Al Qaeda and Terrorism
Just because is a tenet of just war. It states that, in the event a country, state or organization decides to engage in war, it must have reasons that represent a just basing. In essence, the county or organization must show that is acting in good faith with no malicious intentions at all. The factor that culminates to the final resort that facilitates war should have an adequate threshold to support its course and the actions that ensue. In the case with the al-Qaeda, the aforementioned observations have been noted. This is because was embodied in the actions of the individuals in its perpetuation or not (Maguellis, 2009). The case follows the war that, the militia terror group had initiated a terror attack against the United States.
On the onset of the events that facilitated the activities and the counter activities of the group, it can be stated that, the group was not acting under the parameters of a just war. The fact that the American Government under the leadership of Bush was having closer links with Saudi Arabia was a strong and cogent reason to hold up the threshold that tenets the just aspect of a just war. In the view of it, the al Qaeda operations were built on nonsense and stilts; it was a maliciously directed terror group.
Among the principles that support just war, it follows that the war must be propagated by a legitimate authority. A legitimate authority in this context means that the war must be initiated by an organization or county operating along the lines recognized by the entire world. In the case of the al-Qaeda, I can ardently denote that it was acting under a legitimate authority since its propagators were not legally accepted individuals bearing an authorized aspect. People like Osama Bin Laden were militia people .However, the holding; they were supported established governments like Iraq (Hellmich, 2012).
Just war occurs when all reasonable actions have been regarded and failed. In this event, the group is justified if the only way it can get out of the prevailing circumstance is because it is the last resort in the context then. On the same, it must be established that the action taken by the group or organization was in a juxtaposition that placed the solution to the actions that culminated to war. Al Qaeda, in the opinion of these justifications, did not exercise its decision well in the move to attach the United States. There exists no reason n why the militia can claim that they were acting in good faith. Did they have to take action that they took because there was no other choice left? The American did not own up to the call and grievances as represented by the al Qaeda. There is no plausible ground to state that the militia group was acting in a malicious manner.
The principle of proportionality states actions taken in the event war is referred to as just war, it must be proportional to the factors to its causation. In this case, the model of killing a mosquito with a sledge hammer best suits this phenomenon. The al Qaeda did not act in a way that signified proportionality of the matter that was encouraging them to engage in the war (Sharma, 2009).
In a nutshell, it can be concluded that the war propagated by the al Qaeda did meet expectations and directives that culminate to a just war.
On the other hand, the distinction tenet states that just war should be directed to combats and not on combats. In attacking the United Stated, the discussion holds the opinion that America was the right target. In this case, actions by American leaders were on behalf of the people. It happens to be that way because they were representatives of American citizens.
References
Hellmich, C. (2012). Knowing al-Qaeda: The Epistemology of Terrorism. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Maguellis, P. (2009). Al Qaeda: Osama Bin Laden's Army of Terrorists. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Sharma, P. D. (2009). The New Terrorism: Islamist International. New York: APH Publishing.
