This essay offers a critical exploration of his attempt, asking: can a terrorist justifiably and objectively be considered a freedom fighter? Part two discusses and defines terrorism as a concept, emphasising in particular how it differs from war — whether conventional or unconventional. It argues terrorism is distinct from these latter forms of political violence because it is primarily a form of communication aimed at terrorising non-combatants.
In contrast, the violence or the threat of violence used in war seeks to dominate the enemy through force.
For terrorism to be a legitimate form of freedom fighting, then, it too would have to be justifiable in certain situations. The extreme nature of situations where this would be permissible, however, makes it doubtful as to whether the threshold is ever reached in practice. The power of the slogan thus derives from its implicit invitation to assess a terrorist act from the perspective of the terrorist; emphasising the importance of critically reflecting on what factors influenced the choice of resorting to terrorism.
But this subordinates a means or tactic — terrorism — to an end or strategic goal — fighting for freedom. Though primarily intended for judging inter- or intrastate warfare, the theory has a long history of being applied to terrorism Walzer ; As summarised by Evans , Jus ad bellum consists of seven criteria: just cause; proportionality; probability of success; last resort; right intention; right authority; and a public declaration of war.
Jus in bello , on the other hand, consists of four: only targeting people and infrastructure directly involved in the war; proportional use of force; just treatment of non-combatants including prisoners of war ; and adherence to national and international law. There are, however, two exemptions to the Jus in bello criteria. To assess, then, if a freedom fighter can justly resort to terrorism, it is necessary to provide a working definition of terrorism without a priori violating the Just War-criteria, while also distinguishing it from warfare.
In this view, non-violent terrorism or war would simply be normal politics, such as demonstrations or negotiations. This is the least controversial and most common elements included in definitions of terrorism Ganor The emphasis on politics also separates war and terrorism from crime. However broadly, terror and war — unlike crime — seeks to influence the ordering of social life — whether it be economic, religious or otherwise Ganor ; Nathanson Instead the description permits terrorism to be seen as a tool that can be wielded by a variety of actors, in a variety of situations and for a variety of reasons.
A key defining feature of terrorism, then, is its targeting of non-combatant people or property Finlay This leads to two further but interrelated differences between war and terror, which is the nature of the violence and nature of their communicative elements. For whatever political aim, terrorism uses violence against a limited number of non-combatants or infrastructure to send a message to wider society and exploit fear of further violence Goodin In essence, war contains a promise of potential military defeat.
War thus threatens the existence of a community, while terrorism threatens a small number of its members. As such, war may be viewed as a top-down instrument, while terrorism works bottom-up.
Is its strategy successful? What is the response of its target enemy? Parts 2 and 3 Enact a tribunal for each group, with students defending the group's position as to whether it deserves the terrorist label. For example, the students who researched Hamas will serve as the judges for the two ANC groups, and vice versa. The "judges" will pose some or all of the questions above to each group, and students must then present evidence that supports the accusation or refutes it.
What if no one is harmed -- is it still terrorism? Perpetrator Who carries out terrorism? Is terrorism always carried out by organized opposition groups? Can states be terrorists? Can individuals? Consider issues of inspiration, planning, provision of weapons, military assistance. Target Does terrorism target only civilians? Could an attack on a military target be terrorism? How do you decide what a civilian is? What about off-duty military personnel?
Colonial occupiers? What about assassination of a head of state, one of whose roles is commander in chief? For an act of violence to qualify as terrorism, must its perpetrators deliberately target civilians, or simply be reckless as to whether civilians as well as military targets might be harmed? Are all attacks on civilians terrorism? Is the target of terrorism always human, or can acts of sabotage against property also be considered terrorism?
Motive Is the motive behind an act important in deciding if it is terrorism, or should only the act itself be considered? What is the objective of terrorism? Is terrorism "violence for an audience" -- an act committed to inspire fear in the public and therefore force policy changes?
Or does a terrorist act have specific strategic objectives? Does it make any difference if the perpetrators consider themselves a martyr for a religious or political cause? Point of view If a cause is considered legitimate, are any means to achieve its goals legitimate? How does one distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? What is the difference between terrorism and guerrilla warfare?
Is terrorism "the weapon of the weak"? Are illegitimate acts against an enemy in war terrorism, war crimes, or is there a difference? Does history change the definition of terrorism? Museveni said when there is no distinction made between combatants and civilians. The Ugandan president said the actions of terrorists are criminal and must be opposed by all as a matter of principle. On another issue, Mr.
Museveni criticized government agricultural price supports in many European nations. He said those supports put Africa's exports at a disadvantage. The Ugandan president drew some laughs when he said he tries to bring his own food when traveling abroad but is sometimes forced to buy products elsewhere. First of all, the pineapple was very hard, I have never encountered a hard pineapple until the one in London.
It is also less sweet and has an ammonia-like pungent taste. Museveni said it is a shame that Europeans are forced to eat inferior foods against better quality foods from Africa. Search Search.
0コメント