Monday, March 24, 2008 2:40 PM
Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured or taken hostage but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong.[citation needed
Many putative definitions of terrorism define as "terrorism" only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal and by a member or members of a group (as opposed to being carried out in a lone attack), and which deliberately target, or else disregard the safety of, non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence as opposed to "lawful acts of war".
The sense of moral condemnation is built into the definition of the concept of terrorism (i.e. terrorism is deemed to be an attack on those who should be morally immune from attack). On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as murder, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: While, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can in theory conceive of cases in which evil of terrorism is outweighed by important goods that can be achieved in no morally less costly way, in practice utilitarians often universally reject terrorism because it is very dubious that acts of terrorism achieve important goods in a utility efficient manner, or that the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism." Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism is always morally wrong but at the same time those who engaged in terrorism can be morally justified in one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so."
As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilizing an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause.
Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.
[5] The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war.
SPONGEBOB was here (:
