Terrorism is an abstract noun. Having a war on terrorism is by its own definition illogical and irrational. This is when dealing with the semantics of the word. The word terrorism has shifted in meaning many times over the century. It has come to mean many things to many people. While social sciences studies the varieties, methods, causes and history of terrorism. Philosophy deals with two fundamental interrelated questions. What is terrorism and can terrorism be ethically justified. Since 9/11 there has not been a single individual who has not been affected in one way or another by this phenomenon. This paper will look at this question because it doesn’t just touch my life but it touches the lives of everybody including you the reader.
Why is defining terrorism so important? The definition helps in defining the moral question concerning violence. In its common use definition it is a form of violence that inflicts fear, “terror” in its victims as a means to coerce them into a specific action. By defining what it is one can then define whether or not it is morally justified. To the consequentialist the consequence of terrorism is the most important thing. To the non-consequentialist it is determined by what it is. The justification for acts of terror to deontological moral requirements are fulfilled its complete, or practically complete, refutation.
Terrorism is interestingly a product of the French revolution that brought about democracy. The Jacobins in 1793 till the summer of 1794 brought about a reign of terror whose ultimate aim was to reshape society and human nature. (Coady 2001: 89).This was achieved by eliminating all enemies of the revolution and indoctrinating and put in force civic virtue. The Jacobins went after what they called “enemies of the people”, verified or suspected; real or potential. The Jacobins applied the term terror unabashedly to their killing without any negative connotation. When they became excessive that is when it took on negative connotation. It came to be associated with totalitarian regimes. Nazi Germany and the Bolshevik’s sought to inflict absolute political control on society using political police to atomize a defenseless population. In a modern context the violence of Assad’s military is a form of terrorism. This is what is known as state terrorism. However it is not the preserve of totalitarian regimes alone it is also done by democratic societies. The USAAF and RAF bombed Japanese and German cities in World War II and most recently the shock and awe bombing in Iraq. In internal communication they were referred to as “terror bombing.” (Bauhn 1989: 48)
There are non-state actors when it comes to terrorism. The problem comes in when making the distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists. The old saying comes to play one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Many insurgent groups especially in the colonial era resorted to this as part of their guerilla tactic to push for their nationalist liberation objectives. In England the Mau Mau are classified as a terrorist organization to date yet in Kenya they are honored as freedom fighter by 40 million Kenyans. They fought against the British colonialists for the liberation of Kenya.
The new problem in defining terrorism is that no one refers to their actions as acts of terror. Insurgents say it is a struggle for liberation. While the government refers to non-state actors as terrorists and the violence it dishes out as legitimate. This is because it is technically the only one allowed to dish out violence with in a state. A closer look at the actions of both parties results in the death of civilians.
“The performance of violent acts, directed against one or more persons, intended by the performing agent to intimidate one or more persons and thereby to bring about one or more of the agent's political goals” (Bauhn 1989: 28) “The tactic of intentionally targeting non-combatants [or non-combatant property, when significantly related to life and security] with lethal or severe violence meant to produce political results via the creation of fear” (Coady 2001: 46).
Therefore to define terrorism we must leave the realm of who the actors are in order to look at its morality in any meaningful way. The main question here is it morally justified to carry out terrorism? There is no agreed definition of terrorism. The definitions above are appropriate to ethical investigation. This paper focuses on attacking of innocent civilians with the intention of intimidating them into a particular political action. Both state and non-state actors will be considered.
“The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government and that they voted for their president. Their government makes weapons and provides them to Israel, which they use to kill Palestinian Muslims. Given that the American Congress is a committee that represents the people, the fact that it agrees with the actions of the American government proves that America in its entirety is responsible for the atrocities that it is committing against Muslims” (Bin Laden 140–141)
Osama Bin Laden was based on the premise that they voted in the leaders who made the decisions. It is also based on the consequentialist premise that the intended consequence is to cause political change. However as history has shown 9/11 didn’t cause any change in US government policy and in fact more Muslims died as a consequence of his actions than ever before. History has taught us that terrorism alone to spark revolution on its own has never worked. It has only been effective when accompanied with a protracted guerilla war. Algeria and South Vietnam are a perfect example. This is not to say everything he was advocating for was wrong. On the contrary;
The dictators of the Middle East did practice terrorism and the recent Arab spring is a consequence of the population having enough of the dictators. The peaceful transition of power is proof that popular revolution is better than terrorism any day. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan can be viewed as an act of terrorism by a collective of nations from a consequentialist point of view of morality. The populations in the respective countries have suffered more and all the objectives have not truly been fulfilled. Initially Al-qaeda was a fringe group operating in the mountains of Afghanistan. It is now in several countries in the Middle East and beyond. The two nations that were attacked have not removed insurgents from its soil. There acts of violence still target civilians on their own soil. So what has occurred is state violence by America on the population that has a had the consequence of driving the population into the hands of insurgents.
Inside a non-consequentialist attitude to morality, terrorism is considered wrong in its self. The only justification is some deontological considerations, such as justice or rights. However if none of these are fulfilled then on the whole it is wrong. This is also because almost all forms of violence in the non-consequentialist view are considered wrong by themselves.
References
Bauhn, Per, 1989, Ethical Aspects of Political Terrorism: The Sacrificing of the Innocent, Lund: Lund University Press.
Coady, Tony, and O'Keefe, Michael, eds., 2002, Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Bin Laden, Osama, 2005, “The Example of Vietnam”, Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, ed. Lawrence, Bruce, trans. Howarth, James, London and New York: Verso, 139–144.
