Terrorism comes in many shapes in sizes. Terrorism has been in existence from the beginning of time, and happens for many different reasons. The subject of terrorism is quite sensitive and may not be completely set in stone. It has raised much contemplation and uncertainty because of its wide range of definition and intent. During this research, a very open mind has been kept regarding why attacks occur and an effort has been made to find the seams of possible justification for acts of terrorism. There are many double standards that come along with terrorism, which will be defined and avoided within this research paper. Many sources and individuals believe to this day that acts of terrorism are needed and justifiable for certain instances of reform. Along with these beliefs is the opinion that most terrorist don’t pose a serious threat to society, which is clearly not the case. These individuals need thorough clarification on why they are incorrect. Perhaps these populations can range from family members of active terrorists, or to a person who gained their freedom and power through terrorism. There are rare instances where terrorism can have its positive impacts. This paper will touch upon the history of terrorism, but primarily focus on modern day terrorism and the philosophy that surrounds the causes and morality of terrorism. While terrorism is difficult to define, there is one we will stick to that is immovable. Terrorism(n.) – the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Because of illegal activity, wrongful cause, and the consequences that come from terrorist action, terrorism cannot and will not ever be justifiable. Therefore, if promoted and conducted correctly, counterterrorism is justifiable, yet must be monetarily performed to certain extents. 

Essentially, there are many double standards that come with the term terrorism that must be avoided and that are surfaced when acts of terrorism occur. One double standard that occurs with the term is “us vs. them.” In reality, there is not one complete side for terrorism, and in some cases, there is more than one person to blame in acts of terrorism. In Igor Primoratz’s novel Terrorism, a Philosophical Investigation, Primoratz seeks to overcome relativism and the double standards that often plague debates about terrorism. All sides of the story must be put together in order to declare who or what the terrorist(s) is/are and what he/she or they are doing. Another double standard is important and must be examined is “terrorism when talking about violent actions and policies of a state, especially one’s own state – even when what is done in the same. This indicates a double standard of the form ‘state vs. non-state agents’ – the assumption that terrorism is by definition something done by insurgents, and never by the state.” (Primoratz 7) In translation, Primoratz means that terrorism is defined as a non-state action and is never performed under government or state power. A country is legally and morally allowed to use its armed forces and security in order to defend their country for their citizens, and is even entitled to use their power as an offensive weapon. “If there is a legitimate goal, such as liberation, that cannot be terrorism.” (Primoratz 8) There is also much to be said for the “state” side rather than the “insurgent side.” It is morally evident that whenever conflict rises between state power and insurgent power, it is the people’s job and right to remain on the side of the state, as we already are. 

Regularly, many people will make the argument “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.” At first glance, this sentence seems to be ironically attractive and true. However, this statement already follows the line of the first double standard. Terrorism is an argument of morals and legal activity, not an ‘us versus them’ issue. More often than not, terrorists do go out and kill for a reason, usually for political reform or some type of extreme nationalism. Despite the immoral aspects of terrorism, one may argue that terrorists are just using their acts of basic human rights; to defend something they think should be brought global attention to and in need of reform. Individuals will also argue that terrorists’ methods are legitimate and they have the right to be put to use. Some may put this in other words as using their First Amendment rights. Within Brian Brivati’s short article, “Yes, Terrorism Can Be Justified”, Brivati explains that if violence is an aim of a group with some sort of acceptable struggle, then they are justified in their violent actions. Brivati also reveals that if state terrorism is the only source of violence for reform, “then when Nelson Mandela dies, he should be universally condemned as nothing more than a terrorist and murderer – something the Thatcher government liked to call him.” Arguably, Brivati makes a strong and interesting point, while he opposes Primoratz’s argument. In a spectrum of morality, Brivati’s argument doesn’t make much logic sense due to his want of an increase in global and domestic violence. If Brivati’s points were truly taken into consideration around the globe, we would see a startling amount of increased crime rates, inferring to an increase in gangs, violence, and ultimately terrorism. 

Another extremely important factor that must be kept clear while dealing with the issue of terrorism is the subject of civilians. Usually, terrorists do not take into account who exactly they are going to harm and who they are not going to harm. However, they do know their cause and reasoning. Terrorists, let alone any person on the earth, is found guilty of killing innocent lives, which often attacks lead to. With a strong purpose and a lack of primary target, the equation of a terrorist attack is what makes them so horrific and brutal, escalating the issue at hand. “Terrorist attacks deliberately slay or wound innocent individuals or create a grave mance of such injuries to them. The damages that terrorist attacks create are precisely what the aggressors attempt to generate.” (Petchu)

Do we as humans use terrorism in order to defeat terrorism? If one is to use acts of violence for their cause, does another individual have the right to dismiss their actions with the very actions that the situation originally surfaced with? These are other very important question to consider while scoping terrorism. In our modern day world, international law states that terrorist acts are illegal and will come with a penalty. Morally, it is imperative that we declare a certain type of target when a certain power decides to go after an individual or a group of people. This action also holds true for terrorists, which there is a lack of decision. According to Mr. Ben Saul, the author of a short article “Two Justifications for Terrorism: A Moral Legal Response,” “The highly charged political atmosphere surrounding international discussion of terrorism has tended to entrench opposing ideological and rhetoric positions, often leading to neither side taking the arguments of the other seriously.” Saul also claims that the judgement of the actions of these modern day terrorists, such as Al Qaeda and ISIS, are not considered regarding the groups of people are actually aiming for, and that we simply just label them as bad people because they target the innocent. “Some non-combatants are not ‘innocent’ and therefore become legitimate targets of violence.” Another claim that Saul argues in his article is that sometimes terrorism can be active in a positive way, stating that terrorism may be “a way for humanity.” For example, during the Palestinian fight for freedom against Israeli domination, the Palestinians did use acts of violence against the Israelis. Within Saul’s article, he attempts to prove that the Palestinian people used acts of terrorism to over throw the Israelis for political reform and social justice. However, Saul’s argument goes against the international definition of terrorism, and one could confidently argue that these acts were performed in revolutionary war. The Palestinian overthrow had a specific goal and a specific target. This goes against what has been previously declared. Perhaps we can identify the Palestinian acts as actions of warfare against a state. The human population must refrain from stereotyping all violence from terrorism, which is why the Palestinian overthrow is important to include. 

An identical trend can be seen through America’s past time, the American Revolution. The American Revolution and the Palestinian over throw are very similar in cause, and we can justify the American revolution. Religion plays an important role in the justification of the Revolution. According to James H. Hutson’s article “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, “the Revolution strengthened millennialists strains in American theology. At the beginning of the war some ministers were persuaded that, with God’s help, America might become ‘the principle Seat of the glorious Kingdom which Christ shall erect upon Earth in the latter Days.’ Victory over the British was taken as a sign of God’s partiality for America and stimulated an outpouring of millennialist expectations-the conviction that Christ would rule the Earth for 1,000 years.” Also, ministers during the Revolution served in many capacities including military chaplains, committees of correspondence, and as members of state legislators. 

The justification of the American Revolution also evolves on technical terms. The supreme power and unfair rule of Great Britain did indeed lead to acts of violence and rebellion. What sets these acts of pre-America and of modern day terrorism apart is that the colonists’ had an organized set of guerilla warfare, and had a very specific target. One could even make the argument that more innocent colonists were killed during the 1700s than those of Great Britain. 

In the article “Terrorism cannot be justified by a Religion from GOD,” the author, Masjid Tucson refers to the freedom of religion, the pure evilness of terrorism, and who is to blame regarding terrorism. “While all the known religions of the world call for love, peace, tolerance, freedom of belief and mutual understanding, many of the terrorists’ acts are committed in this world by the people who call themselves religious, and attribute their horrendous and Satanic acts to religion.” We can see this in modern day terrorist groups such as ISIS, and how they justify their acts of terrorism to the Quran. However, Tucson refutes these justifications and provides details that lay within the Quran, such as “The commit gross sin, then say, ‘We found our parents doing this, and God has commanded us to do it.’ Say, ‘God never advocates sin. Are you saying about God what you do not know? You shall not kill. God has made life sacred, except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand.” Tucson also makes the case that terrorism is evil, regardless of the causes that surround it. Tucson states “the blame lies with the terrorists and not the religion they claim to adhere to. Not everyone who calls himself a Muslim is a Muslim just as not everyone who thinks of himself as a Jew or a Christian is one. We stand united against all kinds of terrorism, as only through unity will we be able to eradicate them and bring them to justice.” 

On September 11th 2001, the United States faced one of the most, if not the most brutal terrorist attack the world has ever seen. Osama Bin Laden had planned to put an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group of nineteen Saudi Arabians to take down the twin towers of New York City. This was done through very thorough planning as the hijackers settled in the U.S. in 2000 and took flight training over several months in Florida. As a result of planes hitting the twin towers hitting the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and crashing in Pennsylvania, 2,996 souls were lost that day with over 6,000 others wounded. These immediate deaths included 265 on the four planes, 2,606 in the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 at the Pentagon. Our mission after the awful attack was clear; go after Al Qaeda over-seas. “The September 11th attacks have not driven any rich democracy to reverse itself and make torture legal. But they have encouraged the bending of definitions and the turning of blind eyes. There is a greater readiness among governments that would never practice torture themselves to use information which less squeamish states have obtained—through torture.” (The Economist)

An obvious result of these terrorist attacks was our nation’s initiative to declare war on Iraq in 2003 with George W. Bush as president of the United States. In Bush’s last address speech to the United Nations, Bush gives his reasoning to the world on how terrorism can never be rightfully justified. Bush comments on how most Islamic terrorist groups in the Middles East use their justification of religion as their cause for action and how the killing of innocent lives involved with their actions of terrorism are to never be justified. Bush also reinstates that the world should never take terrorism as a light conflict, and should always be taken seriously. “Some governments still turn a blind eye to the terrorists, hoping the threat will pass them by. They are mistaken. And some governments, while pledging to uphold the principles of the U.N., have cast their lot with the terrorists. They support them and harbor them, and they will find that they’re welcomed guests are parasites that will weaken them and eventually consume them.” These are important words said by Bush because he explains that if nothing is done about these terrorists, they will eventually overtake everything in their paths. He concludes his speech as follows- “We did not ask for this missions, yet there is honor in history’s call. We have a chance to write the story of our times, a story of courage defeating cruelty and light overcoming darkness. This calling is worthy of any life and worthy of every nation.” 

With a Ph.D from Adelphi University, Dr. Shawn Kaplan dissects an article written by Michael Walzer on his book Just and Unjust Wars. . It also includes an argument based off of Uwe Steinhoff’s On the Ethics of War and Terrorism. Kaplan critiques both works, and states that both these sources from these two individuals disagree mainly because of their opinions on the involvement of the public regarding the topic of terrorism and the involvement of the public regarding acts of terrorism. Specifically, Walzer believes that non-combatants of terrorism are disengaged civilians who are always targeted in the acts of terrorism, no matter what the objective is. He also believes that war is really no different than terrorism, and they are both related to political violence. Walzer also believes that the people involved in terrorism have been taken away their right to live` On the other hand, Steinhoff “favors the approach where individual liability to attack is the locus of concern. Additionally, Walzer states that he believes the public and government are who to blame for causes of terrorism, and these people should be held accountable. Steinhoff believes that any individual under severe attack has the right and should use the right to defend themselves and act to do what is best for themselves as an individual. According to Steinhoff, there is no additional harm to the community other than individuals right to live, and have bodily integrity and property, which terrorism ultimately takes away. 

In conclusion, terrorism cannot be justified despite its sometime cause of political reform. Through the research presented in this paper and the spectrum of morals that have been drafted, we can take away that terrorism only leads to an increase in violence and negative societal impacts. Amaryllis Fox, a former CIA agent, explains in a speech “If there was one lesson I learned from my time with the CIA, it is this: everyone believes they are the good guy.” Ms. Fox worked undercover for ten years on the specialization of counterterrorism and intelligence. Fox also claims that we need to avoid oversimplifying the term terrorism, and we need to examine our enemies. “The only real way to disable your enemy is to listen to them. While it may be easier to dismiss your enemy as evil, hearing them out on policy concerns is actually an amazing thing.” Perhaps it is about time we end global terrorism and violence through social reform rather than drop bombs on out targets. Ultimately, we will have to shift our stand and come to a conclusion in order to work with our enemies. Yet when acts of terrorism occur, the need to stop them should be called upon.  Because of terrorism’s wrongful causes, illegal activity, and the negative effects that it brings, it is plausible to conclude that terrorism is an unjustifiable term. 
