to harm innocent bystanders, an element in so much of terrorism. But, clearly -- given the number of terrorist acts
violence and aggression. First, different aspects of violence, such as diversity and culture, gender and psychosocial aspects are discussed. And, the ethical and legal dimensions of mandatory reporting of child and elder abuse are looked into. The emerging technologies in the field of psychology are also discussed in relation to the topic of violence and other forms of deviant behavior. Lastly, correlations of the causality and violence prevention interventions
Domestic Terrorism America is home to people with varied cultural backgrounds who have been confined into one political and geographical territory. These people may have issues and conflicts but still find themselves living together because of shared territorial borders (Zalman, 2013). The United States has managed for a very long time to contain multitude of people with diverse religious, political, and cultural views in relative harmony. Incidences of terrorist attacks that