essay about war and terrorism

Terrorism Essay for Students and Teacher

500+ words essay on terrorism essay.

Terrorism is an act, which aims to create fear among ordinary people by illegal means. It is a threat to humanity. It includes person or group spreading violence, riots, burglaries, rapes, kidnappings, fighting, bombings, etc. Terrorism is an act of cowardice. Also, terrorism has nothing to do with religion. A terrorist is only a terrorist, not a Hindu or a Muslim.

Types of Terrorism

Terrorism is of two kinds, one is political terrorism which creates panic on a large scale and another one is criminal terrorism which deals in kidnapping to take ransom money. Political terrorism is much more crucial than criminal terrorism because it is done by well-trained persons. It thus becomes difficult for law enforcing agencies to arrest them in time.

Terrorism spread at the national level as well as at international level.  Regional terrorism is the most violent among all. Because the terrorists think that dying as a terrorist is sacred and holy, and thus they are willing to do anything. All these terrorist groups are made with different purposes.

Causes of Terrorism

There are some main causes of terrorism development  or production of large quantities of machine guns, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons, missiles, etc. rapid population growth,  Politics, Social, Economic  problems, dissatisfaction of people with the country’s system, lack of education, corruption, racism, economic inequality, linguistic differences, all these are the major  elements of terrorism, and terrorism flourishes after them. People use terrorism as a weapon to prove and justify their point of view.  The riots among Hindus and Muslims are the most famous but there is a difference between caste and terrorism.

The Effects Of Terrorism

Terrorism spreads fear in people, people living in the country feel insecure because of terrorism. Due to terrorist attacks, millions of goods are destroyed, the lives of thousands of innocent people are lost, animals are also killed. Disbelief in humanity raises after seeing a terrorist activity, this gives birth to another terrorist. There exist different types of terrorism in different parts of the country and abroad.

Today, terrorism is not only the problem of India, but in our neighboring country also, and governments across the world are making a lot of effort to deal with it. Attack on world trade center on September 11, 2001, is considered the largest terrorist attack in the world. Osama bin Laden attacked the tallest building in the world’s most powerful country, causing millions of casualties and death of thousands of people.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Terrorist Attacks in India

India has suffered several terrorist attacks which created fear among the public and caused huge destruction. Here are some of the major terrorist attacks that hit India in the last few years: 1991 – Punjab Killings, 1993 – Bombay Bomb Blasts, RSS Bombing in Chennai, 2000 – Church Bombing, Red Fort Terrorist Attack,2001- Indian Parliament Attack, 2002 – Mumbai Bus Bombing, Attack on Akshardham Temple, 2003 – Mumbai Bombing, 2004 – Dhemaji School Bombing in Assam,2005 – Delhi Bombings, Indian Institute of Science Shooting, 2006 – Varanasi Bombings, Mumbai Train Bombings, Malegaon Bombings, 2007 – Samjhauta Express Bombings, Mecca Masjid Bombing, Hyderabad Bombing, Ajmer Dargah Bombing, 2008 – Jaipur Bombings, Bangalore Serial Blasts, Ahmedabad Bombings, Delhi Bombings, Mumbai Attacks, 2010 – Pune Bombing, Varanasi Bombing.

The recent ones include 2011 – Mumbai Bombing, Delhi Bombing, 2012 – Pune Bombing, 2013 – Hyderabad Blasts, Srinagar Attack, Bodh Gaya Bombings, Patna Bombings, 2014 – Chhattisgarh Attack, Jharkhand Blast, Chennai Train Bombing, Assam Violence, Church Street Bomb Blast, Bangalore, 2015 –  Jammu Attack, Gurdaspur Attack, Pathankot Attack, 2016 – Uri Attack, Baramulla Attack, 2017 – Bhopal Ujjain Passenger Train Bombing, Amarnath Yatra Attack, 2018 Sukma Attack, 2019- Pulwama attack.

Agencies fighting Terrorism in India

Many police, intelligence and military organizations in India have formed special agencies to fight terrorism in the country. Major agencies which fight against terrorism in India are Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Terrorism has become a global threat which needs to be controlled from the initial level. Terrorism cannot be controlled by the law enforcing agencies alone. The people in the world will also have to unite in order to face this growing threat of terrorism.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

A Timeline of the U.S.‑Led War on Terror

By: History.com Editors

Updated: May 5, 2020 | Original: February 1, 2019

As much of the nation was just starting the day on the morning of September 11, 2001 , 19 terrorists hijacked four East Coast flights, crashing three of the airplanes into targets in New York and Washington, D.C., with the fourth plane slamming into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers fought back. 

In the end, 2,977 people died, making it the deadliest attack on U.S. soil in history.

The al Qaeda -led attacks prompted President George W. Bush to announce a global “War on Terror” military campaign, in which he called on world leaders to join the U.S. in its response.

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make,” he said in a national address. “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

Below is a timeline of notable events.

America Responds to 9/11

•  Sept. 11, 2001 : Terrorists hijack four U.S. planes, crashing two into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, while a third hits the U.S. Pentagon minutes later. The fourth plane, targeted to hit the White House, crashes in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers attacked the terrorists. The death toll, not including the `9 hijackers, was 2,977.

•  Sept. 12, 2001 : Bush addresses the nation, announcing war and stating : “The United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy. We will rally the world. We will be patient. We’ll be focused, and we will be steadfast in our determination. This battle will take time and resolve, but make no mistake about it, we will win.”

•  Sept. 20, 2001 : In a speech addressing Congress and the nation, Bush announces the War on Terror , saying, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

•  Sept. 25, 2001 : Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announces the anti-terror campaign as “Operation Enduring Freedom,” which he says will take years to fight. The following day, Saudi Arabia ends diplomatic ties with Afghanistan’s Taliban government.

War in Afghanistan Begins

•  Oct. 7, 2001 : Airstrikes by the United States and Great Britain are launched in Afghanistan at Taliban and al Qaeda training camps and targets. “What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted,” al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden says in a video statement released the same day. “Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed, and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated.”

•  Oct. 19-20, 2001 : The ground war begins, with special forces striking in Kandahar. In the coming weeks, Britain, Turkey, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, France and Poland all announce they will deploy troops to Afghanistan.

•  Nov. 9, 2001 : The Afghan Northern Alliance captures Mazar-e-Sharif, a Taliban stronghold. 

• Nov. 13, 2001 : Kabul falls following airstrikes and ground attacks by the United States and Afghan Northern Alliance.

• Dec. 6-17, 2001: The Battle of Tora Bora rages in a cave complex in Eastern Afghanistan’s White Mountains. U.S.-led coalition forces attempt to capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, but he escapes.

• Dec. 7, 2001: Kandahar, the last major stronghold of the Taliban, falls.

•  Feb. 21, 2002 : A video confirms the execution -style death of Wall Street Journal reporter  Daniel Pearl  by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a self-described mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

•  June 13, 2002 : Hamid Karzai, a favored candidate of the U.S., is elected by a traditional Afghan Loya Jirga council to a two-year term as Afghanistan’s transitional head of state. In 2004, he becomes Afghanistan’s first democratically elected president.

Iraq War Begins

•  March 19, 2003 : U.S. and coalition forces invade Iraq following intelligence that the country and its dictator, Saddam Hussein, possessed or were developing weapons of mass destruction.

• May 1, 2003 : Bush delivers a speech aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln proclaiming, “ Mission Accomplished ,” saying that major combat efforts for the war in Iraq will end. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on,” he says.

•  Aug. 19, 2003 : Twenty-three people, including a top United Nations official, are killed and 100 wounded after a suicide bomber drives a truck into UN headquarters in Baghdad.

• Dec 13, 2003: Saddam Hussein is captured by U.S. soldiers in ad-Dawr, Iraq.

•  March 11, 2004 : A coordinated bombing of four commuter trains in Madrid kills 191 people and injures more than 2000. Islamic militants, based in Spain but inspired by al Qaeda, are later considered the prime suspects.

•  July 7, 2005 : Terrorist bombings on the London Underground and atop a double-decker bus kill 52 people and injure more than 700. Documents recovered in 2012 will reveal the attacks were planned by a British citizen working for al Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden Killed

•  Dec. 30, 2006 : After being sentenced to death by hanging for war crimes and crimes against humanity, Saddam Hussein is executed in Baghdad.

•  June 30, 2009 : Sgt. Bowe R. Bergdahl walks away from his post in Afghanistan and is kidnapped by the Taliban. Released in 2014, he is later dishonorably discharged.

•  Aug. 30, 2010 : In an Oval Office address, President Barack Obama declares an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq.

•  May 2, 2011 : Osama bin Laden is killed by U.S. special operations forces during a raid at an Abbottabad, Pakistan compound.

•  June 22, 2011 : In a televised address, Obama announces a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a hand-over of power to Afghani security by 2014.

•  August 2011 : Thirty-eight service members are killed when the helicopter they are aboard comes under fire. This month becomes the deadliest ever for U.S. forces in Afghanistan with 66 fatalities.

•  Dec. 28, 2014 : The War in Afghanistan officially ends , though Obama states 10,800 U.S. troops will remain.

•  Jan. 28, 2019 : The U.S. and Taliban leaders work toward an agreement for the withdrawal of the 14,000 U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Nasty, Brutish and Long: America’s War on Terrorism

Ivo h. daalder and ivo h. daalder former brookings expert, president - chicago council on global affairs, former u.s. ambassador to nato james m. lindsay jml james m. lindsay.

December 1, 2001

• 24 min read

The post-Cold War era ended abruptly on the morning of September. 11, 2001. From the moment terrorists turned jetliners into weapons of mass destruction, the United States was inescapably engaged in a new “war” against global terrorism. The Bush administration now intends to make that war the central organizing principle of America’s foreign and defense policies.

This war is not like the one against Iraq a decade ago, when the United States and its allies had a clear territorial objective that could be swiftly achieved. It is also not like the war over Kosovo in 1999, in which the Serbs relented after 78 days of bombing Yugoslavia and NATO suffered no combat deaths. And while the attacks on New York and Washington immediately brought to mind memories of Pearl Harbor, the United States campaign against terrorism will not be like America’s effort to force Japan’s unconditional surrender.

The campaign against terrorism is instead much more like the cold war of the past century. Like the fight against Soviet communism, today’s campaign against terrorism is likely to be nasty, brutish, and long. Because of the diverse nature of the threat, the United States has no clear vision of when or how the war will end. Complete success in the military operations in Afghanistan will not necessarily mean victory. Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network of terrorists extends well beyond Afghanistan. It could easily reconstitute itself even if the United States captures or kills bin Laden and his lieutenants. Future attacks might even involve the use of sophisticated germ warfare or radiological weapons, if not nuclear weapons.

As at the start of the cold war, the United States response has begun with the arduous task of assembling a global coalition. President Harry Truman’s rousing call in 1947 “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures” set the course of United States history for the next four decades. President Bush’s invitation to every nation to join the United States in “civilization’s fight” was phrased as expansively-and intended to be as enduring. In the new war against terrorism the United States also faces ideologically motivated foes who do not shrink from death. America’s fight will end only when, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, Americans can once again get on with their daily lives without fear or thought of a possible terrorist attack. That is a tall order.

A critical question as the United States enters this new “cold war” is whether it has learned the lessons of the last war. Will Washington again overemphasize military force to achieve its goals and give short shrift to the non-military instruments of statecraft? Will it again focus so narrowly on battle that it forgets other important foreign-policy goals? Will it cut deals today to gain support from other nations that will return to haunt it down the road-in much the same way that supporting the shah led to a deeply hostile Iran and arming Afghan rebels to fight the Soviet Union contributed to the terrorist threat the United States faces today? Will it repudiate its own values at home as it tries to fend off an enemy abroad?

It is crucial that the United States fight its new war against terrorism with the dedication and vigor that President Bush has promised. It is also crucial that it fight that war wisely. Washington must recognize the complexities of its new fight-and the pitfalls that lie before it.

The First Phase

The Bush administration’s campaign against terrorism will occur in stages and on multiple fronts. Much of the fight will be conducted through diplomatic pressure; economic, financial, and political sanctions; and intelligence and law enforcement cooperation. But the first phase-capturing or killing bin Laden, destroying his Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan, and deposing the Taliban regime-will be predominantly military.

The administration launched the first phase of its military campaign on October 7, when United States and British forces struck from the air targets in Afghanistan. Administration officials understandably declined to spell out their military strategy in any detail, but early on it appeared to have three components: a Kosovo-style strategic bombing of military targets to weaken the Taliban’s hold on power, Somalia-like commando raids to wipe out the terrorists holed up in the unforgiving countryside, and Nicaragua-like support for the Taliban’s adversaries (especially the Northern Alliance).

The first weeks of the campaign showed just how difficult things could be. Although United States and British forces quickly destroyed obvious Taliban and Al Qaeda targets, they also hit several civilian sites. These accidents raised tensions within the international coalition the White House had painstakingly assembled in support of the operation, and especially with neighboring countries, such as Pakistan, that fear pro-Taliban sentiments within their own societies. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar escaped capture, perhaps by fleeing to remote caves and valleys. But they may also have taken refuge somewhere in the city of Khandahar, calculating that they would be safe from attack because of the American desire to avoid hitting civilians.

At the same time, United States and British forces initially refrained from attacking front-line Taliban troops around Kabul for fear that doing so would enable Northern Alliance forces to capture Afghanistan’s capital before Washington could assemble a new pan-Afghan government. But given the fractious nature of Afghani politics, both within and across ethnic groups, it was far from clear that the political campaign could ever catch up with the military one. When attacks on front-line Taliban forces finally began in the third week of the campaign, they did not produce immediate gains by Northern Alliance forces.

With luck, the military campaign against Afghanistan will end in a matter of weeks or months-with bin Laden and his network inside the country eliminated and the Taliban regime toppled from power. But achieving this set of objectives will require a major and prolonged undertaking with significant costs. And when it succeeds, the campaign against terrorism that Bush promised will only have begun. Just as the Korean War blunted communist expansion but did not end it, the administration will need to turn to a long, grinding, difficult and expensive campaign to disrupt, deter, and defeat terrorist operations elsewhere in the world. And while military force will continue to play some role in this effort, it will be a distinctly secondary role.

Maintaining the International Coalition

Ultimately, for the Bush administration to succeed in its campaign against terrorism it must push ahead on three other fronts. First, it must maintain the anti-terrorism coalition it has assembled in support of military operations in Afghanistan. The coalition is critical because the United States cannot defeat terrorism on its own: it needs other countries to share information about terrorist activities; impose tighter controls over illicit money, weapons and technology flows; isolate and pressure states that sponsor and support terrorists; and strike militarily if targets for action present themselves.

Unfortunately for the Bush administration, the anti-terrorism coalition is not robust. In the Persian Gulf war, more than two dozen countries, including several Arab nations, contributed troops to the fighting. In contrast, American and British forces carried out the initial military operations in Afghanistan alone. Four other countries-Australia, Canada, France, and Germany-have offered to contribute forces at some future point. But significantly, no troops from the Arab or Islamic world participated in the fighting. Only Oman and Pakistan allowed their territory to be used as staging areas for thrusts into Afghan territory. Saudi Arabia, America’s main ally in the gulf and host to a large United States Air Force strike force, refused to allow the United States to use its territory as a base for attack (although the air war is coordinated from the United States air control facility at the Prince Sultan airbase located in the middle of the Arabian desert).

The coalition’s lack of robustness reflects concerns among the coalition partners over what the campaign against terrorism means for them. Middle Eastern and Islamic governments are crucial to the coalition’s success, if only because so many terror groups originate on their soil. These governments fear, however, that joining with Washington will inflame anti-American sentiment in their own societies. Nor are Islamic countries the only ones unsure of how far to follow Washington. Although NATO invoked the organization’s Article V provision on mutual defense for the first time 24 hours after the September 11 attacks-ironically, turning an alliance designed to ensure a United States defense of Europe into one in which Europe would help defend the United States-some European countries worry that the United States will go too far in its fight against terrorism.

The issue most likely to fracture the coalition is Iraq. Before September 11, critics speculated that the Bush administration was spoiling for an opportunity to clear up unfinished business from the elder Bush’s presidency and would seek to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In the days immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, key administration officials argued for a broad military response that would include Saddam’s removal as one of its objectives. President Bush quickly ruled out that option. But in doing so, he embraced an “Afghanistan-first” approach-not the “Afghanistan-only” policy that many in Europe and elsewhere support.

Making Iraq the subject of military attack in a second phase of the campaign against terrorism poses problems for the Bush administration. The United States would almost certainly have to carry out the attack on its own and perhaps even without access to bases in the Persian Gulf area, making it far more difficult to win. Middle Eastern countries argue that attacking Iraq will inflame Arab public opinion and make bin Laden’s case that the United States is waging war against Islam. Russia, which has provided Washington with considerable intelligence cooperation since the crisis began, has good relations with Baghdad. Most European governments have long opposed Washington’s Iraqi policy. To make matters worse for the administration, these same constraints hold with respect to using military force against Iran or Syria, two countries that have actively sponsored and harbored terrorist groups like Lebanon-based Hezbollah.

Iraq, Iran, and Syria are not the only issues that could fracture the antiterrorism coalition. Should military operations in Afghanistan drag on, or result in large numbers of civilian deaths, the Bush administration could find itself under increasing pressure abroad to end the mission prematurely.

The challenge facing the Bush administration in the near term is to strike the proper balance between its short-term military objectives in Afghanistan and elsewhere and its longer term objective to sustain the international cooperation necessary to conduct a successful fight against global terrorism. In doing so, it will attempt to make the mission define the coalition, rather than letting the coalition define the mission. But it may then find itself confronting what every administration fears: what it wants to do, and perhaps should do, does not mesh with what it can do on its own. There may be times in the campaign against terrorism-as during the cold war itself-when going it alone is both necessary and desirable, but this should be the exception rather than the rule. Ultimately, the fight against global terrorism is one that the United States cannot win on its own.

Securing the Homeland

The second step Washington must take is to improve homeland security. Much of the focus will understandably be on spending more money on the problem, but the immediate challenge will be to ensure that money is spent wisely. And here the core challenge is to organize the government so that it is more effective in providing homeland security. As Dwight D. Eisenhower aptly noted, “although organization cannot make a genius out of an incompetent. . .disorganization can scarcely fail to result in inefficiency and can easily lead to disaster.”

President Bush moved swiftly to address the organizational issue. In a September 20 address to Congress, he announced that he would appoint Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge head of a new Office of Homeland Security in the White House. The executive order detailing Ridge’s duties also created a Homeland Security Council (HCS), modeled after the National Security Council. The HSC’s members will consist of the president, vice president, and key cabinet members and agency heads who will advise and assist the president on all aspects of homeland security.

Critics countered that a White House coordinator, even one who was a friend of the president, could not begin to meet the challenge facing the country. They argued that Ridge would have clout only if he were given control of agency budgets or was put in charge of a newly created, cabinet-level department for homeland security that consolidated existing government operations. Proposals along these lines work better in theory than in practice, however. Contrary to the critics, control of budgets or command of an agency is not necessary, or even sufficient, to exercise power in the federal government. National security advisers possess neither, yet no one doubts their authority.

Nor is centralization necessarily the proper prescription. Homeland security to a considerable extent requires decentralization-where the decisions made by people on the “front lines” matter as much if not more than what is decided in Washington. Customs agents need to know what to look for at the border, Coast Guard commanders need to know which ships to interdict, and Immigration and Naturalization Service officers need to know who is to be barred entry. Intelligence officers need to know which pieces of information culled from an overload of data fit together to enable pre-emptive actions. Hospital emergency-room doctors need to know what symptoms indicate possible exposure to a biological attack. Trying to cram these various agencies, and their diverse missions, into a single organization could make the government less effective in battling terrorism, not more.

Another problem with centralization proposals is the sheer number of federal agencies with a stake in counterterrorism-a number that ranges from 46 to 151, depending on who counting. Short of making the entire federal government a counterterrorism agency, that means that any consolidation must be selective. Some agencies and functions critical to the counterterrorism task cannot, by their very nature, be consolidated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation must remain in the Justice Department (where, incidentally, it often resists the attorney general’s direction). Further complicating matters is that formal consolidation does not guarantee effective integration. The Department of Energy is the classic cautionary lesson: it was created in 1977 to bring a variety of units under one umbrella, but a quarter of a century later its integration remains far from complete and its effectiveness often questioned. Finally, giving Ridge command of his own agency would likely destroy his ability to be an “honest broker” who could coordinate conflicting agency demands. Instead, he would, in the eyes of other agencies, simply become another bureaucratic competitor for money and influence.

Thus, the Bush approach of having Ridge coordinate domestic agencies much as the national security adviser coordinates foreign policy agencies makes more sense. His job certainly is more difficult in one key respect: the national security adviser must worry about getting coordinated information to the president in a timely fashion, whereas Ridge must concern himself mainly with how the agencies operate in the field. One factor working in his favor is that September 11 made counterterrorism a priority across all agencies. They not only know that it is a critical mission but also that it is the key to bigger budgets and more authority. The challenge facing Ridge is to forge the channels of formal and informal agency cooperation where they do not exist today-both among domestic agencies and between them and the national security apparatus. Within this coordination framework some agency consolidation may make sense (for example, combining agencies with closely related functions such as the Customs Service, Border Patrol and Coast Guard).

Even if Washington gets organizational matters right, it will not be enough. It must also take major steps to reduce the country’s vulnerability to attack. One obvious need is better control over America’s borders. Several of the September 11 hijackers were in the United States on expired student visas. Others entered even though they were suspected of ties to Al Qaeda. But to speak of better border enforcement is to acknowledge the difficulty of the task. Millions of people enter the United States each year, legally and illegally, and only a few have any interest in committing terrorist attacks. The United States-Canada border is 4,000 miles long and in most places is uncontrolled-the Border Patrol had only one officer for every 12 miles of border before September 11. America’s 2,000-mile-long border with Mexico is also notorious for its porosity.

Another obvious need is to make the country’s transportation networks more secure. Congress and the White House took initial steps in this direction immediately after September 11 by tightening aviation security. Much more remains to be done to make rail and vehicular traffic less vulnerable. Reports that Al Qaeda operatives had obtained licenses to drive trucks carrying hazardous materials points only to the beginning of the havoc that terrorists could wreak using ordinary ground transport. And the United States needs to improve the transportation system’s equivalent in cyberspace. The Bush administration took an initial organizational step in this direction by appointing a special adviser to the president for cybersecurity, but more must be done to persuade private actors to make their computer networks more secure. That raises the difficult question of who should pay for this “security tax” and whether protection will be best generated by government mandates or incentives.

Washington also needs to improve the ability of federal, state, and local governments to respond once a terrorist attack occurs-especially chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. The anthrax incidents that followed the September 11 attacks broke the taboo against using such weapons and possibly foreshadowed much more devastating future attacks. Congress and the Bush administration have already responded to this need to some extent, especially by deciding to stockpile additional vaccines and antibiotics for biological attacks using communicable diseases such as smallpox. But perhaps just as important, the initial anthrax attacks have made clear the importance of creating a more effective organizational structure for responding. The government’s initial response to the release of anthrax in Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s office was marked by inconsistent and conflicting statements about the extent of the danger. And federal credibility suffered when two postal workers died of pulmonary anthrax after government officials failed, regrettably though perhaps understandably, to anticipate that Daschle’s anthrax-laden letter might have contaminated mailrooms along the way.

Addressing Anti-Americanism Abroad

The campaign against terrorism must also address the sources of the intense anti-Americanism that now roils the Arab and Islamic world and forms the backdrop for Al Qaeda attacks. Hatred of the United States is not peculiar to the Middle East, nor does it translate directly into a desire to launch terrorist attacks. The relationship between the two is more complicated and indirect, akin in many ways to that between oxygen and fire. Oxygen does not cause fires-the spark must come from somewhere else-but fire requires oxygen to rage. In the same fashion, terrorists need anti-American sentiment. It provides them with recruits, and more important, it provides them with people willing to give aid and comfort.

But how can the United States cut off oxygen to the fires of anti-Americanism, especially when the justifiable military operation in Afghanistan and the support it has received from ruling elites in the Arab and Islamic world is likely to feed them? One strategy is to redouble United States efforts to limit and resolve conflicts around the world, especially the one between Israel and the Palestinians. Again, these conflicts did not cause the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They do, however, contribute to the anger that terrorists manipulate to their own, despicable ends.

The payoff from this strategy is questionable; it is easy to call for conflict resolution and hard to deliver it. A Middle East peace deal has been the holy grail of the last six presidential administrations. The escalating violence of the past twelve months has only made it more difficult to persuade Israelis and Palestinians to speak of concession and compromise. The conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir-an issue of great concern to Pakistani militants-has dragged on for more than half a century. New Delhi and Islamabad are not about to toss aside their longstanding differences simply because Washington thinks they should. Nor will being seen as actively pursuing peace necessarily do much to deflect Arab and Islamic anger. Former President Bill Clinton’s feverish and ultimately unsuccessfully effort in 2000 to broker a Middle East peace deal passed largely unnoticed in the Arab and Islamic world. The frequent complaints about United States policy seldom mention that Washington liberated Kuwait, saved hundreds of thousands of starving Somalis in the early 1990s, fought not one but two wars to protect Muslims in the Balkans, and provided more humanitarian aid than any other country to the people of Afghanistan.

Washington will also need to intensify its support for democracy and economic development-especially in areas like Central Asia and the Arab world, where repression and poverty provide breeding grounds for anti-American sentiments. Prosperous democratic countries are America’s best allies against terrorism. But again, this strategy is easier to urge than to carry out. One problem is that while Washington generally knows how to promote economic development, its success in promoting political development is spotty-witness the record in Vietnam, Somalia, and Haiti. The other problem is whether the United States can gracefully extract itself from its current political commitments in the Arab and Islamic world. Calls are likely to mount in the coming months for the United States to distance itself from Cairo and Riyadh unless they enact democratic reforms. Yet that policy could well endanger other important United States foreign policy objectives-not the least securing Egyptian and Saudi cooperation in the fight against terrorism. And it may produce regime change, though not necessarily one that comports with American values. To judge by the slogans of dissidents in Saudi Arabia, greater mass political participation will not deliver a Westminster-style democracy but rather an Iranian-style theocracy steeped in anti-Americanism.

The focus on big-picture policies like conflict resolution and political development should not obscure small-picture policies that take aim at anti-Americanism. A key here is a concerted public diplomacy campaign, much like the one the United States waged vigorously in the early years of the cold war. Then United States used the media and exchange programs to refute the lies of communist rulers. Today, as President Bush noted in his October 11 press conference, it needs to make a better case for America and to argue that bin Laden represents a perversion of Islam and threatens the stability of all civilizations.

Such a public diplomacy should use the public relations tools of the cold war, including radio broadcasts, magazines, and cultural centers. But the strategy should also adapt to the times. Bin Laden shrewdly used the Arab-language satellite television channel Al Jazeera to broadcast his hatred to Arabs around the world. Before September 11, however, American officials seldom sought to appear on Al Jazeera and other media outlets in the Arab world to present their case. And the United States needs to press its Middle Eastern allies to do their share in discrediting anti-Americanism. In recent years countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have bought social peace for themselves by ignoring and even encouraging growing hatred toward the United States. Criticizing President Hosni Mubarak on the streets of Cairo will get you arrested; criticizing America will get you applause. Washington needs to press these governments to confront dangerous distortions of the truth rather than to stoke the flames of anti-Americanism.

Hard Lessons

Because the fight against terrorism is a new cold war, some key lessons of the old one are worth remembering. Although the United States ultimately triumphed in that conflict, it made critical mistakes along the way that it must now seek to avoid.

Americans must begin by recognizing that military force alone is not enough; pretending that it is takes us down a dangerous road. The militarization of containment-which elevated military responses over all other tools of policy and culminated in the disastrous United States engagement in Vietnam-undermined the American public’s trust in its government. It also weakened the very alliances on which the United States depended to win its confrontation with the Soviet Union.

In calling on the nation to conduct a “war” against terrorism, the Bush administration has helped create the impression that America’s victory will be a military one. Again, there is a role for military force in today’s fight-to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan, compel an end to continued state-sponsorship of terrorism, and pre-empt any planned terrorist attacks. But the force of arms alone cannot defeat terrorism. The United States also needs better law enforcement, enhanced intelligence, focused diplomacy, and targeted sanctions to succeed.

Second, the United States must avoid creating new threats even as it seeks to defeat the current ones. The most immediate need is to end the cycle of violence in Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the United States armed the mujahideen to help them to defeat the Soviet invaders. When Moscow finally withdrew its troops in 1989, Washington walked away from the scene. We are now living with the consequences.

Washington must not repeat this mistake. The threat of further destabilization in Afghanistan is real. Nearly constant war for more than two decades-first against the Soviets and then among Afghanis-has created more than 1.5 million refugees and left many hundreds of thousands of others lacking sufficient food or adequate shelter. United States military operations will make matters worse, notwithstanding the efforts to drop relief supplies to those in need. Should Afghanistan’s unrest spread, the consequences for neighboring Pakistan-an internally divided and failing state in possession of nuclear weapons-could be severe. The last thing the United States wants or needs is for Islamic fundamentalist sympathizers of bin Laden to take over Pakistan.

United States military operations need to be followed by a concerted effort to stabilize Afghanistan if the United States hopes to discourage its future use as a terrorist haven. Fortunately, the Bush administration, despite a deep-seated hostility to nation-building, has signaled that it understands it must be engaged in Afghanistan. Even if the White House insists that it is not engaged in “nation building” but rather the “stabilization of a future government,” these efforts are necessary to increase the prospects for regional stability. The Bush administration wants the United Nations to play a major role in reconstructing Afghanistan, thereby spreading responsibility and perhaps making success more likely, but extensive American involvement is inescapable.

But avoiding policies that inadvertently create new threats also means not carelessly sacrificing other important foreign policy interests and values to serve the cause of defeating global terrorism. During the cold war, Washington made battling the spread of communism an all-consuming fight. Other priorities and interests were jettisoned when they conflicted with the objective of holding Soviet expansion at bay. As a result, the United States embraced unsavory characters (from Spain’s Franco to Zaire’s Mobutu and Chile’s Pinochet), engaged in highly questionable conduct (from assassinations to secret coups), wasted billions of dollars on dead-end interventions and superfluous weapon systems, and ignored a long list of other foreign policy challenges (from human rights to weapons proliferation to the environment).

The same risks exist today. To solicit support for its anti-terror coalition, the Bush administration has lifted sanctions imposed on Pakistan for testing nuclear weapons, begun to side rhetorically with Russia in its brutal fight in Chechnya, and sought assistance from key state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and Sudan. These and other steps may be needed to address a short-term emergency, but they may come at a hefty price in the long term.

Third, the United States must not needlessly sacrifice its civil liberties as it combats the terrorist threat. The willingness with which Washington and the country as a whole trampled on cherished civil liberties during the McCarthy years of the early cold war is too well known to merit repeating. Perhaps most remarkable about how Americans reacted in the first month after the September 11 attacks was how quickly they acknowledged the importance of not forfeiting America’s basic principles as the country met its new challenge. Politicians, the media, and the public emphasized the importance of tolerance. Civil libertarians challenged the merits of some of the administration’s proposed changes to law enforcement authority. The question that remains is whether this commitment to fundamental principles of liberty will withstand future terrorist attacks.

In the end, America’s campaign to restore the margin of security it enjoyed before September 11 will be neither easy nor quick. The defeat of terrorism will not be achieved or celebrated in one grand moment. There will be no V-E or V-J day, no ticker-tape parade along Fifth Avenue. America’s victory will be piecemeal. Every day the United States goes without a terrorist attack will be a triumph. But even that limited achievement requires waging the fight against terrorism with a clear memory that the last war demanded much more than just battlefield bravery. Otherwise, any victory will be tarnished by the new problems the United States will reap.

Michael Walzer on Terrorism and Just War

In the public lecture " Terrorism and Just War ," Michael Walzer , Professor Emeritus in the School of Social Science , explores multiple questions: First, what is wrong with terrorism? The query may seem easy, but it is often answered badly. Second, how is terrorism chosen––picked out of all the possible political strategies? And third, how are we to fight against terrorism? Or better, what are the moral limits that anti-terrorists ought to recognize? An article about his lecture appears below.

After twenty-seven years on the Faculty of the Institute’s School of Social Science, political philosopher Michael Walzer retired on July 1 to become Professor Emeritus. One of the most influential political theorists of our time,Walzer has played a critical role in the revival of a practical, issue-focused ethics and in the development of a pluralist approach to political and moral life. Thirty years ago, Walzer published Just and Unjust Wars , a seminal text on how we think about war and the moral issues surrounding military theory, war crimes, and the spoils of war. His other books include Arguing About War (2004) and On Toleration (1999). Next month, Yale University Press will publish Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory, a collection of some of his most important essays addressing crucial political ideas and questions of the day.

Walzer’s analysis of “ just war ” theory has taken on new urgency given the events that have arisen since 9/11. Last May, Walzer spoke at the Institute on “Terrorism and Just War,” in which he attempted to answer the following: What is wrong with terrorism? How is terrorism chosen— picked out of all the possible political strategies? How ought we to fight against terrorism? Or better, what are the moral limits that anti-terrorists ought to recognize?

Whether terrorism is wrong is a question that is often answered badly or at least inadequately, according to Walzer, who defines terrorism as the random killing of innocent people, in the hope of creating pervasive fear. “Randomness and innocence are the crucial elements in the definition,” said Walzer. “The critique of this kind of killing hangs especially on the idea of innocence, which is borrowed from ‘just war’ theory.”

By “innocence” Walzer means those noncombatants who are not materially engaged in the war effort. “These people are ‘innocent’ whatever their government and country are doing and whether or not they are in favor of what is being done,”Walzer explained. “The opposite of ‘innocent’ is not ‘guilty,’ but ‘engaged.’ Disengaged civilians are innocent without regard to their personal morality or politics.”

Terrorism attacks this notion of innocence and treats civilians as legitimate targets. The long-term purpose of the fear that terrorists inspire is the collective destruction, removal, or radical subordination of individuals as an associated group. “It is who you are, not what you are doing that makes you vulnerable; identity is liability,” said Walzer. “And that’s a connection that we are morally bound to resist.”

Implicit in the theory of just war is a theory of just peace, Walzer said, meaning noncombatant immunity protects not only individual noncombatants but also the group to which they belong. “Just as the destruction of the group cannot be a legitimate purpose of war,” observed Walzer, “so it cannot be a legitimate practice in war.”

Terrorism is a strategy that is chosen from a wide range of possible strategies, according to Walzer. “For many years, I have been insisting that when we think about terrorism we have to imagine a group of people sitting around a table, arguing about what ought to be done,” said Walzer. “When terrorists tell us that they had no choice, there was nothing else to do, terror was their last resort, we have to remind ourselves that there were people around the table arguing against each of those propositions.”

Once terrorists choose terrorism, the answer as to how we should fight them, said Walzer, “is simple in principle, though often difficult in practice: not terroristically. That means, without targeting innocent men and women.” The second answer, according to Walzer, is within the constraints of constitutional democracy. “Right-wing politicians often insist that it isn’t possible to live with either of these limits: they sit around the table and argue for prison camps like Guantanamo or the use of ‘harsh’ interrogation methods,” said Walzer. “We must be the people at the table who say ‘no.’”

In particular, saidWalzer, we must “insist at the outset that the people the terrorists claim to represent are not themselves complicit in the terror.” Just as the “terrorists collectivize the guilt of the other side, insisting that every single person is implicated in the wrongful policies of the government,” Walzer explained, “the anti-terrorists must collectivize in the opposite way, insisting on the innocence of the people generally.” Likewise, where terrorists dismiss the notion of collateral or secondary damage, setting out instead to inflict as much primary damage as possible, anti-terrorists have to “distinguish themselves by insisting on the category of collateral damage, and doing as little of it as they can. The rules of jus in bello apply: soldiers must aim only at military targets and they must minimize the harm they do to civilians.”

Once governments learn to kill, according to Walzer, they are likely to kill too much and too often so moral and political limits must be imposed. “The hard question in war is what degree of risk we are willing to accept for our own soldiers in order to reduce the risks we impose on enemy civilians,” saidWalzer. “When the police are chasing criminals in a zone of peace, we rightly give them no latitude for collateral damage. In the strongest sense, they must intend not to injure civilians—even if that makes their operation more difficult and even if the criminals get away. That seems to me roughly the right rule for people planning targeted killings.”

If terrorists use other people as shields, then anti-terrorists have to try to find their way around the shields, Walzer said, just as we would want the police to do. “When killing takes precedence over targeting, the antiterrorists look too much like the terrorists, and the moral distinction that justifies their ‘war’ is called into question,” said Walzer. “Similarly, whatever goes wrong in the ‘war’ against terrorism doesn’t affect the wrongness of terror. In fact, it confirms the wrongness: what we learn is that we have to condemn the murder of innocent people wherever it occurs, on both sides of the line.–– Kelly Devine Thomas , Editorial Director

Professor Emeritus Michael Walzer received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1961. He served as Assistant Professor of Politics at Princeton University from 1962 until 1966, when he was named Professor of Government at Harvard University. He left Harvard to join the Faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study in 1980 and was named UPS Foundation Professor in 1986. Coeditor of the political journal Dissent since 1975, Walzer writes frequently about war and terrorism and is currently addressing questions of pluralism, ethnicity, cultural rights, and multiculturalism. He continues to work on volumes three and four of a landmark collaborative project focused on the history of Jewish political thought, which is being published by Yale University Press.

Related Content

From a War on Terrorism to Global Security Law

What Rules Should Govern Drones and the “War” on Terrorism?

The Idea of Wartime

COMPASS Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people

War and terrorism.

That until the basic human rights are equally Guaranteed to all, without regard to race Dis a war That until that day The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship Rule of international morality Will remain in but a fleeting illusion To be pursued, but never attained Now everywhere is war, war. Bob Marley 1

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations   Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter

• War, terrorism and human rights

Acts of war or terrorism challenge the human rights framework almost to the point where it seems to collapse. It is hard to see any place for human rights when human life is deliberately targeted, or where it is seen as "collateral damage" in the course of mass bombing campaigns, which either directly or indirectly lead to sickness, disease, suffering, destruction of homes, and death. In times of war, particularly wars which last for years on end, every human right appears to be affected adversely. Health systems break down, education suffers, and home, work, supplies of food and water, the legal system, freedom of the press and free speech, and accountability for abuses by the state – or by the "enemy" state – all see restrictions, if they do not disappear completely. However poor protections were in peacetime, the rights of children, women, minority groups and refugees will almost certainly be poorer still in times of war.

The protection offered by the human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict 2 . International Court of Justice

War and terrorism are indeed a breakdown of humanity, acts which seem to undermine and sideline the values at the heart of human rights – and the legal system which protects them. However, even in the midst of such a breakdown, human rights continue to operate, albeit in a weakened state, and although they cannot fix all evils, they can provide some minimal protection and some hope for justice.

Wars and national emergencies allow for states to "derogate" from – or temporarily put aside – some of their human rights commitments. However, certain human rights, such as the right to life or the right to be free from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment can never be put aside. These are regarded as so important and so fundamental that they should be observed even when a state's security is at risk.

A judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2011 3 (Al-Skeini and Others v. the UK) found that the United Kingdom had been in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, providing for the right to life, in its treatment of a number of civilians while carrying out security operations in Basra, Iraq. The case was the first of its kind in finding that the European Convention applied in times of war, in foreign territories, and over the whole region for which a signatory to the Convention had effective control. Other cases have found that the treatment given to prisoners in detention camps amounted to torture.

• When is a war a war?

In many ways war and terrorism are very similar. Both involve acts of extreme violence, both are motivated by political, ideological or strategic ends, and both are inflicted by one group of individuals against another. The consequences of each are terrible for members of the population – whether intended or not. War tends to be more widespread and the destruction is likely to be more devastating because a war is often waged by states with armies and huge arsenals of weapons at their disposal. Terrorist groups rarely have the professional or financial resources possessed by states.

Apart from the methods used and the extent of the violence, however, war and terrorism are also seen differently by international law. The differences are not always clear-cut and even experts may disagree about whether a violent campaign counts as terrorism, civil war, insurgency, self-defence, legitimate self-determination, or something else.

Question: In the 20th century, Chechens, Abkhaz, Kurds, Palestinians and Irish Nationalists have all seen themselves as fighting a war against a colonising nation. Nation states have always regarded the actions of such groups as terrorism. How can we decide which is the right term?

Problems in defining war

Wars are sometimes defined by the fact that they take place between nation states: but where does that leave civil war, or the so-called "War on Terrorism"? Sometimes a formal declaration of war is taken as defining an act of war, but that excludes low-level bombing campaigns which take place over a number of years, such as the United States' attacks on the borders of Pakistan or in the no-fly zones declared over Iraq in the 1990s.

You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake. Jeanette Rankin 4

Should a definition of war include economic or trade wars, both of which may be enormously destructive in terms of human life? Are sanctions a form of war? UNICEF estimated that the sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s led to the deaths of over half a million children (and many adults).

Question: Carl Von Clausewitz, a Prussian military general, defined war as follows: "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." Do you agree with this as a definition?

• What is terrorism?

Terrorism is intimidation with a purpose: the terror is meant to cause others to do things they would not otherwise do. Igor Primoratz

Terrorism is another of those terms that everyone seems ready to use, but no-one can agree on an exact definition. Even the experts continue to argue about the way the term should be applied, and there are said to be over a hundred different definitions of terrorism, not one of which is universally accepted.

This lack of agreement has very practical consequences: to take just one example, the UN has been unable to adopt a convention against terrorism, despite trying for over 60 years to do so, because its member states cannot agree on how to define the term. The UN General Assembly tends to use the following in its pronouncements on terrorism:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." 5

Ancient Terrorists The three most famous "terrorist" groups existing before the 18th century were religiously inspired, (and all had names which passed into the English language as words associated with their acts: fanatics are known as zealots, assassins are murderers, and thugs are violent or brutish individuals).

• The Sicarii, otherwise known as the Zealots, were a Jewish movement in the 1st century who tried to expel the Romans from Palestine. They used ruthless methods, including mingling in crowds at public gatherings and stabbing their victim before disappearing back into the crowd.
• The Assassins were a medieval Shia Muslim sect who aimed to purify Islam, and targeted prominent religious leaders, using similar methods to the Sicarii in order to gain publicity.
• The Thugi (Thuggee) were an Indian group sometimes classified as a cult or sect, which operated over the course of about 600 years, brutally murdering travellers by strangulation, and according to very specific rules. They are the longest lasting such group, and were eliminated in the 19th century largely as a result of recruiting informants from within the group.

Question: Should the threat to use a nuclear bomb be classed as terrorism?

Terrorism: a classification

Some of the following criteria have been seen as important in deciding whether an act is one of "terrorism". Be aware that the experts do not all agree!

• The act is politically inspired

An act of terrorism normally has an end goal which is "bigger", and more strategic than the immediate effect of the act. For example, a bomb attack on civilians is meant to change public opinion in order to put pressure on the government.

• The act must involve violence or the threat of violence.

Some think that the mere threat of violence, if genuinely believed, may also be an act of terrorism, because it causes fear among those at whom it is directed, and can be used for political ends.

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime A.P. Schmid, in a 1991 report to the UN Crime Branch

• An act of terrorism is designed to have a strong psychological impact.

Terrorist acts are often said to be arbitrary or random in nature, but in fact groups tend to select targets carefully in order to provoke the maximum reaction, and also, where possible, to strike at symbols of the regime.

• Terrorism is the act of sub-state groups, not states.

This is probably the most widely disputed among different observers and experts. Nation states tend to use this as the essence of a terrorist act, but if we limit terrorist acts to sub-state groups, then we have already decided that a violent act carried out by a state cannot be terrorism, however terrible it may be!

• Terrorism involves deliberately targeting civilians.

This criterion is also disputed by many experts, since it rules out the possibility of attacks against military personnel or other state officials such as politicians or the police being classified as terrorist attacks.

Question: Can you define terrorism? How would you distinguish acts of terrorism from other forms of violence?

Can states commit terrorism?

I am convinced that the best – the only – strategy to isolate and defeat terrorism is by respecting human rights, fostering social justice, enhancing democracy and upholding the primacy of the rule of law. Sergio Vieira de Mello

The word terrorism was first used to describe the "Regime de la Terreur" (the Reign of Terror) in France in the last decade of the 18th century, and in particular, the period from 1793-1794 under Maximilien Robespierre. These years were characterised by the use of violent methods of repression, including mass executions authorised by the Revolutionary Tribunal, a court set up to try political offenders. Towards the end of this era in particular, people were often sentenced only on the basis of suspicion and without any pretence at a fair trial. All of the above led to a general atmosphere of fear: a state in which people could no longer feel secure from the threat of arbitrary violence. From such beginnings, the concept of terrorism entered the vocabulary.

During the 19th century, the term terrorism came to be associated more with groups working within a state to overthrow it, and less with systems of state terror. Revolutionary groups throughout Europe often resorted to violence in order to overthrow rulers or state structures that they saw as repressive or unjust. The most favoured technique was generally assassination and among the "successes" were the assassination of a Russian tsar, a French president, an Austro-Hungarian empress and an Italian king.

The 20th century, the most terrible in terms both of numbers of victims and perhaps in terms of the cruelty and inhumanity of methods, saw both governments and sub-state groups turning to violence in pursuit of their goals. The actors and initiators in this series of horrible dramas have included state officials, as well as sub-state groups. However, by the end of the century, it was almost exclusively the latter that were termed terrorist groups. The sub-state groups are often armed, funded and even trained by other states: does that make the states which prepare and support these groups terrorist states?

Question: Do you think state actions should be termed "terrorist" actions if they cause terror in the population?

• The use of force in international law

In war, truth is the first casualty. Aeschylus

International law covers a number of different cases involving the use of force by states. Sometimes – as in the quote at the start of the chapter – the law applies to cases when one state uses or threatens force against another state. Such cases are normally classed as wars, and are regulated by the UN Charter and the Security Council. Sometimes the law applies to the way force is used in the course of war – whether legal or illegal. This is generally the area of international humanitarian law. Even while a war is taking place, however, human rights law continues to function, although for certain rights, restrictions by the state may be more permissible than they would be in peace time.

War in international law

Un charter, kellogg-briand treaty.

The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. From the Kellogg-Briand Pact (also known as the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, or the Pact of Paris)

As the most grandiose act in a series of peacekeeping efforts after the First World War , the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed by 15 states in 1928, and later on by 47 others. Although the Treaty did not prevent later military actions between signatories, nor the eruption of the Second World War, it was important because it established a basis for the idea of "crimes against peace" and thus played a central role at the Nuremberg Trials. According to the Nuremberg (or Nürnberg) Principles 6 , crimes against peace include the "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties".

The solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such a war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war [...] are committing a crime in so doing. From the Nuremberg Judgment

After the Nuremberg Trials, the Charter of the United Nations became the key international treaty regulating member states' use of force against each other. The Charter does not forbid war completely: it allows, in certain tightly defined circumstances, states to engage in war where this is necessary for them to defend themselves. Even such wars of self-defence, however, must be approved by the UN Security Council, except in rare cases where immediate action is necessary and there is insufficient time for the Security Council to meet.

Responsibility to protect (R2P)

In recent years, some countries have pushed for the idea that where people are suffering grave abuses at the hands of a state – for example, genocide is threatened – the UN should have the power, and the obligation, to step in to protect the people. This has included the possibility of military action against the state responsible. The genocide in Rwanda, where the international community failed to intervene, sparked the debate. The war in Kosovo was seen as one of the first examples of "humanitarian intervention" by military means and in 2011, NATO's military intervention in Libya was based on a similar principle.

Genocide is an act "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) 7

The idea of R2P is not uncontroversial. Genocide and the other acts included are serious and terrible acts. However, critics have argued that R2P may be used as a pretext and some military interventions have not really been based on the likelihood of "mass atrocity crimes" but have been more political in nature. Many mass atrocity crimes do not appear to evoke R2P, and some of those where intervention has taken place have seemed less serious in terms of the dangers people face. Even the Responsibility to Protect involves the idea that intervening states should explore all other possible means before undertaking military action. It is not always clear that these avenues have been explored. Finally, people have questioned whether war, which is itself a terrible and destructive act, is an appropriate means of putting an end to suffering. Can the bombing of a country, with all that it entails, be the best way to promote peace and resolve what is often a much more deep-seated conflict between two sides?  

Question: Can war be the "best of two evils"?

The laws of war

Even in times of war, there are certain laws which impose limits on the actions of the warring parties, for example, concerning the treatment of prisoners of war, targeting civilian populations and medical care for the wounded. The "laws of warfare" are mostly governed by international humanitarian law, otherwise known as the Geneva Conventions.

The first Geneva Convention The first of the Geneva Conventions was signed in 1864. It was created after Henry Dunant, a citizen of Geneva, witnessed a ferocious battle at Solferino in Italy in 1859. He was appalled by the lack of help for the wounded, who were left to die on the battlefield, and proposed an international treaty which would recognise a neutral agency to provide humanitarian aid in times of war. His proposals led to what later became the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and also to the first Geneva Convention. The Convention made provisions for the humane and dignified treatment of those no longer engaged in the battle, regardless of whose side they were on.

The Geneva Conventions continued to be developed up to 1949, when the fourth Geneva Convention was adopted and the previous three were revised and expanded. Later, three amendment protocols were added. These Conventions have been ratified in whole or in part by 194 countries. In addition to the Geneva Conventions, there are other standards in international humanitarian law, including the Hague Conventions and a range of international treaties on the weapons that can and cannot be used in warfare. Throughout the 1990s, a coalition of NGOs successfully lobbied for an international ban on the production and use of landmines. The Ottawa Treaty or the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention was adopted in 1997 and has since been ratified by 157 states worldwide. The Coalition continues to campaign for a treaty which bans the use of cluster bombs, which, just like landmines, leave a trail of destruction even once a war has ended.

The most serious violations of international humanitarian law are considered to be war crimes. War crimes are such serious offences that they are held to be criminal acts for which individuals can be held accountable.

War crimes Based on the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), war crimes (in the Convention: "grave breaches") include: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial [...], taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." 9

Other acts for which individuals can be held responsible include crimes against humanity, mass murder and genocide. Crimes against humanity are severe crimes committed against a civilian population, such as murder, rape, torture, enslavement and deportation. 

The first trials of individuals for such crimes were the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of Nazi and Japanese political and military leaders in the aftermath of the Second World War. Since then, a number of ad hoc tribunals have been set up, for example to deal with the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Lebanon and Sierra Leone. Other conflicts, many equally serious, have not seen special tribunals set up, which has sometimes provoked criticism that the decision on whether to do so is influenced by political factors.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was set up by the UN to prosecute serious crimes committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia and to try their perpetrators. The majority of those indicted have been Serbs and this has led to accusations of bias from some observers. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticised the ICTY for failing to investigate a number of serious charges against the NATO forces, including the bombing of Serbian State Television and a railway bridge when it was evident that civilians had been struck. Amnesty's report into violations of humanitarian law recorded that "NATO failed to take necessary precautions to minimize civilian casualties". 10

Question: War Tribunals – including the Nuremberg Trials – are sometimes seen as "victor's justice". Do you think both sides in a war should be judged according to the same principles?

[T]hose who export war ought to see to the parallel export of guarantees against the atrocities of war. Judge Giovanni Bonello, in the European Court of Human Rights' judgment on Al-Skeini and Others v. UK 11

The International Criminal Court

The second half of the 20th century saw a movement to set up a permanent court to deal with the worst crimes against humanity. In 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted, which provided the legal basis for the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC came into being in July 2002 and sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC is the first permanent international court and has been set up to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression. Even though the Rome Statute is ratified by states, the ICC prosecutes individuals who are responsible for crimes, not the states. As of 1 January 2012, 119 countries are state parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, including nearly all of Europe, but excluding for example the United States, India, China and Russia. The court has opened investigations into conflicts in Sudan, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and Libya.

Question: Can you think of any individuals who are responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or the crime of aggression that should be taken before the International Criminal Court?

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. Robert Jackson, Chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg

Terrorism in international law

Drawing up international legislation to deal with terrorism has been beset with problems, mainly because of the difficulty of reaching a common definition of the term. The Council of Europe has produced a set of guidelines 12 on where the line can be drawn in order not to violate other international treaties or agreements.

The guidelines contain the following key points:

• Respect for human rights and the rule of law – and prohibition of discrimination.
• Absolute prohibition of torture: "The use of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, is absolutely prohibited, in all circumstances …"
• The collection and processing of personal data must be lawful and proportionate to the stated aim.
• Measures which interfere with privacy must be provided for by law.
• Anyone suspected of terrorist activities may only be arrested if there are reasonable suspicions and he/she must be informed of those reasons.
• A person suspected of terrorist activities has the right to a fair hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent, impartial tribunal established by law. They benefit from the presumption of innocence.

All measures taken by States to fight terrorism must respect human rights and the principle of the rule of law, while excluding any form of arbitrariness, as well as any discriminatory or racist treatment. Council of Europe Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism

• "A person deprived of his/her liberty for terrorist activities must in all circumstances be treated with due respect for human dignity."
• "The extradition of a person to a country where he/she risks being sentenced to the death penalty or risks being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment may not be granted."
• "States may never […] derogate from the right to life as guaranteed by these international instruments, from the prohibition against torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, from the principle of legality of sentences and of measures, nor from the ban on the retrospective effect of criminal law."

Human rights and terrorism

There are two key areas where the concepts of human rights and terrorism may come into conflict: the first, most obviously, concerns an act of terrorism itself; the second concerns measures that may be taken by official organs in the process of trying to counter terrorism.

Irrespective of the way that terrorism is defined and irrespective of the reasons behind it or the motivation for engaging in it, the act of terrorising members of the population constitutes a violation of their dignity and right to personal security, in the best case, and a violation of the right to life, in the worst. In terms of human rights law, the matter is less simple since human rights law has mostly been drawn up to protect individuals from infringements on their rights and liberty from the side of governments. There is no possibility, for example, to take a terrorist group to the European Court of Human Rights!

However, governments do possess certain obligations: firstly, in terms of protecting citizens from attacks on their personal security; secondly, in terms of compensating victims who may have suffered from terrorist attacks; and thirdly, of course, in terms of not engaging in terrorism themselves.

Question: Do you think that a country which exports arms which are then used against civilians should be held accountable for the use to which the weapons are put? Do you know which groups or countries your government sells arms to?

A number of human rights issues arise in connection with the fight against terrorism – and there is almost bound to be a continuing tension between the measures a government regards as necessary to take in order to protect the populace and the rights it may need to limit in order to do so.

Secret renditions A report written by Dick Marty for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2006 13 looked at the assistance given by various European countries to the United States of America in "rendering" suspected terrorists to countries where they faced torture. The report found that 7 countries – Sweden, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Britain, Italy, Macedonia, Germany and Turkey – could be held responsible for "violations of the rights of specific persons" because they had knowingly assisted in a programme which resulted in individuals being held without trial, often for a number of years and being subjected to torture. Other countries, including Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Romania and Poland were also accused of "collusion" with the United States. Marty said he had evidence to show that Romania and Poland were detainee drop-off points near to secret detention centres.

It is now more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier in modern conflict. Major General Patrick Cammaert, 2008 (former UN Peacekeeping Operation commander in DR Congo)

• The victims of conflict

War and terrorism have a terrible and long-lasting impact on huge numbers of people. Deaths at the time of conflict are just one element: psychological trauma, collapse of the physical and economic infrastructure, displacement of people, injury, disease, lack of food, water or energy supplies and a breakdown of trust and normal human relations are some of the others. The impact can last for generations. With the decline in inter-state wars and the rise in civil wars and new methods of warfare, civilian populations are now at more risk and suffer higher casualties than professional soldiers. UN Women estimate that in contemporary conflicts as many as 90% of casualties are civilians, the majority of whom are women and children 14 . Rape and sexual violence are used as a weapon of war, as a tactic to humiliate, dominate and instil fear in communities. 

Women in armed conflicts In October 2000, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 to address the issues faced by women in armed conflict. The Resolution calls for their participation at all levels of decision making on conflict resolution and peace building. Four further resolutions have since been adopted by the Security Council. The five documents focus on three key goals: - Strengthening women's participation in decision making - Ending sexual violence and impunity - Providing an accountability system

Child soldiers

A particularly sobering development in warfare, particularly over the past ten years, is the use of children as soldiers in brutal conflicts. Child soldiers exist in all regions of the world and participate in most conflicts. However, the problem is especially critical in Africa, where children as young as nine have taken part in armed conflict. Most child soldiers are between the ages of 14 and 18. Child soldiers are recruited by both rebel groups and government forces.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires state parties to ensure that children under the age of 15 do not take part in hostilities. However, this is felt by many to be too low, and initiatives have been made to raise the minimum to 18 years old. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (with 143 state parties as of November 2011) raised the minimum age to 18.

European countries do not recruit under the age of 17 and do not send soldiers into combat under the age of 18. The UK has the lowest recruitment age in Europe – 16 years old, although this is nominally for training purposes only. The UK has been widely criticised for this by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In Chechnya, children under 18 have reportedly served in rebel forces.

• Youth, war and terrorism

In 2011, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace-building work".

Young people are directly concerned by war in many ways. In addition to the case of child soldiers mentioned above, young people constitute the vast majority of soldiers, especially in countries and times of national military service. It can therefore be said that young people are in the front line of the victims of war. In the case of professionalised armies, it is often young people from underprivileged social backgrounds who are enlisted into armed forces, because they have fewer opportunities of earning a decent living.

What have I done? … Someone has lost her husband, someone else a father, someone a child, someone an unborn infant ... . What's this debris of the corpses? Are these marks of victory or defeat? Are these vultures, crows, eagles the messengers of death or evil? Ashoka

Young people are often targeted by terrorist groups as possible agents of terrorist attacks, regardless of the motivation, as exemplified by the attacks in London in 2005. This is often attributed to the identity-searching that some young people experience and that makes them especially vulnerable to extremist ideas and ideals. Young people may also be specifically targeted by terrorist attacks, as exemplified by the attacks in Norway in 2011 and by attacks on schools in the Caucasus.

Youth organisations have traditionally played an important role in raising awareness about the non-sense of war and the costs it imposes on young people. Several reconciliation and exchange programmes were set up after the carnages of the First World War; many of them still exist today, such as Service Civil International or the Christian Movement for Peace / Youth Action for Peace which promote international voluntary youth projects and workcamps.

The European Bureau of Conscience Objection works for the recognition of the right to conscience objection to military service – the right to refuse to kill – in Europe and beyond.

War Resisters International is an international movement created in 1921 under the credo: "War is a crime against humanity. I am therefore determined not to support any kind of war, and to strive for the removal of all causes of war". WRI promotes non-violence and reconciliation and supports conscience objectors and asylum seekers in cases of draft evasion or desertion.

1 Bob Marley in the song "War", adapted from Ethiopian Emperor H.I.M. Haile Selassie's address to the United Nations on October 1963 2  Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, para. 106. 3 Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber (Application no. 55721/07), 7 July 2011; http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1093.html 4 Jeanette Rankin was the first woman to enter U.S. House of Representative in 1917 5 1994 United Nations Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism annex to UN General Assembly resolution 49/60 , "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism", of December 9, 1994 6 Document A/CN.4/L.2, Text of the Nürnberg Principles Adopted by the International Law Commission, Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission: 1950,vol. II; http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l2.pdf   7 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htm 8 http://www.physiciansforhumanrights.org/blog/us-ban-landmines-facts.html    9 Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument 10 NATO/Federal Republic of Yugoslavia "Collateral Damage" or Unlawful Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force, Amnesty International - Report - EUR 70/18/00, June 2000; http://www.grip.org/bdg/g1802.html    11 See Endnote 2 above 12 Human rights and the fight  against terrorism, The Council of Europe Guidelines, 2005; http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/176C046F-C0E6-423C-A039-F66D90CC6031/0/LignesDirectrices_EN.pdf 13 Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states,  Parliamentary Assembly, Doc. 10957, 12 June 2006 http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc06/edoc10957.pdf 14 http://www.womenwarpeace.org/

Download Compass  

• 12 February Red Hand Day
• 24 April Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide
• 8-9 May Remembrance and Reconciliation for Those Who Lost Their Lives during the Second World War
• 15 May International Day of Conscientious Objection
• 21 May World Anti-Terrorism Day
• 29 May International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers
• 6 August Hiroshima Day
• 21 September International Day of Peace
• 6 November International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

How Terrorism Is Wrong: Morality and Political Violence

Virginia Held, How Terrorism Is Wrong: Morality and Political Violence , Oxford University Press, 2008, 205pp., $45.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780195329599.

Reviewed by Igor Primoratz, University of Melbourne

This is a book on terrorism and political violence more generally, written by a philosopher and accordingly focusing on conceptual and moral, rather than empirical or historical, questions. The book is meant for fellow philosophers and political theorists, but it is written clearly and without philosophical jargon, and will be accessible, and of much interest, to the general reader too.

While political violence is a traditional topic in political and moral philosophy, terrorism -- the type of political violence generally considered most difficult to defend -- was not much discussed before the attacks in the US on 11 September 2001. Virginia Held is one of the few philosophers who gave it sustained attention before it became a fashionable topic. The present book is a collection of seven essays she has published over the last twenty-odd years and one previously unpublished paper. Some essays discuss terrorism or political violence generally, while others look into such related issues as the ways the media deals with political violence, or collective responsibility for ethnic hatred and violence. There is also an essay on the methods of moral inquiry.

In her approach to moral questions, Held combines consequentialism, deontological ethics and the ethics of care. The relevance of the last approach to discussing issues of political violence is rather limited, and Held's position on terrorism and political violence is grounded in consequentialist and deontological considerations of a more traditional type. So is just war theory, but Held's views are not a version of that theory. Indeed, she doubts that just war theory can be of much help in understanding and judging contemporary armed conflicts.

The title of the book might be thought somewhat misleading, as Held does not so much seek to show how terrorism is wrong as how it can be right. To be sure, a title highlighting the latter prospect probably would not have been a good idea in the current atmosphere of the "war on terror." This "war" is both driven and defended by a "moral clarity" claimed by leaders of some major powers and by many analysts and commentators. Held rightly challenges this facile "moral clarity," according to which all terrorism is morally the same, clearly distinct from war, and a monopoly of insurgents, who are both amoral and utterly irrational and fanatical, and therefore never to be engaged with in dialogue or negotiation. She goes on to argue that we should not adopt a sweeping moral rejection of all terrorism, whatever the cause it serves, the circumstances in which it does so, and the consequences of refraining from it; that terrorism is not "uniquely atrocious"; and that it is not necessarily morally worse than war.

The scope and import of any moral assessment of terrorism depends on just what is meant by "terrorism". Accordingly, Held discusses at some length the question of how the term should be defined. The usage over the two centuries or so since the term entered political and moral discourse in the West has been notoriously confusing, fraught with moral emotions and political passions, and plagued by relativism and double standards. It is in such cases that philosophy can demonstrate its relevance to public debates by clarifying central concepts and main positions, spotting missteps in argument, exposing prejudice and double standards, and thus facilitating more rational and discerning moral deliberation and choice. Most definitions of terrorism crafted by philosophers acknowledge the two traits that make up the core concept underlining all shifts in descriptive and evaluative meaning: terrorism is violence aiming at intimidation (fear, terror). Beyond this, philosophers tend to disagree, most importantly on whether terrorism is violence against civilians (non-combatants, innocent people), or can also target members of the military and security services and highly placed government officials. This is the question of a narrow vs. wide definition. A wide definition is in line with common use over two centuries, whereas a narrow definition is revisionary. Yet a narrow definition may be more appropriate in the context of moral assessment of violence and terrorism. Surely there is a considerable moral difference between planting a bomb in an office of (what is considered) an extremely oppressive government and killing a number of its officials, and planting a bomb in a coffee shop and killing a number of common citizens.

Held prefers a wide definition, for reasons I do not find convincing. One is common use. Held points out that the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, or much Palestinian violence directed at Israeli soldiers, would not count as terrorism on a narrow definition, while the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima would, and finds these implications unacceptable. To me, they seem just right. She quotes Walter Laqueur's remark that "most terrorist groups in the contemporary world have been attacking the military, the police, and the civilian population" (p. 55) as showing the inadequacy of a narrow definition. But surely the fact that a group has engaged in terrorism to an extent sufficient to consider it a terrorist group does not turn every act of political violence committed by the group into an act of terrorism. Finally, Held rejects narrow definitions on the ground that "it is not at all clear who the 'innocent' are as distinct from the 'legitimate' targets. We can perhaps agree that small children are innocent, but beyond this, there is little moral clarity" (pp. 19-20). Yet even if only "small children" were morally protected against violence that would be a weighty consideration, as indiscriminate political violence against civilians or common citizens is bound to kill and maim children too. Moreover, there are other classes of civilians that are just as clearly innocent in the relevant sense, i.e. innocent of the (alleged) injustice or oppression: opponents of the government, those too old or infirm to take part in political life, or those inculpably ignorant of the immorality of their government's policies.

The book offers two somewhat different definitions of terrorism: as "political violence that usually spreads fear beyond those attacked" and "perhaps more than anything else … resembles small-scale war" (p. 21), and as political violence employed with "the intention either to spread fear or to harm non-combatants" (p. 76). Both definitions run together war and terrorism, and imply that an act of war proper, i.e. one aimed at a legitimate military target, counts as terrorism. For, as Trotsky pointed out in his defense of the "red terror", "war … is founded upon intimidation… . [It] destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will" ( Terrorism and Communism , Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1961, p. 58). Held accepts this implication of her position; I find it problematic.

Philosophers working with a wide definition of terrorism usually distinguish terrorism that targets the military and high government officials and terrorism that attacks common citizens, and argue that the former type of terrorism can be morally justified in certain circumstances, while the latter type is never, or almost never, justified. Held does not take this line. Her book offers two different justifications of terrorist violence, and both apply to the latter as well as the former kind of terrorism.

The first is in terms of the responsibility of citizens in a democracy for what their government does on their behalf. This justification is only suggested at several points in the book and is never developed and defended from likely objections. Held does not make it clear whether she sees common citizens as proper objects of terrorist violence because, as voters, they authorize the government's actions and policies (p. 20), or on account of various types and degrees of support they give the government (pp. 56, 78). Both these lines of argument are open to serious queries.

Held's second justification of terrorism, presented in chapter 4 )“Terrorism, Rights, and Political Goals”) is carefully spelled out. It focuses on the issue of human rights. When human rights of a person or group are not respected, what may we do in order to ensure that they are? On one view, known as consequentialism of rights, if the only way to ensure respect of a certain right of A and B is to infringe on the same right of C, we will be justified in doing so. Held does not accept such trade-offs in rights with the aim of maximizing their respect. But she points out that rights sometimes come into conflict, whether directly or indirectly. When that happens, we cannot avoid comparing the rights involved in terms of their stringency and making certain choices. That applies to the case of terrorism too. Terrorism violates some human rights of its victims. But its advocates claim that in certain circumstances a limited use of terrorism is the only way of bringing about a society in which the human rights of all will be respected.

Even when that is so, it is not enough to make resort to terrorism justified. But it will be justified if an additional condition is met: that of distributive justice. If there is a society where the human rights of a part of the population are respected, while the same rights of another part of the population are being violated, and if the only way of putting an end to that and bringing about a society in which human rights of all are respected is a limited use of terrorism, and finally, if terrorism is directed against members of the first group, which until now has been privileged as far as respect of human rights is concerned -- then terrorism will be morally justified. This is an argument of distributive justice, brought to bear on the problem of violations of human rights. It is more just to equalize the violations of human rights in a stage of transition to a society where the rights of all are respected, than to allow the group which has already suffered large-scale violations of human rights to suffer more such violations (assuming that in both cases we are dealing with violations of the same, or equally stringent, human rights). Human rights of many are going to be violated in any case. "If we must have rights violations, a more equitable distribution of such violations is better than a less equitable one" (p. 88).

This is an original, deontological cum consequentialist justification of terrorism. Neither the indispensable contribution of terrorism to bringing about equal respect of human rights of all nor the justice in the distribution of violations of such rights in the transition stage is, in itself, enough to justify its use. Each is necessary, and jointly the two are sufficient for its justification. Obviously, a critique that reduces Held's position to either of its prongs falls short of the mark. So does the objection that terrorism is as a matter of fact highly unlikely ever to help usher in a better, more just society. If so, that tells against terrorism, rather than against Held's (or any other) stringent moral requirements for a morally defensible recourse to it.

Another objection is that in allowing for sacrificing such basic human rights as the right to life and to bodily security of individual victims of terrorism for the sake of a more just distribution of violations of the same rights within a group in the course of transition to a stage where these rights will be respected throughout that group, Held adopts a collectivistic position that offends against the principles of separateness of persons and respect for persons. In response, Held argues that

to fail to achieve a more just distribution of violations of rights (through the use of terrorism if that is the only means available) is to fail to recognize that those whose rights are already not fairly respected are individuals in their own right, not merely members of a group … whose rights can be ignored. … Arguments for achieving a just distribution of rights violations need not be arguments … that are more than incidentally about groups. They can be arguments about individuals' rights to basic fairness. (pp. 89-90)

Still, a common citizen belonging to the relatively privileged section of the population has done nothing to forfeit her right to life. If she is killed by a terrorist seeking to make the distribution of right to life violations in the entire population more just, her right to life is violated for reasons to do with the group: for the sake of more justice within the group. This has nothing to do with her sins of commission or omission, and in this sense Held's is a collectivistic argument -- and an argument that I, for one, do not find convincing. Held argues that, if we fail to resort to terrorism in the circumstances described in her argument, we thereby fail to recognize that individuals belonging to the disadvantaged section of the population "are individuals in their own right," rather than merely members of a group whose human rights can be ignored. This argument is predicated on moral equivalence of acts and omissions, and on ascription of negative responsibility. This, too, I find problematic. We do not fail to respect the right to life of disadvantaged individuals when we fail to kill or maim other individuals, personally innocent of the plight of the former. The disadvantaged individuals do not have a right that we should engage in terrorism in their behalf, and we do not have a duty to do that. Indeed, I believe we have a duty not to do that.

Whether Held's two-prong justification of terrorism can be successfully defended against this and other possible objections or not, it remains an original, complex, and highly important position on the morality of terrorism. The essay presenting it is the centerpiece of Held's book and her most valuable contribution to the discussion of terrorism as far as fellow philosophers are concerned. The general reader will find much of interest in all the essays in this book. In the wider context of public debate about terrorism and the "war" against it, Held provides a strong antidote to the simplistic deliverances of "moral clarity" many of our political leaders and "public intellectuals" claim to possess.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

16.1 Sociological Perspectives on War and Terrorism

Learning objective.

• Summarize the key assumptions and emphases of the functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives on war and terrorism.

The three major sociological perspectives offer some very different understandings of war and terrorism. You might agree with some of their assumptions and disagree with other assumptions, but together they capture the major dimensions of these two forms of armed conflict. Table 16.1 “Theory Snapshot” summarizes these assumptions.

Table 16.1 Theory Snapshot

Functionalism

Recall that functionalism emphasizes the usefulness of certain behaviors and social institutions for many aspects of society. One of functionalism’s most important insights is that social problems might actually be useful in this way, however many difficulties they might otherwise cause. To use an example from Chapter 1 “Understanding Social Problems” , crime certainly causes many problems, but it also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in law enforcement, courts and corrections, home security, and other sectors of the economy that deal with crime.

In this spirit, functionalism similarly emphasizes the ways in which war and terrorism are useful for society, however horrible they are in so many other ways. Perhaps the first sociologist to make this point for war was Robert E. Park, the 1925 president of the American Sociological Association (which was then called the American Sociological Society—a name that was later changed because of its acronym!). In January 1941, less than a year before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Park published an influential essay called “The Social Function of War: Observations and Notes,” in a leading sociology journal (Park, 1941).

Park’s essay outlined several functions of war. First, war helps resolve international disputes over matters such as territorial boundaries and religious and other ideologies. No matter what one might think of war, historically it has resolved disputes between nations, with the winner of the war winning the dispute. Even though very few people would say that war is a preferred method for resolving a dispute, it still has performed this function.

Second, war generates a stronger sense of social bonding and solidarity within the societies that are at war. Having a common enemy, people within a society at war “come together” with a shared purpose and feel more united and patriotic than before. This dynamic is called the external conflict/internal cohesion process (Markides & Cohn, 1982). Although Park did not discuss terrorism, this form of armed conflict can also create social solidarity. In the days and weeks after 9/11, Americans came together as one people, and the president of France famously said, “We are all Americans.”

War generates a sense of social cohesion among the people in a society that is at war.

Glenn Harper – Flags – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Third, wars many centuries ago, such as those in which ancient Rome in essence formed and grew from conquering various tribes, led to the development of the nation-state as a political institution. As these tribes came under the rule of nation-states, their separate tribal identities weakened as they gradually identified themselves as one people belonging to their nation-state; Park (p. 569) referred to this process as “the coming-together and integration of races and peoples.” Moreover, the size and resources of these nation-states allowed them to generate scientific, cultural, and political advances that played an important role in world history. War, then, indirectly contributed to these advances. Although nation-states still might have eventually developed even without war, their development was accelerated by war.

Other functions of war can also be cited. Some wars, including the American colonists’ war against England and the Allies’ war against Hitler and Japan, have helped maintain and establish freedom and democracy . In the past and also today, war and military service have also provided important opportunities for jobs and career advancement for people of color and women . Related to this, the US military provides millions of jobs annually and is a ready form of employment for people who only have a high school education. More generally, the military and the defense industry are certainly important components of the US economy, and military spending in some eras has helped stimulate the US economy . In perhaps the most notable example of this effect, spending for World War II is commonly credited with helping to lift the United States out of the Great Depression (Shiller, 2012).

In a final function, weapons research and other types of military research have contributed to scientific and technological development in general. For example, military research played a key role in the early development of the Internet.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory’s perspective on war and the military is decidedly more negative than that of functionalism. There are actually many different views within conflict theory about war and the military, but three related views stand out. The first view echoes President Eisenhower’s concern over the power and influence of the military-industrial complex. According to conflict theory, the United States spends so much on the military and even goes to war because military officials, defense contractors, and political leaders work hand-in-hand in a rather cozy relationship. Although they may profess that their actions are meant to keep the nation safe, their ultimate goal is to enhance their political power and financial well-being.

The most famous critique of the military-industrial complex from a conflict theorist is undoubtedly that of sociologist C. Wright Mills in his book The Power Elite (1956). According to Mills, the power elite is composed of government, big business, and the military, which together constitute a ruling class that controls society and works for its own interests, not for the interests of the citizenry. Members of the power elite, Mills said, see each other socially and serve together on the boards of directors of corporations, charitable organizations, and other bodies. When cabinet members, senators, and top generals and other military officials retire, they often become corporate executives; military officials in particular join defense contractors. Conversely, corporate executives often become cabinet members and other key political appointees, and defense industry executives often end up in the Pentagon. This circulation of the elites creates a rather cozy relationship that helps ensure their dominance over American life and in particular ensures that the military-industrial complex has an untold influence over economic and foreign policy.

A more recent critique of the military-industrial complex and foreign policy by sociologist Mark C. Worrell (2011, p. 51) bluntly stresses the role played by the desire for corporate profits: “War is business and it is profitable…What we learned in the aftermath of World War II is that mass destruction is great for corporate profits…War is driven by corporate profits and corporations drive politics.” According to Worrell and other contemporary critics of what they call the warfare state , the United States now has a permanent war economy . In their view, the war on terrorism after 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “have only deepened the trend toward ever more concentrated state, corporate, and military power in a society that ostensibly embraces democratic values” (Boggs, 2011, p. ix).

The second view of conflict theory concerns imperialism , or the use of military power and other means to extend a nation’s influence and control over other nations. This view, held by the more radical proponents of conflict theory, argues that war and other military ventures by the United States are done for the sake of imperialism rather than for noble goals such as the preservation and extension of democracy. In this view, the United States wages war and engages in other military actions to gain access to oil and other resources of other societies, with the ultimate aim of enriching multinational corporations and other parties. The characterization does not hold true for World War II, conflict theorists concede, but they argue it holds true for many and perhaps most other US wars and military actions, historically and today. In their view, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular were fought under false pretenses to maintain adequate oil supply and more generally to extend America’s military and economic influence around the world (Worrell, 2011).

A third view of conflict theory criticizes the size of the military budget and emphasizes the billions of dollars it takes from social needs such as poverty and climate change. As sociologist Carl Boggs (2011, p. 17) argues, “The war economy, for its part, devours roughly one trillion dollars in material, technological, and human resources yearly…, ensuring a pattern of waste, destruction, uneven development, eroded public infrastructures, and decimated social programs. Decaying American cities have become a supreme legacy of the warfare system.” We return to this issue later in this chapter.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionist writing on war features several emphases. One theme concerns the perceptions and experiences of people involved in war: soldiers, civilians, and others. There are many moving accounts, for example, both real and fictitious, of soldiers’ life on the battlefield and after they come home from war.

Figure 16.1 International Peace Symbol

Source: Clip art: http://www.homemade-preschool.com/image-files/peace-sign-black.png .

A second emphasis concerns the use of symbols to marshal support for war or protest against war. Symbols such as the flag evoke feelings of patriotism, perhaps especially when a nation is at war. The president and other politicians typically display a flag when they give major speeches, and it would be unthinkable for a flag not to be showing when the speech is about war or the threat of war. During the Vietnam War, protesters sometimes flew the US flag upside-down (the international symbol of distress) to show their hatred of the war, and some protesters also burned the flag—an act that is almost guaranteed to provoke outrage and hostility from onlookers.

Other symbols can also be important. When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, millions of Americans put magnetic yellow ribbons on their cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks to show their support for the troops. The largest manufacturer of the ribbons sold more than one million monthly a year after the war began. However, sales slipped as support for the war declined, and four years after the war numbered only 4,000 monthly (Ward, 2007). Another ubiquitous symbol during the Vietnam War was the so-called international peace symbol (see Figure 16.1 “International Peace Symbol” ), originally designed in the late 1950s to symbolize concern over nuclear weapons. Vietnam War protesters wore this symbol on their clothing, and many put peace symbol decals on their motor vehicles, book bags, and other possessions.

A third emphasis of symbolic interactionism concerns how concepts related to war and terrorism come to be defined in ways that advance the goals of various parties. For example, a key goal of the military in basic training is to convince trainees that people they may face on the battlefield are the enemy and, as such, an appropriate target for killing. Related to this goal is the need to convince trainees that when they kill an enemy soldier, the killing is a justified killing and not murder. Similarly, the military often refers to civilian deaths or wounding as collateral damage in a conscious or unconscious attempt to minimize public horror at civilian casualties.

Another definitional issue concerns terrorism . As we shall discuss later, the definition of terrorism is very subjective, as actions that some people might regard as terrorism might be regarded by other people as freedom fighting or some other much more positive term than terrorism.

With this theoretical background in mind, we now turn to several issues and problems of war and terrorism.

Key Takeaways

• War and terrorism serve several functions, including the creation of social solidarity.
• According to conflict theory, war advances the interests of the military-industrial complex, while militarism takes money away from unmet social needs.
• Symbolic interactionism emphasizes the importance of symbols in support for war and terrorism and the experience of civilians and veterans as victims of war.

For Your Review

• Which one of the three perspectives on war and terrorism do you most favor? Why?
• Why do you think the flag has so much symbolic importance in American society?

Boggs, C. (2011). Empire versus democracy: The triumph of corporate and military power . New York, NY: Routledge.

Markides, K. C., & Cohn, S. F. (1982). External conflict/internal cohesion: A reevaluation of an old theory. American Sociological Review, 47 , 88–98.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Park, R. E. (1941). The social function of war: Observations and notes. American Journal of Sociology, 46 , 551–570.

Shiller, R. J. (2012, January 15). Spend, spend, spend. It’s the American way. New York Times , BU3.

Ward, A. (2007, March 2). Yellow ribbons dwindle with war support. The Financial Times . Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4793da48-c8f7-11db-9f7b-000b5df10621.html#axzz1uqyZTxHR .

Worrell, M. P. (2011). Why nations go to war: A sociology of military conflict . New York, NY: Routledge.

Social Problems Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Definitions of terrorism

• Types of terrorism

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Social Sci LibreTexts - Terrorism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Terrorism
• Cornell Law Scholl - Legal Information Institute - Terrorism
• United States Institute of Peace - Rethinking the "War of Terror"
• FBI - Terrorism
• PBS Frontline - The Evolution Of Islamic Terrorism
• Digital History - Terrorism in Historical Perspective
• terrorism - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• terrorism - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

terrorism , the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.

Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. It was first coined in the 1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the revolutionaries against their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre carried out a Reign of Terror involving mass executions by the guillotine . Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime .

Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare . Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda , aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism proper is thus the calculated use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”

In order to attract and maintain the publicity necessary to generate widespread fear, terrorists must engage in increasingly dramatic, violent, and high-profile attacks. These have included hijackings , hostage takings, kidnappings , mass shootings, car bombings, and, frequently, suicide bombings . Although apparently random, the victims and locations of terrorist attacks often are carefully selected for their shock value. Schools, shopping centres, bus and train stations, and restaurants and nightclubs have been targeted both because they attract large crowds and because they are places with which members of the civilian population are familiar and in which they feel at ease. The goal of terrorism generally is to destroy the public’s sense of security in the places most familiar to them. Major targets sometimes also include buildings or other locations that are important economic or political symbols, such as embassies or military installations. The hope of the terrorist is that the sense of terror these acts engender will induce the population to pressure political leaders toward a specific political end.

Some definitions treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political motivations, as simple criminal activity. For example, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines both international and domestic terrorism as involving “violent, criminal acts.” The element of criminality, however, is problematic, because it does not distinguish among different political and legal systems and thus cannot account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate . A frequently mentioned example is the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa , which committed violent actions against that country’s apartheid government but commanded broad sympathy throughout the world. Another example is the Resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of France during World War II .

Since the 20th century, ideology and political opportunism have led a number of countries to engage in international terrorism, often under the guise of supporting movements of national liberation. (Hence, it became a common saying that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”) The distinction between terrorism and other forms of political violence became blurred—particularly as many guerrilla groups often employed terrorist tactics—and issues of jurisdiction and legality were similarly obscured.

These problems have led some social scientists to adopt a definition of terrorism based not on criminality but on the fact that the victims of terrorist violence are most often innocent civilians. Even this definition is flexible, however, and on occasion it has been expanded to include various other factors, such as that terrorist acts are clandestine or surreptitious and that terrorist acts are intended to create an overwhelming sense of fear.

In the late 20th century, the term ecoterrorism was used to describe acts of environmental destruction committed in order to further a political goal or as an act of war, such as the burning of Kuwaiti oil wells by the Iraqi army during the Persian Gulf War . The term also was applied to certain environmentally benign though criminal acts, such as the spiking of lumber trees, intended to disrupt or prevent activities allegedly harmful to the environment .

Since the early 21st the term stochastic terrorism has been used to designate the repeated use of hate speech or other vilifying, dehumanizing rhetoric by a political leader or other public figure that inspires one or more of the figure’s supporters to commit hate crimes or other acts of violence against a targeted person, group, or community . Because stochastic terrorists do not supply their followers with any detailed plan of attack, the particular time and place of the eventual violence are unpredictable.

Essay on Terrorism

Students are often asked to write an essay on Terrorism in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Terrorism

Understanding terrorism.

Terrorism refers to the use of violence, often against civilians, to achieve political goals. It’s a form of fear-based manipulation, aiming to create panic and disrupt peace.

Impacts of Terrorism

Terrorism harms societies both physically and psychologically. It leads to loss of lives, property, and can cause trauma. It also hampers economic growth and societal harmony.

Countering Terrorism

Countering terrorism requires global cooperation. Nations must share intelligence, enforce strict laws, and promote education and understanding to prevent radicalization. Remember, peace and unity are our best defenses against terrorism.

Also check:

250 Words Essay on Terrorism

Terrorism, a term that sends chills down the spine, is an act of violence primarily intended to create fear, disrupt societal structures, and promote political or ideological agendas. It is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, which has been escalating in frequency and intensity worldwide.

The Root Causes

The root causes of terrorism are multifarious. It can be triggered by political instability, socio-economic disparities, religious fanaticism, or ethnic tensions. Often, it is a combination of these factors, creating a fertile breeding ground for extremist ideologies.

The Impact of Terrorism

The impacts of terrorism are far-reaching and devastating. Beyond the immediate human toll, it disrupts economic stability, social harmony, and political structures. It instills fear, leading to changes in behavior and attitudes, and can even alter the course of history.

Counter-Terrorism Strategies

Counter-terrorism strategies are as diverse as the causes of terrorism. They range from military interventions to intelligence operations, from diplomatic negotiations to socio-economic reforms. However, the most effective strategies are those that address the root causes of terrorism, rather than merely responding to its symptoms.

Terrorism, a grave threat to global peace and security, requires a comprehensive and holistic approach to be effectively countered. By understanding its root causes and impacts, we can devise strategies to combat it, ensuring a safer world for future generations.

500 Words Essay on Terrorism

Introduction to terrorism.

Terrorism, a term that sends chills down the spine of many, is a complex phenomenon that has been the subject of extensive study and debate. It is characterized by acts of violence or threats aimed at creating fear, disrupting societal order, and advancing political, religious, or ideological goals.

The Evolution of Terrorism

Historically, terrorism was primarily a tool of the weak against the strong, a way to destabilize oppressive regimes or draw attention to a cause. However, the advent of the 21st century has seen its evolution into a more global menace, with the rise of transnational terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The digital age has made it easier for these groups to recruit, radicalize, and coordinate attacks, making terrorism a borderless problem.

The Psychology of Terrorism

Understanding the psychology of terrorism is crucial in tackling it. Many terrorists are not psychopaths or inherently evil people, but individuals manipulated into believing that their violent actions are justified. Factors such as social exclusion, economic deprivation, political oppression, and religious indoctrination can contribute to this mindset. This underscores the importance of addressing root causes to prevent terrorism.

Terrorism’s impacts are multifaceted. The immediate effect is loss of life and property, but the ripple effects are far-reaching. It instills fear and insecurity, disrupts economic activity, and can lead to restrictive security measures that infringe on civil liberties. Moreover, it can exacerbate social divisions and fuel cycles of violence and retaliation.

Counter-terrorism strategies must be as multifaceted as the problem they aim to solve. Military and law enforcement responses are necessary to protect citizens and bring perpetrators to justice. However, these approaches should be paired with efforts to address the underlying social, economic, and political conditions that breed terrorism.

Conclusion: The Future of Counter-Terrorism

The future of counter-terrorism lies in a balanced approach that combines hard and soft power. While military and law enforcement measures are necessary, they are not sufficient on their own. The fight against terrorism must also be a fight for hearts and minds, addressing the root causes of terrorism, and building inclusive societies where extremist narratives find no fertile ground.

In conclusion, terrorism is a complex problem that requires a nuanced understanding and multifaceted response. It is not just a security issue, but a social, economic, and political one. By addressing it in this holistic manner, we can hope to make progress in the ongoing struggle against this global menace.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

528 Terrorism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

⁉️ how to write a terrorism essay: do’s and don’ts, 🏆 best terrorism topic ideas & essay examples, 🥇 most interesting terrorism topics to write about, ⚡ shocking terrorism essay topics, 📌 simple & easy terrorism essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on terrorism, 💡 interesting topics to write about terrorism, ❓ terrorism essay questions.

Current-day problems, from global warming to human rights, continue to be a topical subject, urging students to address acute issues.

However, this relatability means that you, as an essay writer, may find yourself faced with conflicting facts and circumstances, which your inherent bias may affect.

Thus, a terrorism essay becomes not merely an academic endeavor, but an attempt to immerse yourself in contemporary issues with a multitude of opinions.

• Research and outline your subject beforehand. This process will not only save your time but also help you structure your thoughts and arguments coherently.
• Use tools, such as topic sentences and brainstorming techniques, in the prewriting phase of your paper. Doing so will help you understand how you would like to develop your central theme.
• Start compiling a bibliography early on. When many different viewpoints exist, creating a structured argument in favor of a particular approach may require a wide array of supporting book and journal titles.
• Give a historical overview of your issue. For example, if you are writing about global terrorism, then it is apparent that a worldwide network of violent radicals did not come into existence overnight. Acknowledge and explain the origins of your assigned issue.
• Read other’s sample essays. This action will help you gain a better understanding of what works and what does not in terrorism essay topics.
• Use terrorism essay quotations. Since this is a contemporary issue, then there are bound to be many people involved in activities to counter terrorism, survivors of attacks, and general onlookers. Utilize their perspectives and memories to give your essay a unique touch.
• Remain respectful throughout your paper. Recognize the gravity of your essay and understand the privilege you have when writing about ideas that you may not have experienced.
• Write your essay with no references. Despite watching TV coverages, listening to critics, and reading tabloids, none of us are experts on war or terrorism. Always cite the sources of your information to uphold the integrity of your work.
• Plagiarize from the work of others. While you may read essays written by your peers or those that are available online, directly copying from them is an academic offense.
• Go off point. If you are writing about the history of Al Qaeda, do not disintegrate your work into a how to stop terrorism essay. However, you may give some points in your conclusion on how the overall situation may be amended.
• Write controversial terrorism essay titles. While your title should be catchy and grab your readers’ attention, you should not resort to cheap tactics to make your headings memorable by shock value. Remember that your audience may perceive this tactic as making light of your subject, thus destroying your hard-earned credibility.
• Try to advocate for a pro-terrorist approach. While it is a sound idea to subvert some essay topics, this is not the case in such papers and your work should always be against terrorism.
• Integrate examples from unreliable sources. While readers are often less informed than the essay’s writer is, the opposite may also occur. Therefore, always check the facts, which you include in your work, to avoid embarrassment.
• Draw out your essay to stress the seriousness of the subject. Use your instructor’s specified word count as a measure for how much you should write. Your readers will not appreciate a long-winded paper, as they are hoping instead to get a quick and concise introduction to an important problem.

Want to get more inspiration on terrorism essay topics? Head over to IvyPanda!

• “To Any Would-Be Terrorists” by Naomi Shihab Nye While trying to address the extremist audience, the writer resorted to the strong methods of personification to be able to talk straight to each reading the letter. Despite the character of the text, the writer […]
• Michael Collins and His Terrorist Method Michael Collins has long appeared in the books of history as a brilliant, aggressive and brave member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood a group of Irishmen and women who were determined to overthrow the British […]
• Terror in “The Dumb Waiter” Play by Harold Pinter Pinter exemplifies the existential view of the absurd and the non-existence in The Dumb Waiter in the same manner as that employed in Waiting for Godot by Beckett.
• Anti Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism The accomplishment of the specified goal will require the cooperation between the state government and the representatives of the UAE organizations, as well as the coordination of the latter’s actions with the ones of the […]
• Role of Media in Terrorism and Its Force Multipliers The following passages describe the role of the media in terrorism, how terrorists use laws to their advantage, the concept of asymmetrical warfare, and force multiplier as they apply to terrorism.
• Islamic Terrorism in Ridley Scott’s “Body of Lies” As it was implied earlier, in order for us to be able to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, we need to make an inquiry into the very tenets of Islam, […]
• Leila Khaled: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist? This essay elaborates her intentions with the support of academic sources and her movie in order to demonstrate her cause of action as a freedom fighter for her country and not a terrorist as perceived.
• Investigation Methods: Terrorism and Cyber Crime The question on whether the investigations in these areas of cyber crime and terrorism to remain incident driven or to adopt strategic approach are still is of great concern to the security agencies and the […]
• Analysis of a Domestic Terrorist Group and Homeland Security Policies The Boogaloo Movement is a severe menace, and the government must take all necessary measures to put a stop to it, it is concluded.
• Suspected Terrorist Interrogation and Use of Torture Regardless, torture is still popular across the globe, and it has elicited a new debate questioning whether it is immoral and unacceptable to use torture in the case of efforts to fight terror in the […]
• Terrorism, Corruption, and Climate Change as Threats Therefore, threats affecting countries around the globe include terrorism, corruption, and climate change that can be mitigated through integrated counter-terror mechanisms, severe punishment for dishonest practices, and creating awareness of safe practices.
• Problems the US Faced in the Prosecution of the International Terrorists Differentiating a potential extremist from the rest of the population has been challenging because most international criminals interact with civilians and become part of them.
• Terrorist Impact on Maritime Transportation Security Notably, the United States established the Transportation Security Administration under the Department of Transportation, which was soon transferred to the newly formed Homeland Security Department.
• International Terrorism: Waves and Countermeasures The concept of modern terrorism emerged in Russia, and after a decade, it spread to Western Europe, the Balkans, and Asia.
• The Nexus of Homeland Security and Terrorism The Department of Homeland Security is one of the several bureaucracies formed to tackle the issues of rising insecurity due to external powers and potential facilitators within the US.
• The Future and Change of Terrorism As a result, even if terrorists get their hands on these weapons, they might hesitate to use them on individuals because of the associated implications.
• The Terrorist Attack Recovery Process Terrorism response strategies and the recovery process vary according to the scope of damages and the implications of the methods used in the terror attacks.
• Preparing for a Potential Terrorist Attack The ultimate aim of preparedness is to limit exposure to adversities during and after a terrorist attack. Thus, a recommended approach to limiting the potential security hazard of terrorist attacks is assessing its attributes and […]
• Role of Terrorism in Russo-Ukrainian War Due to this factor, one of the most influential and widespread typologies of terrorism is the New Terrorism that emerged after the tragedy of 2001 in the USA.
• Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 Therefore, the current policies are a response to existing problems, and as the problem inside the country has become smaller, the reaction has also decreased.
• Anti-Terrorism Security Complex for Civil Aviation It is expected that the increase in the number of flights in the absence of a strengthened anti-terrorist culture should also lead to an increase in the number of unintended consequences of such flights – […]
• Terrorism: Goals and Strategies Their main purpose can range from changing the direction of the politics in the state to overthrowing the exciting government and establishing control over the population.
• Religious Terrorism: Ideologies and Methods of Al Qaeda and ISIS Strict adherence to the recorded practices and sayings of the Prophet in the letter of the Koran is emphasized. It endorses the rationalization of terrorism and violence in the efforts to fight against infidels.
• Principles of Leadership and Future of Terrorism At the present time, leadership is presented in various forms; however, the primary objectives of the model generally include the improvement of organizational performance and the enhancement of the relationships between the members.
• The 2012 Tel Aviv Bus Bombing and Crisis Management Musa was the manufacturer and detonator of the bomb, which he used Mafarji to deliver inside the Tel Aviv-based commuter bus.
• The Role of the Military in Domestic Terrorism Acts The video focuses on the issue of domestic terrorism in the U.S.in light of the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
• Addressing Challenges of Religious Terrorism The various methods used in religious terrorism are spiritual scriptures to justify the violent acts and the use of apocalyptic images of destruction to justify the actions.
• Terrorism and Changes in Police Management Firstly, the police and organizations related to the population’s safety prioritized the prevention of terrorism to minimize the damage. Organizing in the police station involves the creation of organizational structure, points of authority, and responsibilities.
• Terrorists’ Minds and Radicalization Processes Moreover, the models agree that radicalization is a stepwise process in which one stage or step leads to another and eventually reaches the act of terrorism.
• The Terrorism and Oil Industry Relationship Since terrorism is a source of political instability in the world, there is expected to be a positive correlation between oil prices and terrorist attacks. The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship […]
• Understanding the Definition of WMDs and the Constraints on Terrorist Acquisition The most known WMD a nuclear weapon is limited in numbers and difficult to create. The most probable WMD for terrorists to acquire are chemical weapons.
• Online Interventions Addressing Terrorism and Radicalization The study will also identify that the Sakinah campaign can be considered a suitable example of how it is possible to address Internet terrorism and radicalization.
• A Terrorism Attack in the Middle East Countries in the Middle East are prone to terrorist attacks rendering it one of the unsafest regions in the world. The importance of this study is to understand the purpose of terrorist attacks in the […]
• Behavioral Factors of Individual Terrorists The behavior of individual terrorists is dictated by the group dynamics, their mental health, and well-being, as well as the underlying incentives for joining a terrorist organization.
• The Ways Terrorists Raise and Move Money Moreover, the government has put into action the freezing orders and blocking of united states individuals who are presumed to have a hand in terrorist activities.
• Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime as Threats to Homeland Security The US is among the nations that have suffered some of the worst terrorist attacks worldwide and it is also a hub of international criminal activities due to its wealth of resources and powerful economic […]
• Planning for Terrorist Events: Case Study To review the response of France’s forces and evaluate its efficiency To provide several recommendations for the prevention of attacks during the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar Terrorist attacks that took place across Paris […]
• Global Impact of 9-11 Events on Terrorism Prevention Many people resorted to religion and faith, and the majority reported that they were praying more frequently. Moreover, it stimulated the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight terrorist groups.
• September 11, 2001 Attacks: What We Have Learned About Terrorism Since 9,11 The world has remembered one of the most tragic attacks in the USA in 2001, and the consequences of this event stay one of the most discussed.
• The Case of Saudi Arabia’s Soft Counter-Terrorism Strategy Therefore, this assessment is essential for government agencies, consulting organizations, and society in general, since innocent people suffer from the consequences of terrorism.
• Terrorism Prevention: Operation Geronimo Intelligence briefings had been vital in this operation, and there was sufficient evidence to show that the wanted terrorist was in the compound. In conclusion, the operation was a necessary undertaking in ensuring international peace […]
• Trump Tells Story About Killing Terrorists With Bullets Dipped in Pigs’ Blood The text reflects on Donald Trump’s recollection of the myth that terrorists were killed before the bullets used were dipped in pig blood.
• US Strategy From the Cold War to the Post-Global War on Terrorism Before the collapse of the United Soviet Socialist Republic in 1991, the United State’s strategy during the Cold War era had been one of deterrence to the potential threats of the USSR and its allies […]
• Analysis of the Terrorist Organizations: “Red Brigades” and “Boko Haram” The most famous action in the organization’s history is the abduction and murder of the former Prime Minister of Italy Aldo Moro in the spring of 1978.
• Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism in the US The very first section of this act is devoted to strengthening the internal security of the population of the States in the framework of countering terrorism.
• Countering Terrorism Through Innovative Approaches The vital issue of this meeting became the issue of the technological development of international terrorism, its rapid growth in the online world, and acquaintance with the most recent technologies.
• Iran’s Involvement in Sponsoring Global Terrorism Due to the particular features of the theocratic regimes, in the case of Iran, the inclination towards terrorism can be explained by two pillars of the Islamic doctrine underlining the constitution.
• Criminalistics: Forensic Science, Crime, and Terrorism These writings can be on the second, third, and so on pages, depending on the pressure on the writing subject, that is, a pen or pencil.
• Terrorism: the Victim of Terrorism and of Mechanisms to Combat It The Concept of Terrorism: Unlawful act Broad interpretations Threatening lives Generic term of terror Caused by forces opposed to the state Sociopolitical
• Countering Terrorism and Preventive Measures Considering the events of the past century, including the first and 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001, United States Embassy in Beirut and Kuwait bombing, and many other attacks, the […]
• Why Terrorism Is Not a Serious Threat to International and National Security We accept the existence of this threat, but we are still sure terrorism narrative as an existential threat is doing more damage to a larger amount of people than local terroristic attacks.
• An Analysis of Terrorist Activities The main terrorist attack of al Qaeda was the 9/11 Bombing of the World Trade Centers, claiming the lives of thousands of people and leading to the beginning of the War on Terror.
• Biowarfare and Bioterrorism: History and Origin According to Edmond and William, the dawn of bioterrorism dates back to the nineteenth century, when Louis Pasteur and Robert Koech studied and understood the basics of microbiology. Moreover, another application of biological weapons is […]
• Response to a Hypothetical Terrorist Event Prior to explicit action, the first thing to do in such a situation is to assess the environment depending on the location of terrorists and the type of attack and to outline the civilians that […]
• Biological Warfare and Agro-Terrorism However, the most important thing from which those infected with botulism die is paralysis of the respiratory muscles and the respiratory failure that follows. The bacteria Bacillus Anthracis, which causes anthrax, is one of the […]
• Terrorism Impacts on Policing in Belgium Nevertheless, when studying the world experience of countries facing the threat of high extremist activity and falling victim to attacks by militant fanatics at the beginning of the 21st century, the Belgian government has strengthened […]
• Researching of Morals of Terrorists Terrorism attacks are a form of violence, and the moral implication is death in the form of revenge. Realism is a form of acceptance that everyone on the battlefield is a civilian with their families.
• The Structures, Motivations, and Qualities of Terrorist Groups This implies that the structures of terrorist groups are determined by the capacity and character of the government and society where they operate.
• The Functionalism Theory Assumptions of Terrorism The functionalism theory echoes the candid assumptions of terrorism and further resonates with the evolving terrorism threat. As Barkan outlines, the functionalism perspective postulates that terrorism creates social bonding and solidarity within societies at war.
• Terrorism: Cargo and Passenger Screening To avoid such events, security systems need to be improved by the management both in the field of technological equipment and in the training of professionals.
• Motivations of Lone-Wolf Terrorists The phenomenon of lone-wolf terrorism is an interesting one because it challenges one to attempt to understand the motivation of a person to commit a violent criminal act knowing of the severe consequences.
• Public Policy Issue: Domestic Terrorism At the same time, proponents of the policy argue that the rise of domestic terrorism is due to the failure of holding accountable and confronting the perpetrators by the responsible authorities and not a case […]
• Radicalization and Terrorism in the United States The individuals or self-proclaimed bombers are one of the major threats that the USA will have to be on the lookout for most of the time.
• America: Racism, Terrorism, and Ethno-Culturalism The myth of the frontier is one of the strongest and long-lived myths of America that animates the imagination of the Americans even to this day.
• Terrorism: Domestic, Transnational, and Maritime Forms All types of terrorism are based on the forcible imposition of a worldview, ideology, morality, politics using violence, threats of murder or other forms as the primary means of achieving goals.
• “Terrorism” Is a Biased Term According to Bin Ladin, the bombing of the World Trade Center was an intimidation technique targeting the Americans due to the violence against the Islamic community.
• Terrorism and Data Mining Algorithms However, this is a necessary evil as the nation’s security has to be prioritized since these attacks lead to harm to a larger population compared to the infringements.
• Cyber-Terrorism and International Interventions Most of the cyber-attacks that have occurred involve the direction of the malware and attacks to specific critical systems and Information Technology infrastructures.
• Terrorism and Media Coverage In that regard, the issue of media coverage is specifically important to consider in situations involving hostages, as the media either covering a news report or responding to the terrorists’ demands is in a position […]
• Airfreight Security Breaches and Terrorism The majority of terrorist attacks happened after the 1990s, thereby indicating the deterioration of the security system and breaches in it.
• Terror and Religion One of the common religious terror activities has been on martyrdom, the practice of causing death to oneself on the basis of being a witness to ideological and theological perspectives and beliefs.
• Encryption, Stenography & Cyber Criminal Terrorist The internet and the ICT system as a whole are vulnerable to cyber attacks. This is the method of using to trademark to protect our images and copyright on our intellectual properties.
• Radicalization and Terrorism Phenomena A precursor to radicalization and terrorism is the lack of proper socio-political integration of certain communities in countries. Radicalization lies at the heart of terrorism and plays a central role in the propagation of ideas.
• Boko Haram Terrorist Organization: History and Facts Since the inception of the organization in 2002, the primary goal of Boko Haram has been to impose Islamic rule in Nigeria by promoting a version of the religion that forbids participation in any social […]
• Local Efforts to Counter the Terror Threat in New York City The program encompasses a series of both current and future policy efforts that are associated with the private sector security as well as counterterrorism in the state.
• Cyber-Terrorism and Healthcare Information Systems – Past, Present, and Future The cyber appliances in the health sector then again sustain correspondence amongst shareholders and service providers and as well support resources management.
• Bioterrorism Response by Healthcare Organizations Bioterrorism is a frequently used term that proves human responsibility on the development of its outcomes and effects on people and other living beings on Earth.
• Response to Terrorist Attacks: The Role of Military and Public Sector Entities Nevertheless, to understand the basis of such partnership, one has to understand the actions that the public sector takes and has taken to respond to terrorism in the United States and globally.
• Emergency Operations in Case of Radiological Terrorism An excellent example of an explosion that profoundly affected the Americans is the 9/11 attack that led to the destruction of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
• Command Structure of Sharing the Information About Possible Acts of Terror Following the infamous events of 9/11, the government of the United States introduced new strategies and roles that have continued to reshape the roles and involvement of law enforcers in cases of terrorism.
• Bio-Terrorism: When Microbes Become a Threat to Human Existence In general, due to the cooperation of scientists, policymakers, and public agencies across the globe, the international community has recognized the potential of biological weapons and is prepared for the majority of threats.
• How Terrorism Impacts the Human Experience From the point of view of modern definitions or attempts to define these phenomena, the difference is most often established in the globality of the character, duration of the act, and the number of actors […]
• Annotated Bibliography About Terrorism This is a book review article written by Khanna on the book “Terrorism as a war” written by Walter Laqueur and published by Continuum Books.
• Cyberterrorism, Competing Factions, and Possible Course of Action Various aspects can be analyzed concerning cyberterrorism, competing factors, and possible course of actions in corporations to show that cyberterrorism is a legitimate option for the expression of grievances by terrorists.
• Importance of Emergency Response to Terrorist Attack According to the scenario presented, it makes sense to involve the DoD since the terrorists, supposedly AWOLs, pose an extreme threat to the lives of civilians and the military.
• National Response to Terrorism & Natural Disaster The National Response Framework governs the national security and crisis response to dynamic emergencies and natural disasters that occur in the community.
• Terrorism: Definitions, Features Shared by Terrorists However, since there is no agreed-upon definition of a terrorist attack, it is possible to state that some incidents were omitted from the statistics. Terrorism is difficult to combat and requires the input of international […]
• Alienation and Solidarity: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism Pape’s “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” discusses the growing prevalence of suicide attacks in the arsenal of terrorist movements from 1980 onward.
• Terrorists and Their Rights Under US Laws The key problems of the research are the ways in which Islamists are protected by the US legislation and society, where the threat comes from, and what the consequences might be.
• Anti-Terrorism Protocol and Counter-Terrorism Units The 1995 Tokyo sarin attack is a case in point because it proved the real possibility of such a scenario and was used as the reference for the L.A. First of all, as shown in […]
• Oklahoma City Bombing as Domestic Terrorist Act The federal building housed the offices of various government agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which was directly involved in the Waco debacle. The attack allowed McVeigh to send a message to […]
• Foreign Fighters and Contemporary Terrorism Finally, recruiters have received access to the vulnerable groups directly, which is demonstrated in the book In the Skin of a Jihadist written by an investigative journalist Anne Erelle.
• Terrorist Attacks: Paul Hanson vs. Patrick Crusius He made some preparations in the form of stockpiling weapons and researching the locations in which they reside. Crusius was more discrete in his information gathering, though it was still the failure of the FBI […]
• Terrorism Liaison Officer’s Responsibilities The analyst was involved in the assessment of the case and contributed to false-positive reporting regarding the journalist and other civilians being terrorists.
• Cyberterrorism: A 21st Century Threat and the Global Response Thus, it can be concluded that terrorism and cyberterrorism have become one of the many global challenges, and for this reason, they should be the object of close attention to the world community.
• Terrorism in the United States of America The group might disintegrate in the future because of its dwindling number of followers, leadership wrangles, and a lack of finances to fund its activities.
• Identifying Terrorism-Related Situations In the selected setting of Philadelphia, the general environment appears to be in control, yet further measures may need to be undertaken to prevent the instances of protests from reaching a state of havoc.
• Task Force and the Fusion Center: Terrorism Prevention Thus, it can be argued that the main task of JTTF in targeted violence prevention is crime investigation and intelligence generation.
• Fusion Centers: The Role in Terrorism Prevention Boston Globe reports that the information-sharing system currently in use is not efficient in preventing terrorism, highlighting the fact that the FBI and the CIA probes of Tamerlan Tsarnaev were unbeknown to Massachusetts counterterrorist units.
• DHS and Intelligence: Terrorism The organization of the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach to the analysis of the sources and subjects of terrorist activity, a clear definition of the functions and areas of responsibility of each item […]
• The Molly Maguires as a Domestic Terrorism Group It is these origins of the Molly Maguires terrorist group that gave them their thirst for blood and led to the killing of a myriad of Irishmen until the group was exterminated in the proximities […]
• Australian Anti-Terrorism Laws In the quest to protect citizens, some governments have gone to the extend of inflicting torture on terror suspects in need to obtain some information from the suspect, which raises concern about the suspect’s civil […]
• Bioterrorism Preparedness and Public Health Response Therefore, the current state of the preparedness cannot be estimated as high or sufficient, and the approach needs to be elaborated.
• Aggressive Behavior Among the Al-Shabaab Terrorists The former are the underlying sources that propel susceptible individuals to radicalization, while the latter are the incentives that the terrorist groups offer to attract and retain recruits.
• War on Terrorism: Budget and Policy Discussion The discussion of the specific Acts and Policies directed at USA security is going to be considered with the purpose to follow the changes which occurred in the USA after 9/11 attacks.
• Criminology: Terrorism–Security Policy for Large Events This attack proved to the government the vulnerability of the state concerning external threats, especially because, prior to the attack, the customary means of attack had been the use of military force as evidenced in […]
• Causes of Terrorism Terrorism is defined as violent actions that are aimed at instilling fear to people as a means of coercing them to submit to ideologies of a certain group.
• Violent Resistance and Terrorism The following study is an attempt to establish the root causes of violent resistance, the challenges facing the world due to violent resistance, and possible remedies to the problem citing specific cases that are helpful […]
• Terror Groups – Abu Nidal Organization Abu Nidal is the Arabic meaning of ‘father of the struggle.’ The terror group was named after its leader and founder Sabri al-Banna who was born in Palestine to a land owning family. Among the […]
• Impacts of Terrorism on Police Mission in the U.S. The incidence of September 11 2001 has remarkably transformed the police force in the U.S. There is an increase in the level of monitoring of international travels and boundaries by the police force.
• Homeland Security: Digital Crime and Terrorism Activities However, the US law enforcement system is characterized by the activities of different agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Department of Homeland Security, Secret Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
• Understanding the Basics of Terrorism On the other side of the rail is another man lying flat on the ground with a sniper rifle in his hands ready to wreak havoc.
• “Policing Terrorism” by Waddington He is of the argument that case-specific policing is focused on the outcome of court verdicts. He points out an incident in which the palace security was breached, and the commissioner of police reacted to […]
• Definite Paths to Terrorism: Main Dimensions This assimilation is enforced by the use of violence to instil discipline and loyalty in the participants. In conclusion, there are other dimensions of the Islamic terrorism namely Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.
• War on Terror: Propaganda and Freedom of the Press in the US There was the launching of the “Center for Media and Democracy”, CMD, in the year 1993 in order to create what was the only public interest at that period. There was expansive use of propaganda […]
• Terrorism and U.S. National Security Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom in the year 1777 as well as the author of the famous United States Declaration of independence in the year 1776.
• Domestic Terrorism: Trends, Challenges, and Future Predictions Under the provisions of the US PATRIOT act, acts of domestic terrorism entail dangerous acts that pose a threat to human life and amount to a violation of various criminal laws of the US and/or […]
• Organizations Convincing to Become a Suicide Terrorist One of the underlying tenets taught to candidate suicide bombers is: “Islam is the answer and jihad is the way”. Pathological altruism refers to any behavior or personal tendency in which ‘the goal or motivation […]
• Bioterrorism: Term Review According to Meinhardt, “water supplies and water distribution systems represent potential target for terrorist activity in the United States because of the critical need for water in every sector of our industrialized society”.
• US & UK Human Rights While Countering Terrorism The threat of terror and the further legal reactions of the nations to the problem were considered as challenging, and it is necessary to examine differences and similarities associated with the promotion of human rights […]
• Organizational Change: Models Influencing American Terrorism This paper seeks to discuss the three models of terrorism, the effects of international terrorism locally, and the impacts of international terrorism on local cell groups.
• The Goal of a Terrorist Attack This objective is being accomplished by the mean of exposing people to the graphic accounts of terrorist acts-in-making, as was the case with the attacks of 9/11.
• Local Response to Terrorism Local response to terrorism involves using the resources and the law enforcement officers at the state and county level to detect and prevent acts of terror.
• Adjusting to Terrorism: The Issue of Detention Without Trial The country also needs to train more prosecutors and legal experts so that justice is disseminated to suspected terrorists who continue to be held at Guantanamo Bay without trial.
• Biological Terrorism: Dealing With the Threat It is therefore the responsibility of the recipient of this information to take action to secure his/her life against the potential lethality of the agent in question.
• The Maritime Terrorism Risk and Liability The research describes in detail aspects of maritime terrorism but does not clearly state the research question to be explored. However, in the summary part of the research paper there is several questions implied as […]
• Bioterrorism Preparedness in Healthcare Organizations It is also necessary to carry out a test on the public health emergencies for this would help the department to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses which are in the system.
• Adjusting to Terrorism In the US, the Department of Homeland Security is the primary body that deals with all matters of homeland security, including the prevention of terrorism. As such, the department needs to address it as a […]
• Impact of Terrorism on the Economy The premise of the essay is to evaluate the nature and the nature and the severity of the risks posed by terrorism on IFAD a United Nations specialized agency.
• A Criminal Justice Approach to Suppressing Terrorism The threat of terrorism substituted communism as the rationale which was used for justifying the state of emergency in America prior to 1990s.
• Comparison Between Organized Crime And Terrorism Organized crime refers to unlawful activities conducted by members of highly organized gangs and associations. Its defined by members and activities of a group.
• Boilover: Fire Aspects of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks Analysis These includes the intensity of the incident heat on the burning object, the composition of the burning fire, the ability of air that supports combustion to reach the burning fire, the mass of the burning […]
• Secure Transportation System Against Global Terror The good news is that cooperation, coordination, and new technology can be used to secure the global transportation system and halt the activities of terror groups.
• Sharing Terror Data: Criminal Analysis The FBI continuing investigation of the attacks to identify the hijackers and their sponsors, codenamed “PENTTBOM,” represents the largest investigation ever in the history of the agency.
• Torture and War Towards Terrorism An example of mental torture can be explained by the following; Y is a friend to X, they have been caught in the same crime act, Y is then taken to a separate room adjacent […]
• Women and Terrorism Relations The role of women in secular terrorist organizations has been more pronounced in history due to the conservative nature of religious terrorist movements, which often exclude women from their ranks.
• Terrorism: Assessing the Past to Forecast the Future The terrorists groups all over the world, having the knowledge of lethargic weapons held by their enemies, are engaged in the discoveries of how the rapidly growing technology may improve the lethargy of their current […]
• Terrorism Response Strategy The preliminary assessment is performed on the basis that before implementing any rescue operations, the hazards that are contained in the area must be positively identified and the resources available or necessary to deal with […]
• Homeland Security and Terrorism The important root causes of terrorism are mainly two: a perceived sense of social & political injustice such that the group seeks to right the wrong and, the view that violence is the only way […]
• Terrorism Preparedness and Response The third and most important step to take is to switch off the available electrical gadgets to prevent the spread of fire. Of importance to prevent such catastrophes is cooperation from citizens, media, and the […]
• Terrorism Mitigation and Risk In order to avert the danger of possible portable nuclear attacks, it is important to assess the possibility and impact of attacks in the first place.
• Terrorism Risk Assessment: Threat of Al Shabaab and Hezbollah to the USA Attacks such as those that happened outside the US and more are likely to occur due to what Hezbollah perceives as the US posing a threat to its ties with Iran.
• Four Priorities of Action for Combating Terrorism on Our Shores There is therefore the need to employ new pragmatic foreign policy steps that promote the national interest within the broader values of international peace and security if any gains are to be realized in the […]
• The Cyber Terrorism Plan and Counter Strategy The news of hacking the website of the Pentagon will immediately get the attention of the media and this message will spread everywhere at the speed of light.
• The Potential for State Sponsored Terrorism Also, he mainly tries to bring all the enemies of the United States together and he believes that the United States is a devilish country.
• Bioterrorism and Biosecurity The epidemiology of the infection is spread in the world evenly though in some of the parts there is only one form of Anthrax, for instance in the United States of America and therefore our […]
• Bioterrorism and Biosecurity – Aum Shinrikyo The Aum Shinrikyo began their attacks in 1994 in Matsumoto where they used the refrigerator truck to release sarin near the homes of three judges who were overseeing a lawsuit that was predicted to go […]
• Terrorism: A Definition and Analysis The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines terrorism as the perpetration of violence and force unlawfully against people or property with a sole aim of intimidating or coercing the government or the targeted population or any […]
• International Political Economy, Democratization, and Terrorism IPE describes the global power dynamics that control international trade and finance, fuel globalization, and wealth distribution across the globe. Sachs argues that globalization and the emergence of political economics have led to the increased […]
• Terrorism Definition at the National Level The development of a unified definition of terrorism at the global level is challenging because the domestic laws of several countries differ significantly.
• War and Terrorism in the Modern World They are used to frighten the public and pursue political goals, for example, to change the government in the country. For instance, acts of terrorism are meant to inflict fear and intimidation to put pressure […]
• Sociology. Terror and Violence Impacts A comparison between theory and the actual case is made in order to promote the claim that terror leads to mental health issues that will pursue the victims for the whole life, but such consequences […]
• US and Terrorism Relations Overview The US and its allies intensified attacks on ISIS bases and areas of control, assassinated ISIS leaders, reclaimed regions captured by the group, cut off their supply of funds, and imposed restrictions on travel to […]
• Agro-Terrorism: Definition and Impacts The ultimate objective for agro-terrorism is to cause economic damage and lead to loss of confidence among the population in the government. It is the responsibility of the FDA and DHS Agro division to monitor, […]
• Terrorism and Trauma in American Literature Key points that are brought up for discussion in both books are the crisis of communication, the crisis of meaning, the crisis of self-identification, and possible ways out. The letters are a part of the […]
• War on Terror: The Battle Continues The levels of political tension have skyrocketed over the past several decades, causing the instances of confrontations and the number of acts of terror to rise, hence the launch of the War on Terror in […]
• Terrorism Nowadays: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria The cases of terrorism and the transformation of the international situation over the past 20 years make people realize the global nature of the current events.
• How Terrorism Affects Airline Security Additionally, agencies that oversee aviation changed their course and became much more stringent in their enforcement of security to avoid a repeat of the incident.
• What Makes Terrorism Different From Other Forms of Violence The purpose of this paper is to define terrorism and identify the crucial features that distinguish terrorism from different types of abuse.
• Terrorist Networks as a Threat to the United States Today One of the most notorious acts committed by the representatives of the eco-terrorist movement is the 2001 arson of the University of Washington.
• Consequence Management and Terrorist Attacks Analysis
• Terrorist Groups’ Establishment: The Theory of Four-Wave Terroristic Groups
• Domestic & Global Terrorism and Its legal Aspects
• Crime Myths and Domestic Terrorism
• Terrorist Attacks in Paris, 13th November 2015
• Hue Newton: A Terrorist and a Thinker
• Impact on Terrorist Activities of Regional Governments
• Regional Terrorism: The Bali Bombing, Australian and Indonesian Responses
• How to End Terrorism: Diplomacy or Military Action?
• Terrorism: Methods and Weapons
• Terrorism: Analysis of Definitions
• Screening for Terrorist for Aviation Security
• The Role of Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the Fight Against Terrorism
• Terrorist Event Countering: First Responders Risk
• Financing Terrorism: Challenges and Solutions
• Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Terrorism
• Domestic Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis with Hate Crimes
• Al Shabaab: An Intriguing Example of Islamist Terror
• Causes and Motivations of Terrorism
• Ali Al-Timimi’s Case of Terrorism
• “The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians” by C. Carr
• Biological and Chemical Terrorism: Preparedness and Response
• Legislation Related to Bioterrorism
• Israel’s Response to Munich Terror Attack
• Bioterrorism and Its Harmful Consequences
• Domestic Terrorism in the US: Causes, Impacts, and Countermeasures
• The Evolution of Terrorism on the World Stage
• Terrorism and Liberal Democracy: What We Should Know
• Biological Weapon and Bioterrorism
• Is Terrorism Still the Most Important Security Issue for Australia?
• War on Terror and Its Effect on Individual Right
• Crimes Against the State: Terrorist Attacks and Death Penalty
• “Nuclear Terrorism: Risks, Consequences, and Response” by Jim Walsh: Stimulating Ideas, Logical Organization, Engaging Voice
• Middle-East and Africa Terrorist Movements
• The History of Ku Klux Klan: A Terrorist Organization Founded in the Southern States After the American Civil War
• The Use of Counter-Terrorism Attacks During the Algerian War of Independence From F.L.N.
• Comparison Between Secular and Religious Terror
• Political Violence and Terrorism. Crowd Behavior
• Types of Terrorism: Centers Establishment
• Sociology of Terror: Contemporary Sense
• Understanding the War on Terror in the United States
• Foreign Policy Challenges Created by the War on Terror
• Middle-Eastern and African Terrorist Movements
• Bioterrorism: Impact of Science and Technology
• Community Policing and War on Terror
• Biosecurity and Bioterrorism
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad: Radical Terrorism
• Money Laundering and Terrorist Finance
• Pakistan’s Double Game in the War on Terror
• Eradicated Terrorism in the World
• The Interrelation Between Terrorism and Technology
• War on Terror & Violation of Constitutional Rights
• Media and the War on Global Terrorism
• Is the Geneva Convention Applicable to War on Terror?
• Adjusting to Terrorism in Modern World
• Death Sentence to Muslim Terrorists: Should We Murder People Who Had Done the Same Before?
• Terrorism and Security Issues Review
• Recent Developments in the History of Terrorism
• War on Terror. 42-Day Detention: An Equitable Solution?
• Early Response to Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism
• Counter Terrorism Measures in the UK
• The War on Terrorism in the United States
• United States & EU Efforts to Fight Terrorism
• Global Terrorism and State Security Measures
• American Governmnet Against the Threat of Terrorism
• “Terrorism and Economic Security” by Robert L. Hutchings
• Bioterrorism and Health Care Delivery
• Terrorism: Countering and Responding to the Treat
• Crimean Crisis and Russian State Terrorism
• A Terrorist Attack on Atlanta, Georgia
• How Counselors Assist Survivors of Terrorism
• Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures
• Terrorism and National Security
• The Functioning of Terrorist Groups
• Terrorist Organization: Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA)
• “Terror and Democracy at the Age of Stalin” by Goldman
• Terror in the Mind of God by Mark Juergensmeyer
• Counter Terrorism and Public Awareness Plan
• Organized Terrorism Against Government Leaders
• War on Terror and Its Victory Meaning
• Terrorism Definitions by the Global Community
• Terrorist Attack: Contemporary Social or Cultural Issues
• Poverty as a Factor of Terrorist Recruitment
• War on Drugs and Terror and American Promise
• Hazard Vulnerability Analysis and Terrorism
• Terrorist Participation and Its Motives
• The UAE Against Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing
• Cyberterrorism as the Greatest Risk for the US
• The Rise of Terrorist Organisations in Post-Invasion Iraq
• Factors That Motivate to Terrorism
• State-Sponsored and Non-State Terrorism
• Vietnam War vs. War on Terror in the Middle East
• Ideology and Terrorism: Rights from Wrongs?
• Islamic and Christian Religion and Terrorism
• American War on Terror and Operational Strategies
• Local Operational Planning for Potential Terrorist Threats
• Terrorism Preventive Measures in the United States
• Aum Shinrikyo Terrorist Group’s Activity
• Bioterrorism Attacks and Nursing Countermeasures
• Terrorism Prevention on the International Level
• Violent Extremism and Suicide Terrorist Attacks
• Terror Attacks and Intelligence Community in the US
• Distressed Terrorism: Politics, Religion and Ideology
• Islamic State Global Terror Threat Countermeasures
• War on Terror in Saudi Arabia and Arab Gulf States
• Terrorist Groups: Critical Discourse Analysis
• US Intelligence to Prevent Terrorist Attacks
• Female Terrorism: Causes and Features
• Terrorism: the Evolution of ISIS
• Cyber Security’s and Counter Terrorism’ Intersection
• Digital Media Usage to Recruit and Promote Terrorism
• Stereotyping Terrorists and Mental Sanity
• Homeland Security Changes: Adjusting to Terrorism
• Coping with Terrorism in the USA
• Terrorism in the Middle East
• Countering Terrorism: The US Intelligence Community
• First Responders to Terrorist Attack
• The Westgate Terror Attack in Kenya
• Current Hurdles in Combating Terrorism
• Ethnic, Racial and Religious Profiling in Terrorism
• Halal Food and Terrorist Organizations in Australia
• Osama Bin Laden’s Role in Terror
• Hospitals Security Upgrade: Terrorist or Criminal Actions
• International Counter Terrorism’ Elements
• Bioterrorism: Biological Agents as Weapons
• Terrorism: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Terrorism: Post-9/11 Maritime Security Initiatives in the USA
• Jonathan Moreno: Bioethics After the Terror
• What is the Best Way for Fighting Terrorism According to Mortenson?
• The Advanced Community Planning in Response to the Potential Threat of Terrorism
• The Impacts of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 on the National Intelligence Community
• War on Terrorism: How to Cope With the Global Threat?
• The Primary Causes of Terrorist Political Violence
• Rumsfeld’s Memo & The War on Global Terrorism
• Defense Imperatives: “Thwarting Terrorism & Bringing Terrorists to Justice”
• Understanding the Failure of the Global War on Terrorism and Suggestions for Future Strategies
• Counter-Terrorism and the Patriot Act
• Human and Technical Intelligence in Countering Terrorism
• Lessons From the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks
• Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to Rogue States and International Terrorists
• Does Poverty Lead to Terrorism?
• Terrorism and Jihadist Movement
• US Exceptionalism in Constructing and Conceptualizing a Terrorist
• American Exceptionalism in Constructing and Conceptualizing a Terrorist
• History of Cyber Terrorism
• “Monsters, Inc.” and the War on Terror
• Economic Concerns in the Aftermath of Terrorism
• Terrorism in International Relations
• Terrorism in Israel and Palestine
• Local, State, and Federal Partnerships: Terrorism
• Hezbollah: A Terrorist Organisation?
• United States Domestic Terrorism
• International Terrorism: The Challenge to Global Security
• Salafist Takfiri Terrorism
• Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Terrorist Threat
• Cyber Security Threat Posed by a Terrorist Group
• The Effect of Terrorism on Human Rights: The Clash Between the Human Rights Advocates and Victims of Terrorism
• Eliminating Terrorism at the Domestic Level
• Terrorism, Poverty and Financial Instability
• United States War on Terror Policy
• The Real Cause of Terrorism in Palestine
• Terrorism: Searching for a Definition
• Industrial Terrorism in Modern World
• Terrorist Cells and Groups Within the Northern Region of Africa
• Terrorism as a Communication Strategy
• How the U.S. Can Combat the Terrorist Threat in Africa?
• Hypothetical Scenario of a Terrorist Attack
• Terrorism Before and After the September 11 Attacks
• U.S. War in Afghanistan: Pros and Cons
• Orientalist Constructions of Muslim Bodies and the Rhetoric of the «War on Terror»
• Post September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks
• Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus and War on Terror
• Concept of Terrorism Phenomenon in Modern World
• The Spectacle of Terror
• Foreign Policy: United States and Fight with Terrorism
• Law Enforcement and Terrorism
• What New Demands on Policing Have Resulted From the International ‘War on Terror’?
• Religious and Secular Terrorism: Analyzing Differences and Points of Intersection
• Terrorist Acts Prevention and Aftermaths Minimization
• Torture During the Algerian War and Its Relevance on the War on Terror
• International Terrorism: The Operations of the Hezbollah
• The Psychological Explanation of Terrorism
• The Kurdish Conflict in the Middle East
• Terrorist Groups in Turkey
• Terrorism: Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?
• America’s War on Terrorism
• Terrorism in Political Protest
• Cause and Effect of Terrorism
• “What Is the Definition of Terrorism? And Why Is the White House Afraid of Using the Term?” by Timothy Kelly
• Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror
• Preparing for Incidents of Terrorism at the Local Level
• Domestic Terrorism in the Post 9/11 Era
• Eco-Defense and Kinds of Ecological Terrorism
• Bush Doctrine, Explanation of the Administration and War on Terror
• Moral Convictions of Terrorists
• Why Terrorism is a Contested Concept
• Presidential Powers and the War on Terror
• Agro-Terrorism: The Lessons to Learn
• Terrorism: The War on Iraq
• Stereotyping Comparison: All Italians Are in a Mob, All Jamaicans Smoke Weed, All Muslims Are Terrorists
• The Al-Qaida Terrorist Group’s Recent Happenings
• The Fight Against Terrorism by Christian and Islam Leaders
• Is Terrorism Ever Justified?
• The War on Terrorism
• The Terrorist Attacks in the United States
• Analyzing the Concept of Terrorism
• The Problems of Terrorism in Modern World
• Counter-Terrorism Plans Development
• Consequence Management After the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
• Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act
• Terror and Terrorism
• September 11: Terror Attack and Huge Casualties
• The Concept of Terrorism
• Terrorists and the Left and Right: Definitions & Examples
• Should the USA Use Drones to Combat Terrorism?
• How Are Terrorists Financing Their Acts of Terrorism?
• What Can History Teach Us About Terrorism?
• Why Do Americans Feel More Sympathy for Western Terrorism?
• How Can the United States of America Better Defend Itself Against Terrorism?
• Can the U.S. Prevent Future Acts of Domestic Terrorism?
• What Has Been the Effect of Globalization on Terrorism?
• How Can Businesses Cope With Terrorism?
• Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
• Should the U.S. Government Be Scared of Cyber Terrorism?
• Why Does Western Europe Experience More Terrorism Than America?
• Are Terrorism and Globalization Linked to Politics?
• What Are the Causes of Terrorism, and How Can It Be Stopped?
• Are Muslim Communities Affected by Counter-Terrorism Legislation?
• Does American Foreign Policy Cause Terrorism?
• Does the Media Encourage Terrorism?
• Does the Terrorism Act Infringe Upon Our Human Rights?
• What Challenges Are Posed by International Terrorism to Democracy?
• How Can the Digital World Lead to a New Type of Terrorism?
• Whose Support Matters for the Occurrence of Terrorism?
• How America Prevents Terrorism?
• Does Higher Education Decrease Support for Terrorism?
• Can Foreign Aid Dampen the Threat of Terrorism to International Trade?
• Should Americans Fear Urban Terrorism?
• Can Illegal Immigration Lead to Terrorism?
• Does Distinguishing Domestic Terrorism From International Terrorism Help?
• Will the American Economy Benefit From the War Against Terrorism?
• Are Some Rights Negotiable When It Comes to Fighting Terrorism?
• Why Has Terrorism Become Such an Important Issue Over the Last 40 Years?
• Will Terrorism Lose Its Significance?
• Islam Topics
• Organized Crime Titles
• Islamophobia Paper Topics
• Nuclear Weapon Essay Topics
• Sunni Islam Paper Topics
• Torture Essay Ideas
• North Korea Titles
• Racial Profiling Essay Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 3). 528 Terrorism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/terrorism-essay-examples/

"528 Terrorism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 3 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/terrorism-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '528 Terrorism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 3 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "528 Terrorism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/terrorism-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "528 Terrorism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/terrorism-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "528 Terrorism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/terrorism-essay-examples/.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Just War Theory — Terrorism And Just War Theory

Terrorism and Just War Theory

• Categories: Just War Theory War on Terror

About this sample

Words: 2656 |

14 min read

Published: May 14, 2021

Words: 2656 | Pages: 6 | 14 min read

Bibliography

• Coady, Tony (2004c) ‘Terrorism, Morality, and Supreme Emergency’, Ethics Vol. 114: 772–789.
• Cook. Martin L. (2007) Michael Walzer's Concept of 'Supreme Emergency', Journal of Military Ethics, 6:2, 138-151, DOI: 10.1080/15027570701381948
• Giroux, Henry A. (2015), “Domestic Terrorism, Youth, and the Politics of Disposability,” Knowledge Cultures 3(5): 116–131.
• Higgins, R. (1997). The general international law of terrorism. In R. Higgins & M. Flory (Eds.), Terrorism and international law (pp. 13-42). New York: Routledge.
• Orend, Brian (2005) ‘Is There a Supreme Emergency Exemption?’, in M. Evans (ed) Just War Theory. A Reappraisal, pp. 134–153. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Primoratz, Igor (2007a) ‘Terrorism’, in E. N. Zalta (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2007 Edition). Online: plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2007/entries/terrorism/.
• Primoratz, Igor (2007b) ‘A Philosopher Looks at Contemporary Terrorism’, Cardozo Law Review 29 (1): 33–51.
• Rodin, David (2004) ‘Terrorism without Intention’, Ethics 114 (4): 752–771.
• Stevens, Michael. J, (2004) Dore Morânadău, Mihai TURCU, . 'Can Terrorism Be Defined and Justified?'. Revista de Sociologie 2:7-16.
• Schwenkenbecher, Anne (2009). 'Terrorism, Supreme Emergency and Killing the Innocent'. Perspectives : review of Central European affairs 1:105-125.
• Teichman, Jenny (1989) ‘How to Define Terrorism’, Philosophy 64 (250): 505–517.
• Valls, Andrew (2000) ‘Can Terrorism Be Justified?’, in A. Valls (ed) Ethics in International Affairs: Theories and Cases, pp. 65–79. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield
• Walzer, Michael (2015) Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic Books.
• Walzer, Michael (2005) Arguing about War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Walzer, Michael (2006) ‘Terrorism and Just War’, Philosophia Vol. 34: 3–12.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 423 words

3 pages / 1309 words

3 pages / 1407 words

1 pages / 621 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Just War Theory

Rickaby, J. (1892). The Ethics of War. Longmans, Green, and Co.Walzer, M. (2006). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books.Orend, B. (2005). War and International Justice: A Kantian [...]

Functionalism is a consensus theory that sees society as a complex structure whose parts have to work together in order to function. Emile Durkheim was the one to come up with this theory, he initially envisioned society as an [...]

Today, in an age of mass communication, social media and portable technological devices, are we the sole creators of our own thoughts and actions, or are we produced by society and others? According to John Hospers, there are [...]

Teachers have been creating philosophies for education since as long as educators have served a purpose. A philosophy in a class room can be anything from spreading equality, lessening the overall achievement gap, treating each [...]

Just War Theory analyzes all aspects of why and how war should be fought and conducted. Just War has been discussed in Europe as far back as Cicero, and there have been several other texts in other civilizations with similar [...]

Bridges, T. J. (2014). Aquinas on natural law. Routledge.Cessario, R. J. (2001). The moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Catholic University of America Press.Garcia, J. L. A. (1996). Natural law and practical rationality. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Terrorism Essay

Essay on Terrorism

Terrorism is a blunder committed by the terrible individuals around us. To demonstrate their strength, a group of people attempts to govern a specific arena. Terrorism has a negative impact on both society and personal life. As a result of their acts, a large number of families are destroyed. Regrettably, the number of crimes in India is increasing on a daily basis. Ancient India was ruled by a monarchy, and the ruling was a source of pride for the king. However, India later accepted democracy, and everyone is treated equally under the Indian constitution. Even so, some cowards try to keep their power over the impoverished and weak.

Terrorism represents the foolish act done by the cruel people around us. The bunch of groups tries to rule the certain arena to show their power. Terrorism had a adverse effect on the society as well as a personal life. Their number of families gets destroyed due to their actions. In India, it's sad to say, but the number of crimes is increasing day by day. Ancient India was in Monarchy where ruling was a pride to the king, but later on India accepted democracy and everyone is treated the same under the Indian constituent. Still some cowards try to maintain their dominance over poor and helpless people.

Who could forget the date 26th November, better known as 26/11! Where 10 terrorists entered the country and attacked the economic city in India. Bringing grenades, pistols, automated rifles and other destructive weapons they almost destroyed the city and shocked the Indians in the midnight. The people are helpless, weaponless and in their own world of enjoyment at the railway station, hotels and in the drives on the roads, and suddenly a danger happens in their lives, which they did not expect. 

Osama Bin Laden was the greatest terrorist in the world! People are still afraid of hearing his name. He had destroyed a building named ‘world-trade center’ with the help of an airplane. It has also been stated in the reports that frequently Osama had been amorphous with him. Even the police themselves got confused and captured the wrong one. After his death there was lots of time still required to recognize the originality of him.

Lying in court is an offense. Frequently the needy and poor people lie in court for the sake of a certain amount of money. But, this money would be a help to criminals outside the world. Even, we purchased CDs and DVDs at an economic rate. To save a certain amount of money, we help piracy. These pirates invest this money in the armonony and indirectly we are sponsoring a bullet in every war which would be used against us only. 

The origin of terrorism starts with a little things. The first pen stolen from a friend could even lead to mortal works. Everything has a start and if left unmanaged, they can leave the astray and lose the right path. In the school, if the adverse effects of being bad are explained properly with illustrations to some real life examples, the students may get aware about all the facts and take an initiative to stop the spread of crime. Instead of making criminals with heroic roles in the television serials, the more heroic movie super cops are to be made. Instead of writing biographies of terrorism supporters, write articles about terrorism demonization. The start of this cleaning starts from home, if you have a child, teach them the ways to be a great person in good habits rather than supporting him when he starts stealing something. Terrorism has an end, if we are united the terrorism can be thrown is out of the windows! 

Various Forms Of Terrorism

Political terrorism, which raises mass concern, and criminal terrorism, which involves abduction for ransom money, are the two sorts of terrorism. Political terrorism is significantly more essential than criminal terrorism since it is carried out by well-trained personnel. As a result, apprehending them in a timely way becomes increasingly challenging for law enforcement agencies.

Terrorism has spread across the country and around the world. Regional terrorism is the most dangerous type of terrorism. Terrorists feel that dying as a terrorist is a priceless and sacred experience, and they will go to any extent to attain it. Each of these terrorist groups was founded for a different motive.

Who can forget November 26th, often known as "26/11"? Ten terrorists infiltrated the country and assaulted India's economic centre. They nearly devastated the city and astonished the Indians by bringing explosives, pistols, automatic rifles, and other lethal weapons. People are defenceless, without weapons, and engrossed in their own realms of pleasure at the railway station, motels, and on the highways when an unanticipated menace enters their life.

The Origins of Terrorism

The invention or manufacture of vast quantities of machine guns, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons, missiles, and other weapons fuels terrorism. Rapid population expansion, political, social, and economic issues, public dissatisfaction with the country's system, a lack of education, corruption, racism, economic disparities, and language disparities are all key factors in the development of terrorism. Terrorism is sometimes used to establish and maintain one's stance. Despite the contrast between caste and terrorism, the most well-known riots have taken place between Hindus and Muslims.

Consequences of Terrorism

Individuals are filled with fear as a result of terrorism, and people of the country feel vulnerable as a result. Millions of goods have been destroyed, thousands of people have died, and animals have been slaughtered as a result of terrorist assaults. People lose trust in humanity after seeing a terrorist attack, which fosters more terrorists. Terrorism comes in many forms and manifests itself in different parts of the country and outside.

Terrorism is becoming a problem not just in India, but also in our neighbouring countries, and governments throughout the world are battling it. The World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, is considered the world's worst terrorist strike. Osama bin Laden launched an attack on the world's tallest tower, resulting in millions of injuries and thousands of deaths.

FAQs on Terrorism Essay

1. Who was Osama bin Laden?

Osama Bin Laden was the world's greatest terrorist! Hearing his name still makes people fearful. With the help of an aeroplane, he had destroyed the 'world-trade centre.' According to the rumours, Osama had been amorphous with him on several occasions. Even the cops got mixed up and arrested the wrong person. There was still a lot of time required after his death to acknowledge his uniqueness.

2. Identify the countries that are the most impacted by terrorism.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria were the countries most hit in 2014, with the highest number of terrorist incidents. This year has been dubbed "Terrorism Year." Furthermore, it has been reported that these five countries were the primary targets of 78 per cent of all attacks last year. Apart from them, there are 39 countries that endured the most attacks, and their index rating is based on the severity and frequency of attacks they experienced.

3. What is the true cause of terrorism?

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence for a specific purpose. This motivation could stem from a sense of social and political injustice, or just a belief that violence can bring about change. The main cause of terrorism is usually perceived unfairness or rage against specific societal conditions. Many people join terrorist groups out of desperation or to exact personal vengeance on powerful authorities. Terrorism is also a result of strong feelings of injustice. Millions of young people aspire to make a difference by utilising violence as a tool for social upheaval. As a result, in order to combat these extremists, we must provide them with alternatives to violence that can be useful to them.

4. What is the best way to combat terrorism?

The reduction of terrorism threats and the safeguarding of the state, its interests, and citizens against all types of terrorist activity are two of the State Security Service's top priorities in the battle against terrorism. It is critical to detect and suppress operations carried out by international terrorist groups and anyone linked to them. It is necessary to conduct an active search for persons linked to terrorist organisations. Enhancing the capacity of readiness and reaction to terrorist threats should receive special focus.

5. Give an overview of the history of terrorism.

The term "terrorist" was coined by François-Nol Babeuf, a French philosopher, in 1794. As a result of his denunciation of Robespierre's regime as a dictatorship, the Brunswick Manifesto threatened Paris with military punishment and complete devastation. This threat, however, only fueled the Revolution's determination to overthrow the monarchy. Tyranny, according to ancient philosophers, was the greatest political threat to Greco-Roman civilization prior to the French Revolution. Philosophers in the Middle Ages were also preoccupied with the concept of tyranny.

6. Explain the historical background of terrorism.

The word "terrorist" was first used in 1794 by François-Noël Babeuf who was a French philosopher. He denounced Robespierre's regime as a dictatorship therefore Brunswick Manifesto threatened Paris that the city would be subjected to military punishment and total destruction. But this threat only increased the Revolution's will to abolish the monarchy.

Prior to the French Revolution, ancient philosophers wrote tyranny as the greatest political threat to Greco-Roman civilization. Medieval philosophers were similarly occupied with the concept of tyranny.

7. How to fight against terrorism?

One of the main priorities of the State Security Service in fighting against terrorism is the reduction of the risks of terrorism and the protection of the state, its interests and citizens against all forms of terrorist activities. The detection and suppression of activities carried out by international terrorist organizations and persons related to them is important. Active search of individuals connected with terrorist organizations needs to be conducted. Considerable attention should be paid in enhancing the capabilities of readiness and responses to terrorist threats.

8. What is the real reason behind terrorism?

Terrorism is the use of violence for a certain cause. This cause may be due to the perceived social and political injustice or simply a belief that violence can lead  to change.

Usually perceived injustice or anger against a certain social conditions is the main cause  that foster terrorism. Many people join terrorist groups because of poverty or to take their personal revenge from the powerful authority. Strong feelings of injustice also results in terrorism. There are millions of young people who want to create change by using fight as the tools for social upheaval. So, in order to counter these extremists we need to give them alternatives to violence which can prove beneficial for them.

9. Name the countries which are most affected by terrorism.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria are the most affected countries which suffered the largest number of terrorist attacks in 2014. This year is called the year of terrorism.

Also it has been recorded that these five countries were the major victims of 78% of all attacks that happened last year. Apart from these countries there are 39 countries which saw the greatest number of attacks, and their index ranking is calculated against severity and frequency of attacks they experienced.

Ethics for Enemies: Terror, Torture & War

In this section.

• Faculty Publications
• Publications by Centers & Initiatives
• Student Publications

HKS Authors

See citation below for complete author information.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Man in Denmark faces preliminary terrorism charges over arson at a Jewish woman’s home

FILE - A police officer guards in Copenhagen, Denmark, on July 4, 2022. A 21-year-old man in Denmark has been arrested for arson after allegedly setting a fire at a Jewish woman’s home in Copenhagen, and he faced preliminary charges in court under the country’s terrorism laws that can lead to a life sentence. (AP Photo/Sergei Grits, File)

• Copy Link copied

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — A 21-year-old man in Denmark was arrested on Tuesday for arson after allegedly setting a fire at a Jewish woman’s home in Copenhagen, and he faced preliminary court charges under the country’s terrorism laws that could lead to a life sentence.

Preliminary charges are one step short of formal charges and allow authorities to detain suspects during an investigation. A life sentence in Denmark usually means 16 years in prison.

The man and several other suspects who were not identified allegedly set fire to balcony furniture at the woman’s house on May 29. The blaze spread but was put out by firefighters, Danish media said, and no one was injured.

Under a court order, neither the suspect nor the victim can be named.

Danish media present at the court hearing said the man pleaded not guilty through his defense attorney. No further details were available because the rest of the hearing was held behind closed doors.

The Danish Security and Intelligence Service said in a statement the suspect was related to Loyal to Familia, a predominantly immigrant gang in Denmark that was banned in 2021.

“It is serious if a person in Denmark becomes a target of terror because of the person’s Jewish background. It is also worrying that we again see links to LTF in terrorist cases,” said Finn Borch Andersen, the head of the security agency.

In December, Denmark and Germany announced the arrests of several terror suspects , including alleged Hamas members, suspected of plotting attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions in Europe over the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. The announcements were issued separately.

Danish police then said three people were arrested in Denmark who were “related to criminal gangs” and singled out the banned, predominantly immigrant gang Loyal to Familia, which had long been behind feuds, violence, robberies, extortion and drug sales in the Danish capital.

“It is too early to assess whether it is an isolated case or a broader development in the terrorist threat,” Borch Andersen said of Monday’s arrest.

The Jewish Community in Denmark, in a separate statement, described the attack as “terrifying ... even if no one was injured.”

The security agency has warned of an “intensified terrorist threat against Jewish and Israeli targets in Denmark, especially in light of the conflict in Israel and Gaza,” Borch Andersen said.

• Environment
• National Politics
• Transportation
• Coronavirus

Pakistani man arrested over alleged terrorism plot on NYC Jewish center

2-minute read.

A Pakistani citizen was arrested in Canada on Wednesday for allegedly planning to carry out a terrorist attack at a Jewish center in Brooklyn, said the U.S. Department of Justice.

Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, 20, also known as Shahzeb Jadoon, was linked to the terrorist organization ISIS, and is accused of organizing a terrorist attack around Oct. 7 of this year, said the DOJ in a press release .

The Justice Department said Khan told the plan of his organized attack to undercover law enforcement officers who posed as individuals who were interested in joining the mass shooting.

Khan's plan was to travel from Canada to New York City where he intended to use automatic and semi-automatic weapons against Jewish people in that area, officials said in the release.

The feds said they found out about Khan and his planned attack from complaints from November 2023 when Khan began posting his support for ISIS on social media while also using encrypted messaging applications to carry out his plan.

Khan was handing out ISIS literature and video propaganda when he was approached by the undercover officers. He allegedly told officers “Oct 7 and Oct 11 are the best days for targeting the Jews” because “Oct. 7 they will surely have some protests and Oct. 11 is Yom Kippur.”

Khan allegedly told the undercover authorities to "acquire AR-style rifles, ammunition, and other equipment for his attack, including 'some good hunting [knives] so we can slit their throats.' "

"The defendant is alleged to have planned a terrorist attack in New York City around October 7th of this year with the stated goal of slaughtering, in the name of ISIS, as many Jewish people as possible,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in the official press release from the Department of Justice.

Khan is being charged with one count of attempting to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, which faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Latest on Israel-Hamas war

The alleged plan attack was planned for one year since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, where Hamas killed almost 1,200 people and took more than another 240 people hostage.

Since the attack, Israel responded with an bombardment of attacks towards Gaza that have continued to this day which led to 40,000 people being killed, reports Reuters . The same report says The Palestinian Health Ministry has estimated for most of the conflict that around 70% of the dead are women and children.

Earlier this week, six Hamas hostages were killed in a tunnel in Rafah, near Gaza's southern border with Egypt.

A release of the hostages and cease-fire deal is still being negotiated, but nothing has been settled.