by David Kendall

Created on: April 05, 2007   Last Updated: December 30, 2010

Let's construct a logical argument for this scenario.

First off, we have to define the following terms: justification, terrorism

justification:
"noun
1. something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary; "he considered misrule a justification for revolution"

terrorism:
"n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "

- definitions from www.dictionary.com

Ok, now that we have defined everything, we need to ask the question of why terrorism can't be justified?

Well, obviously many diverse groups across the world think it is justified. Given historical examples of the IRA, Chechnyian rebels, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and countless it seems to have been used to get across many political points.

Why would a person willing involve themselves in terrorism or terrorist acts? Well, they could feel they're being oppressed, suppressed and controlled, like IRA and the Chechnyians. They could also be manipulated by inspired faith, rebellious instincts, and other such motivations, such as the typical suicide bomber in the middle east. And they could also have problems with society, such as the Unibomber or Timothy McVeigh.

If we take the simple definition of justification, these groups of people have all managed to justify their actions or intended actions.

Ideally their actions should be justified through the political system, but Hobbes himself wrote 'if the system is broken, it is the people's duty to overthrow it and replace it with a new system.' Which is one of the founding principles of many countries, including the United States of America. We can see this example throughout most of colonial history, through Vietnam (pre-US involvement, 1950s), India, and many other former colonial territories. Were their actions justified? Possibly not, considering the successfully given independences of nations such as Canada.

I'm not trying to call the creators of many nations terrorists, but this calls into question the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is not confined to the civilian or military realms.

We can cite attacks such as the raids on the US warship off the coast of Yemen to state that terrorism isn't confined to civilian targets. Terrorism, as it's defined in modern terms is to attack effective targets to get attention for a cause. For example,

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>