Good Example Of Terrorism. Can Terrorism Be Justified? Research Proposal

Terrorism is a nowadays weapon. The term itself means violent acts or the threat of many acts intended to create terror in other words fear, perpetrated for a political, religious or ideological goal, and which target is disregarding the safety of non-combatants which are civilians. Some definitions now include war or acts of unlawful violence. Yet should we remember that terrorism has actually no legally binding, criminal-law definition in the international community. Original term comes from the French word terrorisme, which is originally referred to state of terrorism used by the French government during the Reign terror. No doubts there are plenty of arguments over the definition but there are more of them over the fact whether terrorism should be justified or not.
Can terrorism be justified? This question is raised by many prominent philosophers which lead to this term be the first comprehensive discussion over many others issues. In the wake of the shocking and hedonistic events such as the 11 September 2001, “the war of terror” or terrorism became the number one topic for the US government. Yet this term has a very long, more global history. In some cases former terrorists transited to peaceful politics for instance Gerry Adams in Northern Ireland and Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Therefore there pros and cons of terrorism it can be justified and not. The major point of terrorism be justified is its consequence. Actions should be judged by what comes in conclusion. Terrorism can achieve sufficient good to outweigh the evil of its methods and aim laudable objectives. It can bring hope, popular recognition and relief to some groups. Usually terrorism’s goal is to bring freedom and liberty which are more important than a single life if such actions can eventually reach ideal life for many people. Undoubtedly, peaceful methods should be tried first. Along with good comes evil there are many terrorist actions that simply cannot be justified on any account. Life is sacred, and to murder a life object even in pursuit of an idea is wrong and abhorrent. No one has a right to take one’s life away. Nothing plays a more vital role than media when talking about terrorism. Needless to say, the media reach a large number of people every day; therefore, it is a weapon for many groups as far as when going public they can broadcast their messages very fast and even find the adjustment in the upcoming followers. Terrorists continue to use media as a weapon so to disseminate propaganda of a different kind and misinformation to its target audience. Such actions in the foreseeable future can lead to the destabilization of the enemy. The best way to broadcast terror and panic among people, therefore to destabilize the enemies, is going public and using the media. Clearly the internet has made a new channel for groups to spread their messages to public. Very usual the consequences of such heinous actions cannot guarantee success. It is an immoral gamble to kill people reaching goals.
In conclusion this is an issue that evokes question the value we put on our beliefs, ideals and human life itself. There is no right answer for the topic question as there are many pros and cons to argue with. Otherwise is it really possible to justify the use of terrorist attacks when their results are abominable and take lives of many innocent civilians in shootings and bombings?

Reference list:

Deen T. Politics U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism. 2005, 25-28;
Hoffman B. Inside Terrorism 1998, 47-70;
Nunberg G. Terrorism: The History of a very Frightening Word. 2001, 130-137;
Schorn D. Ed Bradley Reports On Extremists Now Deemed Biggest Domestic Terror Threat. 2006, 15-18.