Essay on the Nature of Terrorism According to Helen

At first, Helen introduces us to nature of terrorism, which she thinks they should be used to assess whether certain actions can be morally justified. Simply put, Helen wants us to think that not all actions are terrorism as we may presume. According to Helen, an action intended to cause extreme fear, war, torture or violence (terror) can either be politically motivated or perpetrated by non-state actors. But even at this point, I find Helen claim not much convincing, simply because of no matter the motivating factors or the nature of terrorism, it is morally wrong to threaten, cause harm or even kill another person. In fact, the act does not respect ones autonomous, and so it is a violation of human right. Or think about political terrorism; the terror undermines the trust of the governing body, disrupts the social order and generates intensified conflicts and war, all which are morally wrong.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In a deeper perspective, Helen seems to draw an argument that, non-politically motivated acts of terrorism are overlooked. She states, This is the least contested aspect of terrorism. This is the fact that, the serial killers or the garden mass murderers are least termed as terrorists. In relation to this, she gives an example of Al-Qaeda terrorist group which is well known following the reason that it is a politically motivated terrorism group. In another example, she provided an example of Jack the Ripper; who killed many people in London but not thought as the terrorist. Although most of us can agree on this fact, it is not plausible to use such a distinction as a basis of moral justification of any nature of the terrorism. Although it is undisputable that both the political body and the non-state actors have specific agendas, some which include stopping the execution of prisoners, banning animal experimentation, stopping military operations or even for the personal interest, the act of attaining such goals (terror) cannot be justified.

Helen still wants us to believe that the distinction between the collateral killing of the combatants and non-combatants can be used as the moral assessment of the terrorism acts. She argues that those terrorist involved in the killing of non-combatants (civilians) should be treated in the same way as other intentional killings. She develops this argument by stating that just like the terrorist, the murders, and state executioners intentionally kill non-combatants yet they are not branded as terrorists. Although this might seem little bit convincing, Helen failed to consider the broad intention of the terrorists. As a matter of fact, unlike other killers, terrorist intends to create a fear that would manipulate the state organs, certain groups or society at large. This means they would continue to kill or cause fear among the general population until their agenda is achieved.

On the issue of Combatant attack, Helen thinks that such should still be termed as terrorism act. She supports her claim but citing an example at which President Bill Clinton termed US Navy ship attack as an act of terrorism. Contradicting enough, this was the point any reader would expect the author to justify this nature of attack as a non-terrorism activity. This is following the theoretical concept that, the killing of armed soldiers is justifiable because they may be prove dangerous to an adversary. Here, the author would have established moral justification between Combatant and non-combatant attack in a way that, unlike the combatant, the non-combatant is harmless and unarmed justifiable reason to attack them.

In another point, Helen makes an unclear statement that killing of the innocent people is a feature of more than just terrorism. She further explains the statement by expressing that; the act must be coined with political agenda. Reflecting back from my earlier critique, I pinpointed Helen argument; which looked convincing that only politically motivated terrorism highly raise the alarm. But then again, it is not convincing for Helen to tell us that the act of killing, intense threat and war must be coined with other bodies or agendas to give it equal magnitude with the actual terrorism. It is even more confusing when Helen introduces us to non-state violence, which she explains that as the terrorism from non-state actors. So, if we have two categories of terrorism, why should we coin one to another so as to justify it as terrorism?

At a certain point, am convinced that Helens concept of Natural Light efface his idea about the distinctive morality of terrorism. According to this author, the concept stems from the legitimate responsibility of the governing body to maintain order, security, contain violence, and exercise monopoly. As a result, the government may use representative agents to use force or even kill as the state obligation. Although this claim is still debatable, Helen fails to look into the side of non-legislative terrorism to see the circumstances under which some actions can be justified or not. In fact, this is the first time we see the author deflect from the idea of distinctive morality; which was to see both sides assessed.

Terrorism seems always to mean violent attacks that are blowing off buildings, vehicles, and shootings. The attempt of the later events is also terrorist acts. An example is the attempt by Richard Reid to blow a plane with explosives in his shoe was a terrorist act. This makes terrorism to be not only a murder but also holistic concept. Reid has been described as a terrorist and not attempted terrorist. Many people look at the outcome to classify an event as terrorism. This would make an even to be excluded from terrorism by many if there was no violent part. All actions which result to terrorism like purchasing explosives with intention of blowing up building should not be excluded.

According to Godin, some terrorist actions may not be violent. He categorizes warnings made by terrorists to be terrorism. He gives an example of two phone calls alerting and threatening people to evacuate a building where a bomb is about to blow. The first call is assumed to be made by police while the other by a terrorist. Godin argues that the first call is not violent and not terrorism act. The second call made by the terrorist according to Godin has threats hence being a terrorist act. The phone call would remain terrorism act even if the act were a hoax.

Although it is the agents intentions that will distinguish terrorism acts, the part of instilling fear to individuals is what makes it terrorism. Godin clarifies between the two calls one warning individuals and the other meant to threatened them. Any call meant to cause fear and tension even if there are no causalities unlike an alert one is a terrorist act.