0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
45 tayangan4 halaman
Terrorism most resembles small war p. 59 how so? Some terrorism can cause major damage to large groups of can Lack of power is often the reason why terrorism is their weapon in the first place. 61 and in hopes to cause change to an uncomfortable situation.
Terrorism most resembles small war p. 59 how so? Some terrorism can cause major damage to large groups of can Lack of power is often the reason why terrorism is their weapon in the first place. 61 and in hopes to cause change to an uncomfortable situation.
Terrorism most resembles small war p. 59 how so? Some terrorism can cause major damage to large groups of can Lack of power is often the reason why terrorism is their weapon in the first place. 61 and in hopes to cause change to an uncomfortable situation.
Citation: Held, Virginia. "Terrorism and War." The Journal of Ethics 8.1 (2004): 59-75.JSTOR. Web. 1 Jan. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115781>.
Source: Quote (Page# or Paragraph #)
Responses
Terrorism most resembles small war p. 59
How so? Some terrorism can cause major damage to large groups of can Lack of power is often the reason why Terrorists use terrorism forpeople sensewhich of power, lead to something bigger.. terrorism is their weapon in the first place. 61 and in hopes to cause change to an uncomfortable situation. Whats the criteria There are different kinds of terrorism as What are the differences? Held will not argue that terrorism is justified She thinks terrorism is bad but not as bad as there are of war p. 59 that distinguishes them? but that terrorism is not necessarily worse war. Not bad enough to evade looking into A serious mistake to discussion be avoidedof is terrorism assumingis I used to think of that.. are they different? than war.The recent the rationale the how terrorist. all terrorism is alike p. 59 that terrorism is so morally unacceptable as a mean that we do not need even to consider Dick Cheney no policy of containment or Fighting violence with violence isnt good. US the politicalwill objectives of those p. who deterrence prove effective 60engage isnt willing to negotiate. in terrorism. 62 Governments characteristically So definition governments Defining terrorism is notoriouslydefine difficult p 62 The may see varyterrorism I assumeas an attack terrorism as something only opponents can on their establishments. Terrorism a weapon only of the weak commit asissomething those who seek to So usually its a smaller group that attempts to send a message to a larger group change policies. 62 Whenonmilitary of Argentina So way when states cause terrorism its not war terror ruler in central Americacaused in the The the US combated terrorism was thousands ofapproximately their suspected opponents to terrorism but when aviolence group attacks the state 1980s killed 200,000people hypocritical. Fighting with violence and disappear produced in order over to a million spreadrefugees fear among p 61 doesnt its terrorism. work. Isnt that a double standard? other potential dissidents this was state Governments dont have definition including a Domination of the state is what a group So that isgroup a reason whyharm sometoresort to terrorism 62 higher causing a smaller engaging in terrorism is resisting p 61 terrorism group. There canoften be state sponsored terrorism as Perhaps states are that? doingWhere so to protect their Terrorists believe, whether mistakenly Why do they believe did they get when the government of one state funds and economic investments in another state. or not that violence is the only course of this idea? Why do they think its successful? action to them that carred can advance supports terrorism out by their members of What instances in history has shown that political objective p69under its control.63 terrorism works? groups or states not Terrorism seeks to terrorize, to spread fear There must be a deeper message that States as well as nonstate groups can More nonstate groups are portrayed on among wider group than those directly terrorists want to convey by getting ppls engage in terrorism pg 59 medias in engaging in terrorism. I think states affected 63 evencitizens thoughand it means killing. doattention it to control no one can Terrorism is political violence 63 If its political than certainly somethings can combat them. be compromised between the groups that Those who share views that all terrorism is So there is justification for violence against want change and the opposing group. the same and there should be no terrorism and none for the terrorist act. Held sites Walzer who says there is a serious Its too broad of a definition.things thatOn dont negotiation with a terrorists are intent onsees either both are would killing lots of be people. problem with definition of terrorism that seemend terroristlike in fact terrorism rejecting any comparison between dealths the deliberate killing of innocent people as caused by terrorist and death caused by the definingPcharacteristic or what opponents. 60 distinguighes it from other political violence It64is unclear why those who bring about Civilians are deemed innocent in the publics states policies and give it armed services If it were true bombing of Hiroshima would be eyes but to terrorists they are followers of the their orders should be exempt. P 60 government terrorists despise. terrorism Actions of the states opposing terrorists Actualhave loss of life caused by far terrorism group frequently killed more in comparison conventional civilians thanwith have terrorists. Pwarfare 61 remains relatively modest. Held rejects the view that terrorism is States possess weapons of precision capable of attacking when they choose to, targeted persons intentionally and civilians only unintentionally is just another way in which their superior power allows them to be dominant. P 61
Its a cycle. Terrorists kill. Government kills
Thispeople. is a strong point thatcould supports Helds more More anger encourage idea thatgroups war is to farwant moretodangerous than terrorists attack again into a terrorism. vicious killing spree on both ends. She explains the fuzziness of identifying who Since states kill much more than the terrorists kill, and they have more powerful weapons the claim that some were killed accidentally isnt true. How can u differentiate between civilians and terrorists? It could be they target anyone who they think could be a target.
inevitably and necessarily morally worse than
war, which many assert because they declare that, by definition, terrorism targets civilians. Idecline to make targeting civilians a defining feature of terrorism.Terrorismis a political violence that usually spreads fear beyond those attacked, as others recognize themselves as potential targets. 68 There are many kinds of terrorism as there are many kinds of war. 68 Violence used to suppress terrorism is the price paid to maintain the status quo, as the violence used by dissatisfied group is the price paid to pursue its goal.
The burden of making terrorism more
successful is on the government 68 Terrorists often believe, whether mistakenly or not, that violence is the only course of action open to them that can advance their political objectives. 69 Lloyd Dumas examins the ineffectiveness of violent couter terrorism noting that for decades, isreal had doggedly followed a polic of responding to any act of terrorism with violent military retaliation. The result, there exists more terrorism directed against Isreal than ever beforeIsraelis live in fear.69 No form of violence can be justified unless other means of achieving a legitimate political objective have failed 71 Those who study terrorists are amazed at how normal they seem and how articulate and rational they are. 71 Poverty is not the cause of terrorism 72 Religious zealotry is a cause
are the citizens, and the definition of terrorism
includes killing citizens which is too broad because it includes incidents of history that arent considered terrorist acts. Killing civilians arent deliberate, the main thing terrorists thrive on is the fear. They want to address something.
You cant treat all terrorism the same.
Different terrorists have different motives, and ways of carrying out terrorism. This reminds me of Nat Turner Rebellion. Group of slaves planned to kill their slave owners because of maltreatment, but the owners found out and killed all the slaves. Fighting for change seems morally justifiable than fighting against it to maintain oppressive dissatisfying behavior. The government can decide to bring about the change terrorists want or refuse Perhaps other methods have been ineffective. Violence does get peoples attention, which is what the terrorists want. They want attention. With retaliation of the gov. with violence it seems to add more fumes to the fire. It makes things worse.
Governments havent even tried other forms
of responding to terrorists so violence isnt justified. Terrorists arent crazies.they come in different forms. So terrorists are motivated by something else. There problem isnt poverty. Maybe they are passionate about a religion and feel offended or want to impose their religion in a society.