Terrorism Flashcards
Definition of Terrorism
Unjustifiable actions of one’s adversary
Usually defined by government, as they are the ones front and center of creating rhetoric around terrorism
Government claims something only their opponents engage in
As defined by government: “Violent attack by non-state groups to attack a given political system or the status quo.”
General Consciousness
The state cannot commit terrorism.
This standing is arbitrary/biased:
1. states use force to quiet oppression
2. member seeking to oppose military forces of the occupying/colonial power often considered their violence as justified resistance
3. completely ignores an importantly mixed category: state-sponsored terrorism
(ie: Iran’s support of Hezbollah/Hamas, US support of Afghan Jihadist (Taliban and Alqueda) to oust Soviet Union controlled Afghan govt. ousting Administration
Saudi support of Pakistan militant group Lashkay-e-Taiba during Mumbai attack
What are the arguments against terrorism
Relies on Doctrine of Double Effect and Peace/Democracy
What is the Doctrine of Double Effect
DDE claims that an act aimed at good result, but that also has bad results, may be morally acceptable, if the bad results are unintended. Therefore, war is okay and that terrorism is often argued to intentionally target civilians while violence of the state/govt. seeking to suppress or prevent terrorists causes civilian casualties incidentally.
Counterarguments to Doctrine of Double Effect
It is not clear from the perspective of victims which is worse: intentional killing in warfare or foreseeable, reckless, collateral killing
Those who use terrorism often believe that they use violence as a means of last resort to resist unjust oppression.
It doesn’t make sense for terrorist groups to fight with conventional means –> obviously less superior to government in size and power
Questions why it is better to use violence to maintain status quo rather than changing it
Other arguments against terrorism
Doesn’t achieve perpetrator’s objectives
Peaceful means are both more justifiable and more successful
Argues that no violence is justifiable, speaks to both terrorist groups and government
It is powerful to have open avenues to peaceful transitions
Democracy is a better response than counterterrorism
