What is justification? There are a couple different definitions for the term justification. The first one stated that terrorism is the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. The second definition that I found states that justification is good reason for something that exists or has been done. Others would say that terrorism occurs because of the fact that it is one of the most effective ways to gain fear and control of a person or society.
If one was to discuss the Conflict Resolution paradigm and the Nonviolence paradigm, one would notice certain distinctions between them. However, there are also similarities between the two. This essay is going to compare and contrast the two paradigms in reference to Violence & Peacemaking. Firstly, it will state general information about the two concepts of violence and peacemaking. Secondly, it will define and elaborate on the Nonviolence paradigm and the Conflict Resolution paradigm.
With the development of strategic warfare the lines between war and terrorism have blurred through a gradual change in the tactics and technology used by military, paramilitary, and other fighting forces. Previous to WWI war was a conventional manner, with large armies fighting over a battle-ground. In the same respect, until the early 1900’s terrorism was a human-to-human contact matter, with terrorists shooting, or stabbing their targets at close proximity. With the development of strategic weapons such as, planes, gun-mounted boats, submarines, and bombs of various forms, a change in the tactics used by terrorists and militaries have taken a strategic turn, breeding new similarities between the actions of the State and that of the Terrorist. Terrorism can be defined as, ‘The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.’ (FBI).
HEIDEGGER AND TERRORISM by ANDREW J. MITCHELL Stanford University ABSTRACT Terrorism is a metaphysical problem that concerns the presence of beings today. Heidegger’s own thinking of being makes possible a confrontation with terrorism on four fronts: 1) Heidegger’s conception of war in the age of technological replacement goes beyond the Clausewitzian model of war and all its modernist-subjectivist presuppositions, 2) Heidegger thinks “terror” (Erschrecken) as the fundamental mood of our time, 3) Heideggerian thinking is attuned to the nature of the terrorist “threat” and the “danger” that we face today, 4) Heidegger rethinks the notion of “security” in a manner that alerts us to the oxymoronic character of “homeland security.” The epoch of terrorism is likewise the era of political transformation that Heidegger identifies with “Americanism.” In this essay an effort is made to think terrorism qua metaphysical problem and to inquire into the perhaps privileged role of America for the thinking of terrorism today. Heideggerian thought is a thinking that is engaged with its times. Whatever we might make of Heidegger’s political choices, the fact remains that even these decisions can be seen as attempts to think with and against the times. It is no stretch to say that our time today is the time of terrorism—an uncommon time, no matter how common a claim this may be—especially in the United States.
According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, war is described as “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a state of usual open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end.” This is a logical explanation, but it brings up a question. Is war all bad? Can’t war have good points as well as bad ones? There are good things, too. You don’t believe me?
Abstract: This research aims to identify causes of terrorism that are consistent across several divergent movements at the macro-systematic level. By identifying root causes that can explain terrorism, and their flow, regardless of differing backgrounds, this research attempts to outline methods by which policy can be crafted that aid in the identification of potential terrorism as well as the reduction of the threat of terrorist movement generation. This piece was completed through the qualitative analysis of case studies of several terrorist organizations as well as general research literature germane to the topic. The research has revealed that, despite different time periods, cultures, and ideologies, the precipitation of terrorism requires a society spanning problem necessitating rectification which leads to the revelation that the political system in place is inadequate to fulfill this demand which ultimately leads to people adhering to radical ideologies to enact the change they wish to see. Also, it is found that ideologies only come into play once longstanding grievances have been established.
The circumstances mentioned above encompasses self defense, serious offenses against persons and apprehension to name a few, for the sake of this paper we are going to look at when law enforcement uses self-defense and its legality. However knowing the verbatim standard for self defense is important before discussing the cases that will appear later. The federal government defines it as the following under 10 CRF 1047.7 Section A "When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm."
If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World. 10. One of the greatest dangers we face today is the risk that terrorists will obtain access to weapons of mass destruction as a result of the breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Regime. We in the U.S. are contributing to that
This legislation was introduced in a rapid fashion following the attack of 9/11. Because of this, it had some points of vagueness and left it open for misinterpretation. Organizations like the ACLU fed on this and released multiple reports demeaning the substance of the Act. In doing this, it introduced fear to the public that their civil liberties were being greatly compromised. In reality, the majority of the legislation is directed towards people suspected of terrorism.
During times of war, it is understandable that the Government will be more apt to protect its people. In the United States, terrorism has become a major concern. This has come to light more recently after the 9/11 attack in 2004. Americans have been told that terrorism is their biggest enemy. Though in the attempts to obtain security, the people of the United States are giving up their freedoms and others are having those same freedoms taken away from them.