Ellie Parker

1/23/14

Fast Facts:
1. Terrorist attacks and attempts, aside from 9/11, have become less
frequent in the United States since the 1970s
2. Just about every part of the United States has been hit by some form of
terrorist attack since 1970
3. The types of organized groups that carry out terrorist attacks have
become increasingly more diverse
4. From 1970-2011 there were 104,689 terrorist incidents worldwide
5. In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be
determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorismrelated fatalities over the past five years
6. The tiny fraction of Muslims who commit terror attacks are immersed in
an environment that nourishes these actions
7. 2,500 Westerners have joined ISIS
Terrorism has been around for as long as most people can remember.
However, in the past 15 years it has become an increasingly more pressing
issue on the political agenda. It seems like everywhere we turn, we are told
more and more stories about the terror these enemies are causing our world.
Through the use of murder, kidnapping, hijacking, and bombing, terrorists
instill fear to gain political aims. With a subject matter as acute as terrorism,
you would think that we would have a better understanding of the word.
However, defining the word terrorism is one of the most difficult and
controversial things to do.
On September 11, 2001 America was struck by the most drastic
terrorist attack to date. Planes were flown into the Twin Towers killing almost

Ellie Parker
1/23/14

3,000 innocent people. No one can argue that this was an act of terror. Our
world was rocked following this tragedy and since then we have vowed to
forever fight the War of Terror. The controversy to this comes with the way
we responded to 9/11. Many argue that the tactics we used when we invaded
Iraq mirrored those of the terrorists. So who are the real terrorists here? Can
we justify our actions in Iraq using our claim of self-defense? Can terrorism,
arguably the greatest threat to our nation, ever be justified? Through reading
these collections of essays and articles, you will be able to formulate your
own opinions on these pressing questions.
Due to the lack of definition that terrorism has, we find ourselves
classifying every enemy as a terrorist. John V. Whitbeck argues that we use
the word as less accurately because it has more power as a call to action
type of phrase. This only confuses the definition more. It is no accident that
there is no agreed definition of terrorism, since the word is so subjective as
to be devoid of any inherent meaning. (Whitbeck, John V.) This subjectivity
of the word is what has sparked so many questions and so much confusion
about who we label terrorists. The common thought-provoking question that
is used to label this idea is one mans terrorist is another mans freedom
fighter. This question is used as a kind of umbrella under which every
inconsistency and question about terrorism rests. Brian Brivati argues that
when people say that true terrorism can be justified, it is equivalent to saying
that America has a monopoly on violence legitimizing our use of it and
invalidating any other groups use of it. Terrorism, which, all right-thinking

Ellie Parker
1/23/14

people must agree, is an ultimate evil. (Whitbeck, John V) No one can

disagree that the killing of innocent people is an act of terror and injustice
and we must not stand for it. However, this means that we too cannot stoop
to this level of immorality.
On the other hand, argues Jeff Jacoby, terrorism is never justified.
Perpetrators are not victims. In his article to the Boston Globe he points out
how after the Boston Bombing people were trying to justify what had
happened by stating that it was because of Americas superiority. He agrees
that America has made some bad decisions in the past, but justifying
terrorism crosses the line from self-criticism into idiocy. Similarly Bill Vallicella
claims that the phrase of one mans terrorist is another mans freedom
fighter is a claim that logical people should avoid saying. Suppose,
Vallicella argues, a Palestinian Arab jihadi straps on an explosive belt and
detonates himself in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor. He is objectively a terrorist: he
kills and maims noncombatants in furtherance of a political agenda which
includes freedom from Israeli occupation. The fact that he is a freedom
fighter does not make him any less a terrorist. Regardless of your goal,
Jacoby and Vallicella agree, terror is never a means to an end.
Q1 Question:
The root of the controversy about terrorism stems from whether or not
it is justifiable. Some argue that any form of self-protection and defense
deserves justification, while others believe strongly that this form of

Ellie Parker
1/23/14

heinousness deserves no credibility. Do you think that terrorism can ever be

justified? Is one mans terrorist another mans freedom fighter? Is America at
all at fault for the development and reciprocation of terrorism?