essay in terrorism

Terrorism Essay for Students and Teacher

500+ words essay on terrorism essay.

Terrorism is an act, which aims to create fear among ordinary people by illegal means. It is a threat to humanity. It includes person or group spreading violence, riots, burglaries, rapes, kidnappings, fighting, bombings, etc. Terrorism is an act of cowardice. Also, terrorism has nothing to do with religion. A terrorist is only a terrorist, not a Hindu or a Muslim.

Types of Terrorism

Terrorism is of two kinds, one is political terrorism which creates panic on a large scale and another one is criminal terrorism which deals in kidnapping to take ransom money. Political terrorism is much more crucial than criminal terrorism because it is done by well-trained persons. It thus becomes difficult for law enforcing agencies to arrest them in time.

Terrorism spread at the national level as well as at international level.  Regional terrorism is the most violent among all. Because the terrorists think that dying as a terrorist is sacred and holy, and thus they are willing to do anything. All these terrorist groups are made with different purposes.

Causes of Terrorism

There are some main causes of terrorism development  or production of large quantities of machine guns, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons, missiles, etc. rapid population growth,  Politics, Social, Economic  problems, dissatisfaction of people with the country’s system, lack of education, corruption, racism, economic inequality, linguistic differences, all these are the major  elements of terrorism, and terrorism flourishes after them. People use terrorism as a weapon to prove and justify their point of view.  The riots among Hindus and Muslims are the most famous but there is a difference between caste and terrorism.

The Effects Of Terrorism

Terrorism spreads fear in people, people living in the country feel insecure because of terrorism. Due to terrorist attacks, millions of goods are destroyed, the lives of thousands of innocent people are lost, animals are also killed. Disbelief in humanity raises after seeing a terrorist activity, this gives birth to another terrorist. There exist different types of terrorism in different parts of the country and abroad.

Today, terrorism is not only the problem of India, but in our neighboring country also, and governments across the world are making a lot of effort to deal with it. Attack on world trade center on September 11, 2001, is considered the largest terrorist attack in the world. Osama bin Laden attacked the tallest building in the world’s most powerful country, causing millions of casualties and death of thousands of people.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Terrorist Attacks in India

India has suffered several terrorist attacks which created fear among the public and caused huge destruction. Here are some of the major terrorist attacks that hit India in the last few years: 1991 – Punjab Killings, 1993 – Bombay Bomb Blasts, RSS Bombing in Chennai, 2000 – Church Bombing, Red Fort Terrorist Attack,2001- Indian Parliament Attack, 2002 – Mumbai Bus Bombing, Attack on Akshardham Temple, 2003 – Mumbai Bombing, 2004 – Dhemaji School Bombing in Assam,2005 – Delhi Bombings, Indian Institute of Science Shooting, 2006 – Varanasi Bombings, Mumbai Train Bombings, Malegaon Bombings, 2007 – Samjhauta Express Bombings, Mecca Masjid Bombing, Hyderabad Bombing, Ajmer Dargah Bombing, 2008 – Jaipur Bombings, Bangalore Serial Blasts, Ahmedabad Bombings, Delhi Bombings, Mumbai Attacks, 2010 – Pune Bombing, Varanasi Bombing.

The recent ones include 2011 – Mumbai Bombing, Delhi Bombing, 2012 – Pune Bombing, 2013 – Hyderabad Blasts, Srinagar Attack, Bodh Gaya Bombings, Patna Bombings, 2014 – Chhattisgarh Attack, Jharkhand Blast, Chennai Train Bombing, Assam Violence, Church Street Bomb Blast, Bangalore, 2015 –  Jammu Attack, Gurdaspur Attack, Pathankot Attack, 2016 – Uri Attack, Baramulla Attack, 2017 – Bhopal Ujjain Passenger Train Bombing, Amarnath Yatra Attack, 2018 Sukma Attack, 2019- Pulwama attack.

Agencies fighting Terrorism in India

Many police, intelligence and military organizations in India have formed special agencies to fight terrorism in the country. Major agencies which fight against terrorism in India are Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Terrorism has become a global threat which needs to be controlled from the initial level. Terrorism cannot be controlled by the law enforcing agencies alone. The people in the world will also have to unite in order to face this growing threat of terrorism.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Definitions of terrorism

• Types of terrorism

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Social Sci LibreTexts - Terrorism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Terrorism
• Cornell Law Scholl - Legal Information Institute - Terrorism
• United States Institute of Peace - Rethinking the "War of Terror"
• FBI - Terrorism
• PBS Frontline - The Evolution Of Islamic Terrorism
• Digital History - Terrorism in Historical Perspective
• terrorism - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• terrorism - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

terrorism , the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.

Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. It was first coined in the 1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the revolutionaries against their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre carried out a Reign of Terror involving mass executions by the guillotine . Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime .

Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare . Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda , aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism proper is thus the calculated use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”

In order to attract and maintain the publicity necessary to generate widespread fear, terrorists must engage in increasingly dramatic, violent, and high-profile attacks. These have included hijackings , hostage takings, kidnappings , mass shootings, car bombings, and, frequently, suicide bombings . Although apparently random, the victims and locations of terrorist attacks often are carefully selected for their shock value. Schools, shopping centres, bus and train stations, and restaurants and nightclubs have been targeted both because they attract large crowds and because they are places with which members of the civilian population are familiar and in which they feel at ease. The goal of terrorism generally is to destroy the public’s sense of security in the places most familiar to them. Major targets sometimes also include buildings or other locations that are important economic or political symbols, such as embassies or military installations. The hope of the terrorist is that the sense of terror these acts engender will induce the population to pressure political leaders toward a specific political end.

Some definitions treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political motivations, as simple criminal activity. For example, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines both international and domestic terrorism as involving “violent, criminal acts.” The element of criminality, however, is problematic, because it does not distinguish among different political and legal systems and thus cannot account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate . A frequently mentioned example is the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa , which committed violent actions against that country’s apartheid government but commanded broad sympathy throughout the world. Another example is the Resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of France during World War II .

Since the 20th century, ideology and political opportunism have led a number of countries to engage in international terrorism, often under the guise of supporting movements of national liberation. (Hence, it became a common saying that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”) The distinction between terrorism and other forms of political violence became blurred—particularly as many guerrilla groups often employed terrorist tactics—and issues of jurisdiction and legality were similarly obscured.

These problems have led some social scientists to adopt a definition of terrorism based not on criminality but on the fact that the victims of terrorist violence are most often innocent civilians. Even this definition is flexible, however, and on occasion it has been expanded to include various other factors, such as that terrorist acts are clandestine or surreptitious and that terrorist acts are intended to create an overwhelming sense of fear.

In the late 20th century, the term ecoterrorism was used to describe acts of environmental destruction committed in order to further a political goal or as an act of war, such as the burning of Kuwaiti oil wells by the Iraqi army during the Persian Gulf War . The term also was applied to certain environmentally benign though criminal acts, such as the spiking of lumber trees, intended to disrupt or prevent activities allegedly harmful to the environment .

Since the early 21st the term stochastic terrorism has been used to designate the repeated use of hate speech or other vilifying, dehumanizing rhetoric by a political leader or other public figure that inspires one or more of the figure’s supporters to commit hate crimes or other acts of violence against a targeted person, group, or community . Because stochastic terrorists do not supply their followers with any detailed plan of attack, the particular time and place of the eventual violence are unpredictable.

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Terrorism Essay

Essay on Terrorism

Terrorism is a blunder committed by the terrible individuals around us. To demonstrate their strength, a group of people attempts to govern a specific arena. Terrorism has a negative impact on both society and personal life. As a result of their acts, a large number of families are destroyed. Regrettably, the number of crimes in India is increasing on a daily basis. Ancient India was ruled by a monarchy, and the ruling was a source of pride for the king. However, India later accepted democracy, and everyone is treated equally under the Indian constitution. Even so, some cowards try to keep their power over the impoverished and weak.

Terrorism represents the foolish act done by the cruel people around us. The bunch of groups tries to rule the certain arena to show their power. Terrorism had a adverse effect on the society as well as a personal life. Their number of families gets destroyed due to their actions. In India, it's sad to say, but the number of crimes is increasing day by day. Ancient India was in Monarchy where ruling was a pride to the king, but later on India accepted democracy and everyone is treated the same under the Indian constituent. Still some cowards try to maintain their dominance over poor and helpless people.

Who could forget the date 26th November, better known as 26/11! Where 10 terrorists entered the country and attacked the economic city in India. Bringing grenades, pistols, automated rifles and other destructive weapons they almost destroyed the city and shocked the Indians in the midnight. The people are helpless, weaponless and in their own world of enjoyment at the railway station, hotels and in the drives on the roads, and suddenly a danger happens in their lives, which they did not expect. 

Osama Bin Laden was the greatest terrorist in the world! People are still afraid of hearing his name. He had destroyed a building named ‘world-trade center’ with the help of an airplane. It has also been stated in the reports that frequently Osama had been amorphous with him. Even the police themselves got confused and captured the wrong one. After his death there was lots of time still required to recognize the originality of him.

Lying in court is an offense. Frequently the needy and poor people lie in court for the sake of a certain amount of money. But, this money would be a help to criminals outside the world. Even, we purchased CDs and DVDs at an economic rate. To save a certain amount of money, we help piracy. These pirates invest this money in the armonony and indirectly we are sponsoring a bullet in every war which would be used against us only. 

The origin of terrorism starts with a little things. The first pen stolen from a friend could even lead to mortal works. Everything has a start and if left unmanaged, they can leave the astray and lose the right path. In the school, if the adverse effects of being bad are explained properly with illustrations to some real life examples, the students may get aware about all the facts and take an initiative to stop the spread of crime. Instead of making criminals with heroic roles in the television serials, the more heroic movie super cops are to be made. Instead of writing biographies of terrorism supporters, write articles about terrorism demonization. The start of this cleaning starts from home, if you have a child, teach them the ways to be a great person in good habits rather than supporting him when he starts stealing something. Terrorism has an end, if we are united the terrorism can be thrown is out of the windows! 

Various Forms Of Terrorism

Political terrorism, which raises mass concern, and criminal terrorism, which involves abduction for ransom money, are the two sorts of terrorism. Political terrorism is significantly more essential than criminal terrorism since it is carried out by well-trained personnel. As a result, apprehending them in a timely way becomes increasingly challenging for law enforcement agencies.

Terrorism has spread across the country and around the world. Regional terrorism is the most dangerous type of terrorism. Terrorists feel that dying as a terrorist is a priceless and sacred experience, and they will go to any extent to attain it. Each of these terrorist groups was founded for a different motive.

Who can forget November 26th, often known as "26/11"? Ten terrorists infiltrated the country and assaulted India's economic centre. They nearly devastated the city and astonished the Indians by bringing explosives, pistols, automatic rifles, and other lethal weapons. People are defenceless, without weapons, and engrossed in their own realms of pleasure at the railway station, motels, and on the highways when an unanticipated menace enters their life.

The Origins of Terrorism

The invention or manufacture of vast quantities of machine guns, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons, missiles, and other weapons fuels terrorism. Rapid population expansion, political, social, and economic issues, public dissatisfaction with the country's system, a lack of education, corruption, racism, economic disparities, and language disparities are all key factors in the development of terrorism. Terrorism is sometimes used to establish and maintain one's stance. Despite the contrast between caste and terrorism, the most well-known riots have taken place between Hindus and Muslims.

Consequences of Terrorism

Individuals are filled with fear as a result of terrorism, and people of the country feel vulnerable as a result. Millions of goods have been destroyed, thousands of people have died, and animals have been slaughtered as a result of terrorist assaults. People lose trust in humanity after seeing a terrorist attack, which fosters more terrorists. Terrorism comes in many forms and manifests itself in different parts of the country and outside.

Terrorism is becoming a problem not just in India, but also in our neighbouring countries, and governments throughout the world are battling it. The World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, is considered the world's worst terrorist strike. Osama bin Laden launched an attack on the world's tallest tower, resulting in millions of injuries and thousands of deaths.

FAQs on Terrorism Essay

1. Who was Osama bin Laden?

Osama Bin Laden was the world's greatest terrorist! Hearing his name still makes people fearful. With the help of an aeroplane, he had destroyed the 'world-trade centre.' According to the rumours, Osama had been amorphous with him on several occasions. Even the cops got mixed up and arrested the wrong person. There was still a lot of time required after his death to acknowledge his uniqueness.

2. Identify the countries that are the most impacted by terrorism.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria were the countries most hit in 2014, with the highest number of terrorist incidents. This year has been dubbed "Terrorism Year." Furthermore, it has been reported that these five countries were the primary targets of 78 per cent of all attacks last year. Apart from them, there are 39 countries that endured the most attacks, and their index rating is based on the severity and frequency of attacks they experienced.

3. What is the true cause of terrorism?

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence for a specific purpose. This motivation could stem from a sense of social and political injustice, or just a belief that violence can bring about change. The main cause of terrorism is usually perceived unfairness or rage against specific societal conditions. Many people join terrorist groups out of desperation or to exact personal vengeance on powerful authorities. Terrorism is also a result of strong feelings of injustice. Millions of young people aspire to make a difference by utilising violence as a tool for social upheaval. As a result, in order to combat these extremists, we must provide them with alternatives to violence that can be useful to them.

4. What is the best way to combat terrorism?

The reduction of terrorism threats and the safeguarding of the state, its interests, and citizens against all types of terrorist activity are two of the State Security Service's top priorities in the battle against terrorism. It is critical to detect and suppress operations carried out by international terrorist groups and anyone linked to them. It is necessary to conduct an active search for persons linked to terrorist organisations. Enhancing the capacity of readiness and reaction to terrorist threats should receive special focus.

5. Give an overview of the history of terrorism.

The term "terrorist" was coined by François-Nol Babeuf, a French philosopher, in 1794. As a result of his denunciation of Robespierre's regime as a dictatorship, the Brunswick Manifesto threatened Paris with military punishment and complete devastation. This threat, however, only fueled the Revolution's determination to overthrow the monarchy. Tyranny, according to ancient philosophers, was the greatest political threat to Greco-Roman civilization prior to the French Revolution. Philosophers in the Middle Ages were also preoccupied with the concept of tyranny.

6. Explain the historical background of terrorism.

The word "terrorist" was first used in 1794 by François-Noël Babeuf who was a French philosopher. He denounced Robespierre's regime as a dictatorship therefore Brunswick Manifesto threatened Paris that the city would be subjected to military punishment and total destruction. But this threat only increased the Revolution's will to abolish the monarchy.

Prior to the French Revolution, ancient philosophers wrote tyranny as the greatest political threat to Greco-Roman civilization. Medieval philosophers were similarly occupied with the concept of tyranny.

7. How to fight against terrorism?

One of the main priorities of the State Security Service in fighting against terrorism is the reduction of the risks of terrorism and the protection of the state, its interests and citizens against all forms of terrorist activities. The detection and suppression of activities carried out by international terrorist organizations and persons related to them is important. Active search of individuals connected with terrorist organizations needs to be conducted. Considerable attention should be paid in enhancing the capabilities of readiness and responses to terrorist threats.

8. What is the real reason behind terrorism?

Terrorism is the use of violence for a certain cause. This cause may be due to the perceived social and political injustice or simply a belief that violence can lead  to change.

Usually perceived injustice or anger against a certain social conditions is the main cause  that foster terrorism. Many people join terrorist groups because of poverty or to take their personal revenge from the powerful authority. Strong feelings of injustice also results in terrorism. There are millions of young people who want to create change by using fight as the tools for social upheaval. So, in order to counter these extremists we need to give them alternatives to violence which can prove beneficial for them.

9. Name the countries which are most affected by terrorism.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria are the most affected countries which suffered the largest number of terrorist attacks in 2014. This year is called the year of terrorism.

Also it has been recorded that these five countries were the major victims of 78% of all attacks that happened last year. Apart from these countries there are 39 countries which saw the greatest number of attacks, and their index ranking is calculated against severity and frequency of attacks they experienced.

How to defeat terrorism: Intelligence, integration, and development

Subscribe to global connection, norman loayza nl norman loayza lead economist, development research group - world bank.

July 25, 2016

My partner was caught at the Istanbul airport during the latest terrorist attack. She hid in a closet with a few people, including a small girl, disconcerted and afraid. And when the attack was over, she saw the blood, desolation, chaos, and tears of the aftermath. This was a horrific moment. Yet, it paled in comparison to what the injured and dead and their relatives had to suffer.

It seems that terrorism and political violence are becoming more prevalent and intense. They have been, however, long brewing and have affected many countries around the world. In the 1980s, my home country, Peru, suffered immensely from terrorism: The badly called “Shining Path” organization, with its communist ideology and ruthless tactics, terrorized first rural communities and then large cities with deadly bombs in crowded places and assassinations of official and civil society leaders.

A few years ago, Phil Keefer, lead economist at the World Bank, and I edited two books on what we perceived to be the main security threats of our time: terrorism and drug trafficking . We thought that the answers had to come from research, and we tried to gather the best available evidence and arguments to understand the links between these security threats and economic development.

After the myriad of recent terrorist attacks—in Istanbul, Munich, Nice, Bagdad, Brussels, and Paris, to name a few—we found it important to recap lessons learned. These lessons are not just academic: Understanding the root causes of terrorism can lead to policies for prevention and for reducing the severity of attacks. To defeat terrorism, a policy strategy should include three components: intelligence, integration, and development.

Intelligence . A terrorist attack is relatively easy to conduct. Modern societies offer many exposed and vulnerable targets: an airport, a crowded celebration by the beach, a bus station at peak hours, or a restaurant full of expats. And the potential weapons are too many to count: a squadron of suicide bombers, a big truck ramming through the streets, two or three comrades armed with semi-automatic guns. It is impossible to protect all flanks, and some of the measures taken to prevent the previous terrorist attacks are, well, frankly silly. For a strategy to have any chance against terrorism, it should be based on intelligence. Intelligence implies understanding the motivations, leadership structure, and modus operandi of terrorist organizations, and developing a plan that can anticipate and adapt to their constantly morphing operations. Importantly, the ideological dimension should not be ignored because it explains the extremes to which terrorists are willing to arrive: A suicide attack requires a person who has muted both his basic survival instinct and all sense of natural compassion for others. It was radical communism in the 1970s and 1980s; it is a perverted and fanatical misrepresentation of Islam nowadays. An intelligence strategy that targets the sources of terrorism, both the perpetrators and the social movements that underlie them, should be the first component of the campaign against terror.

Integration. Foreigners living in the U.S. like to make fun of Hollywood movies and the social rituals that Americans go through each year: Halloween and Thanksgiving are in many respects more popular than Christmas. Yet, thanks to these cultural norms along with widespread economic opportunities and equality under the law, the U.S. has mostly succeeded in what many countries, including some European ones, have failed: the integration of people of different ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds. The U.S. is no paradise of integration, but the social melting pot does work for immigrants: Within a generation or two, Mexican Americans, Italian Americans, Iranian Americans, and so forth are just Americans, with a single national identity and, at least by law, the same rights and obligations. In some European countries, in contrast, many immigrants feel like second-class citizens. There is little that can inflame more hatred than the feeling of being excluded, and a misguided search for a sense of belonging can be the trigger that incites religious, ethnic, and ideological radicalization. This may explain why France has suffered more from terrorist acts perpetrated by their own residents than the U.S. or U.K., that paradoxically are substantially more engaged in the war against ISIS and al-Qaeda. Social integration—especially of immigrants—through explicit and targeted programs from education at an early age to immigration and citizenship reforms is a key component in the fight against terrorism.       

Development. One of the puzzles in the evidence on terrorism is that while it tends to be led (and sometimes even perpetrated) by well-off and educated people, it represents the complaints and grievances of the disenfranchised, the poor, and the unemployed. The hundreds of thousands of unemployed and discouraged young men in places as diverse as Afghanistan, Somalia, South Africa, and Brazil are the potential armies of common and political violence. In South Africa and Brazil, lacking an overriding communal ideology, this violence is expressed in robberies, homicides, and common crime. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the violence is mostly political, taking the shape or at least the cover of religious fundamentalism. Somehow in Somalia, violence has adopted both criminal and political expressions: We worry about Somali pirates as much as we do about Somali jihadists. (On the link between vulnerable youth and violence, it is telling that the name of the main terrorist organization in Somalia, al-Shabaab, means literally “The Youth”) But there is hope. A couple of decades ago, thousands of unemployed young people joined terrorist organizations in Cambodia, Colombia, and Peru, when these countries were fragile. Since their economies started growing and providing employment, these armies for criminal and political violence have started to fade away. Investing in development, conducting economic reforms, and providing (yes, equal) opportunities is the third component of a winning strategy against terrorism.

A sound military and police strategy is undoubtedly important to counter terrorism. However, it’s not sufficient in the long run. If we want to defeat terrorism permanently and completely, we need to tackle it comprehensively, using political and military intelligence, social integration, and economic development.

For more, please see Keefer, Philip and Norman Loayza, Editors. Terrorism, Economic Development, and Political Openness . Cambridge University Press. 2008.

Global Economy and Development

Mounir Siaplay, Eric Werker

February 3, 2023

Fiona Hill, John Haltiwanger

July 16, 2022

Adedeji Adeniran, Marco Castradori

April 19, 2021

Terrorism Essay in English [100, 150, 200-250, 300 Words]

Terrorism Essay in English: Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence for political ends. In this article, you are going to learn how to write an essay on Terrorism. Here we’ve provided 4 short and long essays (100, 150, 200-250, and 300 words). These essays will be helpful for the students from class 1 to class 12. So, let’s begin.

Table of Contents

Terrorism Essay: 100 Words

Terrorism is the result of widespread discontentment that has gone deeper into the minds of the poor and exploited class of people. Being instigated by some power-hungry politicians, these people take up arms against the establishment to voice their protest. When the language of protest violence and cause takes the shape of immense damages to mankind, it becomes terrorism.

Poor, ordinary people remain helpless at the hands of terrorists who want to exercise their authority against the government. Explosions and other terrorist attacks make the country unsafe and take away the peace of common people. The government has taken many steps to curb terrorist attacks, yet the menace of terrorism is still rocking the foundation of a stable country like India.

Essay on Terrorism: 150 Words

Terrorism is the use of violence to attain one’s political ends. Every day there are reports of sensational and shocking terrorist activities. A worldwide phenomenon, today it has struck terror in the hearts of the people. Terrorism includes kidnapping of eminent personalities, bombing of civilian territories, blowing of buses, trains, aeroplanes and killing innocent people all with a view to spreading fear among the masses. It is a kind of proxy war against the existing elected government.

The evils of terrorism are obvious and the world has become very familiar with its acts. It is a crime against humanity Terrorism must be curbed with a heavy hand. A group of senseless people cannot be allowed to hold the country to ransom. Law and order enforcement agencies should be made more effective to combat the terror campaign and prevent the creation of fear. The root causes should be analyzed to eradicate terrorism. If that is done people all over the world can live in peace and prosperity.

Also Read: Essay on Republic Day

Terrorism Essay in English: 200-250 Words

Terrorism becomes now a days a great problem all over the world. It is also a great threat to mankind. It is the use of terror or violence. A certain group of people adopt it as tactics for a purpose. This group is said to be the terrorists. The purpose is a gain, Most gains are political. Sometimes there may be a personal gain. The criminals operate violence to fulfill their wishes or demands. They have various modes of operation.

Sometimes it is in the form of kidnapping or hijacking. Sometimes it is a kind of blasting bombs in a crowded train or bus. In some cases, they release their hostage on a big ransom. At times their terms and conditions are hard to accept and impossible to fulfil. On most occasions, a dateline is fixed. If they are refused or dishonoured, they turn hostile. The criminals kill their captives. It is a matter of great regret that some countries harbour the militants.

Terrorism creates social unrest. It intends to damage the national progress. Even a government falls victim to their wishes. Such a group hijacked an Indian Boeing from Nepal on the 24th December, 1999. They released it when India freed their leader Masood Azhar from the jail. The militants skyjacked American planes and crashed them into World Trade Centre. It was destroyed completely. The massacres in our Parliament and the American Embassy are the glaring examples in the recent times. We can combat and perish it from the face of the earth. But we must keep it in mind: United we stand, divided we fall.

Also Read: Essay on Independence Day

Terrorism in India Essay: 300 Words

Communal disharmony is one of the causes of terrorism in India. People here are belonging to the different ethnic groups. Prejudiced, some of them show their commitment to their own minority. And this kind of conservative attitude is the genesis of terrorism in India.

Since 1947 India and Pakistan are regarded as two different free countries, although they were undivided India during the reign of the British colonialists. The British left India by conferring freedom on both India and Pakistan, but the relationship remained unfriendly. Although it is not right to say that Pakistan directly gave shelter to the terrorists, there is little doubt that the terrorists have to some extent nourished by Pakistan.

The terrorists threatened the peace in Jammu and Kashmir. Even the terrorists often attacked India between these two countries by way of causing explosions in large cities like Mumbai, Delhi, and Hyderabad. Some Tamil terrorists have also been constantly threatening the peace of India. The most crucial problem that India has now been facing is the activities of the Maoists in West Bengal.

Indians are now uneasy because of the price hike, corruptions in a large scale, and the problem of unemployment. At this time terrorist activities are obligatory to the progress of the nation. All of the political leaders and the Government should be aware of the fact that communal disharmony causes this terrorism. Thus, the liberalism of Indians and proper development of the country, and above all, good administration are very necessary to stop this evil of terrorism.

If it continues, the nation will soon lose its integrity and become the most disgraceful country in the world. Unfortunately, political leaders do politics for the sake of politics only, not for the sake of the making of their country. Every Indian should be conscious of the curse of terrorism and should do well in order to restore the peace of India.

Read More: 1. Essay on Mobile Phone 2. Essay on Television 3. Wonder of Science Essay in English 4. Essay on Newspaper in English 5. Essay on Teachers Day 6. Blood Donation Essay in English 

Related Posts

Apj abdul kalam essay in english | 100, 200, 300, 500 words, blood donation essay in english | 150, 200, 300 words, my mother essay in english 10 lines [5 sets], essay on mother teresa in english for students [300 words], leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terrorism in the United States of America Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Domestic terrorist organizations.

Terrorism is a serious problem affecting the United States of America that is likely to worsen in the coming years. The number of terrorist groups operating within the borders has increased over the past decade. Data provided by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) shows that white supremacists pose the greatest risk to the nation’s security. Moreover, anarchists and religious extremists have been cited as perpetrators of terrorist activities within the US. Common types of terrorism include right-wing terrorism (white supremacists and anti-government extremists), left-wing terrorism, and religious terrorism. Recent events following the death of George Floyd have revealed the new face of terrorism in the US. The spread of false information, conspiracy theories, and incitements to violence are some of the means that terrorist groups are using to advance their agenda. Aryan Nations and the Ku Klux Klan are terrorist organizations that continue to promote racial and religious violence as well as anti-Semitic ideas.

Aryan Nations

Aryan Nations (AN) is a white supremacist terrorist organization that is headquartered in Hayden, Idaho. It is a form of right-wing terrorism that is anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi, and that was founded by Richard Girnt Butler in 1977. Its main objective is to establish a white state that excludes other races by fighting against people that pose a threat to the white race, including the Jews and African Americans (Perliger, 2020). Constructivism theory can be used to explain the development and motivations of AN. Originally, it was a branch of the Christian Identity church that has two core teachings: whites are the true Israelites and Jews originated from a union between Satan and Eve. The group has been involved in several criminal activities, hence its classification by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a terrorist threat in 2001. Moreover, it is founded on a wide spectrum of racist and anti-Semitic ideas that promote racial intolerance (Perliger, 2020). The organization has been described by the RAND Corporation as a pioneer nationwide terrorist network in the US.

Aryan Nations has a single leader who makes all the group’s decisions. Unlike other terrorist organizations, it lacks a hierarchical structure and its activities are determined by the leader. It has been infiltrated by the FBI through an informant. Dave Hall, the group’s propaganda minister was an informant who exposed the organization’s illegal activities (Perliger, 2020). He reported directly to Special Agent Tym Burkey, a security officer who was helping Dayton’s organized Jewish community fight the group’s hate campaign. AN is linked to other terrorist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), National Alliance, and The Silent Brotherhood (Perliger, 2020). The group is funded privately by individuals who support its ideologies and through its involvement in criminal activities. It lacks a strong organization and communication strategy, and it relies on the internet to conduct recruitments and spread its ideologies.

In recent years, wrangles have developed within the organization since the death of its founder, and splinter groups have emerged. It weakened in 2001 after losing its Northern Idaho compound where it was headquartered (Perliger, 2020). The group might disintegrate in the future because of its dwindling number of followers, leadership wrangles, and a lack of finances to fund its activities. Law enforcement agencies have heightened surveillance on groups and individuals deemed to promote terrorism in the US. Therefore, people might be afraid of donating to their initiatives and joining them as members for fear of victimization and prosecution.

Ku Klux Klan

The KKK refers to a domestic left-wing terrorist group that uses fear to advance its white supremacist ideologies. The original group was disbanded in the 1870s, and it was revived in 1915 as a new outfit. The organization had more than 4 million members in the 1920s, and it was financed from member contributions and the sale of publications and costumes. Its objectives include the suppression of African Americans, Catholics, Jews, immigrants, leftists, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community (Jones et al., 2020). Its motivations and ideologies can be explained using the constructivism theory because terrorism is a social construct. The group operates primarily in the Southern United States. They are active in several states, including Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, and North Carolina among others. Affiliate groups include Noble Klans of America, United Klans of America, the White Knights of Texas, and the Rebel Brigade Knights True Invisible Empire among others.

The group’s organization involves a hierarchical structure that includes a titular head, leaders for each congressional district, and county heads. The overall leader is referred to as the Grand Dragon while the head of a congressional district is referred to as the Grand Titan. The counties are overseen by a head known as the Grand Giant, who is responsible for organizing militia members and supplying them with weapons. The Grand Dragon makes the group’s most critical decisions and receives frequent reports from district heads regarding the organization’s activities. The KKK is funded primarily by individuals who support the group’s ideologies. Counterintelligence program (COINTELPRO) refers to a series of activities conducted by the FBI between 1956 and 1979 to disrupt political organizations that destabilized the US (Perliger, 2020). COINTELPRO-White Hate program involved the infiltration of the KKK by FBI agents through overt techniques that included paying informers, bribing Klansmen, and the use of wiretaps and bugs.

The KKK has experienced a steady decline in membership in the past decade. However, the organization continues to promote its ideologies and recruit more people. Its new techniques include creating new websites, opening accounts for donations, and creating content that spreads its ideologies (Jones et al., 2020). In the future, the organization is likely to plateau because of poor leadership, wrangles within the group, and the inability to create and maintain alliances. Moreover, the group has numerous affiliate hate groups. Therefore, the lack of a stable leadership system is a risk to the group’s stability. Moreover, increased surveillance and monitoring by security agencies hamper their activities around the country.

Terrorism is a serious threat to the security of the United States of America. For many decades, security agencies in the country have implemented several measures to curb the rise in terrorism within the country’s borders. Right-wing, left-wing, and religious forms of terrorism are common in the US. Aryan Nations (AN) and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) are terrorist groups that have operated in the US for decades. They are funded mainly by individuals who subscribe to their ideologies. Their involvement in racial and anti-Semitic criminal activities renders them, terrorist groups, as classified by the FBI. The groups might disintegrate in the future because of leadership wrangles and the lack of funding. Moreover, increased surveillance by security agencies has hampered their recruitment and fundraising activities.

Jones, S. G., Doxsee, C., & Harrington, N. (2020). The escalating terrorism problem in the United States . Center for strategic and International Studies. Web.

Perliger, A. (2020). American zealots: Inside right-wing domestic terrorism . Columbia University Press.

• Identifying Terrorism-Related Situations
• The Concept of Counter-Insurgency Practices
• Being a Middle Class Minority & Understanding the Ku Klux Klan: Labeling White Males on the Top of the Food Chain
• Development of Ezra Pound’s Anti-Semitic Views
• Jewwatch.com: The Anti-Semitic Website
• The Use of Intelligence Collection Systems
• Counterterrorism and Intelligence
• Task Force and the Fusion Center: Terrorism Prevention
• Fusion Centers: The Role in Terrorism Prevention
• Australian Anti-Terrorism Laws
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, June 8). Terrorism in the United States of America. https://ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-in-the-united-states-of-america/

"Terrorism in the United States of America." IvyPanda , 8 June 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-in-the-united-states-of-america/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Terrorism in the United States of America'. 8 June.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Terrorism in the United States of America." June 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-in-the-united-states-of-america/.

1. IvyPanda . "Terrorism in the United States of America." June 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-in-the-united-states-of-america/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Terrorism in the United States of America." June 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-in-the-united-states-of-america/.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Before the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, the subject of terrorism did not loom large in philosophical discussion. Philosophical literature in English amounted to a few monographs and a single collection of papers devoted solely, or largely, to questions to do with terrorism. Articles on the subject in philosophy journals were few and far between; neither of the two major philosophy encyclopedias had an entry. The attacks of September 11 and their aftermath put terrorism on the philosophical agenda: it is now the topic of numerous books, journal articles, special journal issues, and conferences.

While social sciences study the causes, main varieties, and consequences of terrorism and history traces and attempts to explain the way terrorism has evolved over time, philosophy focuses on two fundamental—and related—questions. The first is conceptual: What is terrorism? The second is moral: Can terrorism ever be morally justified?

Philosophers have offered a range of positions on both questions. With regard to the problem of defining terrorism, the dominant approach seeks to acknowledge the core meaning “terrorism” has in common use. Terrorism is understood as a type of violence. Many definitions highlight the experience of terror or fear as the proximate aim of that violence. Neither violence nor terror is inflicted for its own sake, but rather for the sake of a further aim such as coercion, or some more specific political objective. But there are also definitions that sever the conceptual connection of terrorism with violence or with terror. With regard to the moral standing of terrorism, philosophers differ both on how that is to be determined and what the determination is. Consequentialists propose to judge terrorism, like everything else, in light of its consequences. Nonconsequentialists argue that its moral status is not simply a matter of what consequences, on balance, terrorism has, but is rather determined, whether solely or largely, by what it is. Positions on the morality of terrorism range from justification when its consequences on balance are good, or when some deontological moral requirements are satisfied, to its absolute, or almost absolute, rejection.

Philosophers working in applied philosophy have also sought to complement the discussions of terrorism in general with case studies—studies of the role and rights and wrongs of terrorism in particular conflicts, such as “the Troubles” in Northern Ireland (George 2000; Simpson 2004; Shanahan 2009), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Ashmore 1997; Gordon and Lopez 2000; Primoratz 2006; Kapitan 2008; Law (ed.) 2008), and the bombing of German cities in World War II (Grayling 2006; Primoratz 2010).

1.1.1 The reign of terror

1.1.2 propaganda by the deed, 1.1.3 the state as terrorist, 1.1.4 terrorists and freedom fighters, 1.2.1 violence and terror, 1.2.2 wide and narrow definitions, 1.2.3 some idiosyncratic definitions, 2.1 complicity of the victims, 2.2.1 terrorism justified, 2.2.2 terrorism unjustified, 2.3.1 basic human rights and distributive justice, 2.3.2 supreme emergency and moral disaster, 2.3.3 terrorism absolutely wrong, books, book chapters, and articles, special journal issues, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the conceptual issue.

The history of terrorism is probably coextensive with the history of political violence. The term “terrorism”, however, is relatively recent: it has been in use since late 18th century. Its use has repeatedly shifted in some significant respects. Moreover, in contemporary political discourse the word is often employed as a polemical term whose strong emotional charge occludes its somewhat vague descriptive meaning. All this tends to get in the way of sustained rational discussion of the nature and moral standing of terrorism and the best ways of coping with it.

1.1 “Terrorism” from the French Revolution to the early 21st century

When it first entered public discourse in the West, the word “terrorism” meant the reign of terror the Jacobins imposed in France from the fall of 1793 to the summer of 1794. Its ultimate aim was the reshaping of both society and human nature. That was to be achieved by destroying the old regime, suppressing all enemies of the revolutionary government, and inculcating and enforcing civic virtue. A central role in attaining these objectives was accorded to revolutionary tribunals which had wide authority, were constrained by very few rules of procedure, and saw their task as carrying out revolutionary policy rather than meting out legal justice of the more conventional sort. They went after “enemies of the people”, actual or potential, proven or suspected; the law on the basis of which they were operating “enumerated just who the enemies of the people might be in terms so ambiguous as to exclude no one” (Carter 1989: 142). The standard punishment was death. Trials and executions were meant to strike terror in the hearts of all who lacked civic virtue; the Jacobins believed that was a necessary means of consolidating the new regime. This necessity provided both the rationale of the reign of terror and its moral justification. As Robespierre put it, terror was but “an emanation of virtue”; without it, virtue remained impotent. Accordingly, the Jacobins applied the term to their own actions and policies quite unabashedly, without any negative connotations.

Yet the term “terrorism” and its cognates soon took on very strong negative connotations. Critics of the excesses of the French Revolution had watched its reign with horror from the start. Terrorism came to be associated with drastic abuse of power and related to the notion of tyranny as rule based on fear, a recurring theme in political philosophy.

In the second half of the 19th century, there was a shift in both descriptive and evaluative meaning of the term. Disillusioned with other methods of political struggle, some anarchist and other revolutionary organizations, and subsequently some nationalist groups too, took to political violence. They had come to the conclusion that words were not enough, and what was called for were deeds: extreme, dramatic deeds that would strike at the heart of the unjust, oppressive social and political order, generate fear and despair among its supporters, demonstrate its vulnerability to the oppressed, and ultimately force political and social change. This was “propaganda by the deed”, and the deed was for the most part assassination of royalty or highly placed government officials. Unlike the Jacobins’ reign of terror, which operated in a virtually indiscriminate way, this type of terrorism—as both advocates and critics called it—was largely employed in a highly discriminate manner. This was especially true of Russian revolutionary organizations such as People’s Will or Socialist Revolutionary Party (SR): they held that it was morally justified to assassinate a government official only if his complicity in the oppressive regime was significant enough for him to deserve to die, and the assassination would make an important contribution to the struggle. Their violence steered clear of other, uninvolved or insufficiently involved persons. Some instances of “propaganda by the deed” carried out by French and Spanish anarchists in the 1880s and 1890s were indiscriminate killings of common citizens; but that was an exception, rather than the rule. The perpetrators and some of those sympathetic to their cause claimed those acts were nevertheless morally legitimate, whether as retribution (exacted on the assumption that no member of the ruling class was innocent) or as a means necessary for the overthrow of the unjust order. Accordingly, in their parlance, too, the term “terrorism” implied no censure. When used by others, it conveyed a strong condemnation of the practice.

The terrorism employed by both sides in the Russian Revolution and Civil War was in important respects a throwback to that of the Jacobins. The government set up in Russia by the victorious Bolsheviks was totalitarian. So was the Nazi rule in Germany. Both sought to impose total political control on society. Such a radical aim could only be pursued by a similarly radical method: by terrorism directed by an extremely powerful political police at an atomized and defenseless population. Its success was due largely to its arbitrary character—to the unpredictability of its choice of victims. In both countries, the regime first suppressed all opposition; when it no longer had any opposition to speak of, political police took to persecuting “potential” and “objective opponents”. In the Soviet Union, it was eventually unleashed on victims chosen at random. Totalitarian terrorism is the most extreme and sustained type of state terrorism. As Hannah Arendt put it, “terror is the essence of totalitarian domination”, and the concentration camp is “the true central institution of totalitarian organizational power” (Arendt 1958: 464, 438). While students of totalitarianism talked of terrorism as its method of rule, representatives of totalitarian regimes, sensitive to the pejorative connotation of the word, portrayed the practice as defense of the state from internal enemies.

However, state terrorism is not the preserve of totalitarian regimes. Some non-totalitarian states have resorted to terrorism against enemy civilians as a method of warfare, most notably when the RAF and USAAF bombed German and Japanese cities in World War II (see Lackey 2004). Those who designed and oversaw these campaigns never publicly described them as “terror bombing”, but that was how they often referred to them in internal communications.

After the heyday of totalitarian terrorism in the 1930s and 1940s, internal state terrorism continued to be practiced by military dictatorships in many parts of the world, albeit in a less sustained and pervasive way. But the type of terrorism that came to the fore in the second half of the 20th century and in early 21st century is that employed by insurgent organizations. Many movements for national liberation from colonial rule resorted to it, either as the main method of struggle or as a tactic complementing guerrilla warfare. So did some separatist movements. Some organizations driven by extreme ideologies, in particular on the left, took to terrorism as the way of trying to destroy what they considered an unjust, oppressive economic, social and political system. This type of terrorism is, by and large, indiscriminate in its choice of target: it attacks men and women of whatever political (or apolitical) views, social class, and walk of life; young and old, adults and children. It shoots at people, or blows them up by planting bombs, in office buildings, markets, cafes, cinemas, places of religious worship, on buses or planes, or in other vulnerable public places. It also takes people hostage, by hijacking planes and in other ways.

As “terrorism” has by now acquired a very strong pejorative meaning, no-one applies the word to their own actions or to actions and campaigns of those they sympathize with. Insurgents practicing terrorism portray their actions as struggle for liberation and seek to be considered and treated as soldiers rather than terrorists or criminals. They often depict their enemy—the alien government, or the agencies of the social, political and economic system—as the “true terrorists”. For them, the test of terrorism is not what is done , but rather what the ultimate aim of doing it is. If the ultimate aim is liberation or justice, the violence used in order to attain it is not terrorism, whereas the violence aiming at maintaining oppression or injustice, or some of the “structural violence” embodying it, is. On the other hand, governments tend to paint all insurgent violence with the brush of “terrorism”. Government spokespersons and pro-government media typically assume that terrorism is by definition something done by non-state agents, and that a state can never be guilty of terrorism (although it can sponsor terrorist organizations). For them, the test of terrorism is not what is done , but who does it. When a state agency uses violence, it is an act of war, or reprisal, or defense of the security of the state and its citizens; when an insurgent group does the same, it is terrorism. Under these circumstances, one person’s terrorist is indeed another’s freedom fighter, and public debate about terrorism is largely conducted at cross purposes and to little effect. Attempts of the United Nations to propose a definition of “terrorism” that could be accepted by all states and embedded in international law so far have been frustrated by the same sort of relativism. Islamic countries would accept no definition that allowed national liberation movements in the Middle East and Kashmir to be portrayed as terrorist, whereas Western countries would accept no definition that allowed for state agencies to be guilty of terrorism.

1.2 Two core traits of terrorism and two types of definition

The evaluative meaning of “terrorism” has shifted considerably more than once. So has its descriptive meaning, but to a lesser degree. Whatever else the word may have meant, its ordinary use over more than two centuries has typically indicated two things: violence and intimidation (the causing of great fear or terror, terrorizing). The dominant approach to the conceptual question in philosophical literature reflects this. Terrorism is usually understood as a type of violence. This violence is not blind or sadistic, but rather aims at intimidation and at some further political, social, or religious goal or, more broadly, at coercion.

That is how (political) “terrorism” is defined by Per Bauhn in the first philosophical book-length study in English:

The performance of violent acts, directed against one or more persons, intended by the performing agent to intimidate one or more persons and thereby to bring about one or more of the agent’s political goals (Bauhn 1989: 28).

Another good example of a mainstream definition is provided in C.A.J. Coady’s article on terrorism in the Encyclopedia of Ethics :

The tactic of intentionally targeting non-combatants [or non-combatant property, when significantly related to life and security] with lethal or severe violence … meant to produce political results via the creation of fear (Coady 2001: 1697).

Yet another example is the definition proposed by Igor Primoratz:

The deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating some other people into a course of action they otherwise would not take (Primoratz 2013: 24).

These definitions put aside both the question of who the actor is and the question of what their ultimate objectives are, and focus on what is done and what the proximate aim of doing it is. They present terrorism as a way of acting that could be adopted by different agents and serve various ultimate objectives (most, but perhaps not all of them, political). It can be employed by states or by non-state agents, and may promote national liberation or oppression, revolutionary or conservative causes (and possibly pursue some nonpolitical aims as well). One can be a terrorist and a freedom fighter; terrorism is not the monopoly of enemies of freedom. One can hold high government or military office and design or implement a terrorist campaign; terrorism is not the preserve of insurgents. In this way much of the relativism concerning who is and who is not a terrorist that has plagued contemporary public debate (see 1.1.4 above) can be overcome.

Beyond concurring that violence and intimidation constitute the core of terrorism, the definitions quoted above differ in several respects. Does only actual violence count, or do threats of violence also qualify? Must terrorist violence be directed against life and limb, or does violence against (some) property also count? Does terrorism always seek to attain some political goal, or can there be non-political (e.g. criminal) terrorism? All these points are minor. There is also one major difference: while Coady and Primoratz define terrorism as violence against non-combatants or innocent people, respectively, Bauhn’s definition includes no such restriction. Definitions of the former type can be termed “narrow”, and those of the latter sort “wide”. Philosophical literature on terrorism abounds in instances of both types.

Should we adopt a wide or a narrow definition? A wide definition encompasses the entire history of “terrorism” from the Jacobins to the present, and is more in accord with current ordinary use. A narrow definition departs from much ordinary use by restricting terrorist violence to that directed at non-combatants or innocent persons. Thus it leaves out most of 19th century “propaganda by the deed” and political violence perpetrated by Russian revolutionaries which they themselves and the public called terrorist.

For these reasons, historians of terrorism normally work with a wide definition, and social scientists do so much of the time. But philosophers may well prefer a narrow definition. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of (what one considers) an unjust and oppressive government, and planting a bomb in a tea shop and killing a random collection of common citizens, including children. While both acts raise serious moral issues, these issues are not identical, and running them together under the same heading of “terrorism” will likely hamper, rather than help, discerning moral assessment.

Narrow definitions are revisionary, but (unlike those discussed in the next section) not implausibly so. They focus on the traits of terrorism that cause most of us to view the practice with deep moral repugnance: (i) violence (ii) against non-combatants (or, alternatively, against innocent people) for the sake of (iii) intimidation (and, on some definitions, (iv) coercion). In highlighting (ii), they relate the issue of terrorism to the ethics of war and one of the fundamental principles of just war theory, that of non-combatant immunity. They help distinguish terrorism from acts of war proper and political assassination, which do not target non-combatants or common citizens. It does not matter very much whether the victims of terrorism are described as “non-combatants” or “innocent people”, as each term is used in a technical sense, and both refer to those who have not lost their immunity against lethal or other extreme violence by being directly involved in, or highly responsible for, (what terrorists consider) insufferable injustice or oppression. In war, these are innocent civilians; in a violent conflict that falls short of war, these are common citizens.

Talk of involvement of individuals and groups in injustice or oppression raises the question: is the injustice or oppression at issue, and thus the standing of those implicated in it, to be determined by some objective criteria, or from the point of view of those who resort to violence? Coady chooses the former option. He approaches terrorism from the standpoint of just war theory and its principle of noncombatant immunity. “Combatants” is a technical term designating agents of aggression or, more broadly, “dangerous wrongdoers” or “agents of harm”; they are legitimate targets of potentially lethal violence. All others are noncombatants, and enjoy immunity from such violence (Coady 2004). This approach may not be difficult to apply in war, where the wrong or harm at issue is either aggression that needs to be repelled, or systematic and large-scale violations of human rights that provide the ground for humanitarian intervention. Issues of injustice or oppression that arise in an internal conflict that falls short of war, however, tend to be highly contentious: what some consider an imperfect, but basically morally legitimate political and social order, others may see as the epitome of injustice and oppression that must be overthrown, if need be by violence. Under such circumstances, when a highly placed political official is killed by insurgents, that may be characterized (and condemned) by many as an act of terrorism, while the insurgents and those sympathetic to their struggle may reject this characterization and portray (and justify) the killing as political assassination.

In order to avoid this kind of relativism, Primoratz puts forward a view that in one important respect takes on board the standpoint of the terrorist. The direct victims of terrorism are innocent in the sense of not being responsible, on any credible understanding of responsibility and liability, for the injustice or oppression the terrorists fight against—not responsible at all, or at least not responsible to the degree that makes them liable to be killed or maimed on that account. The injustice or oppression at issue need not be real; it may be merely alleged (by the terrorists). Being responsible for a merely alleged great injustice or oppression is enough for losing one’s immunity against violence, as far as the type of immunity and innocence relevant to defining terrorism is concerned. According to the traditional version of just war theory one does not lose immunity against acts of war only by fighting in an unjust war, but by fighting in any war. Similarly, one does not lose immunity against political violence only by holding office in or implementing policies of a gravely unjust government, but by holding office in or implementing policies of any government: as King Umberto I of Italy said after surviving an assassination attempt, such risk comes with the job. Members of these two classes are not considered innocent and morally protected against violence by those attacking them; the latter view their acts as acts of war proper or of political assassination, respectively. If the terrorists subscribe to a credible view of responsibility and liability, then, when they attack common citizens, they attack people innocent from their own point of view, i.e., innocent even if we grant the terrorists their assessment of the policies at issue. (This is not to say that those who consider a government to be gravely unjust have a moral license to kill its officials, but only that if they do so, that will not be terrorism, but rather political assassination. We can still condemn their actions if we reject their judgment of the policies at issue, or if we accept that judgment, but believe that they should have opposed those policies by nonviolent means. But we will not be condemning their actions qua terrorism.)

On this account, not only real, but also merely alleged injustice or oppression counts in determining the innocence of the victims and deciding which acts are acts of terrorism; thus such decisions are not hostage to endless debates about the moral status of contested policies. Nevertheless, a residue of relativity remains. The account presupposes a certain understanding of responsibility and liability: a person is responsible for a state of affairs only by virtue of that person’s voluntary, i.e., informed and free, act or omission that has a sufficiently strong connection with that state of affairs, and thereby becomes liable to some proportionately unfavorable response. Provided the terrorists accept some such understanding of responsibility and liability, they kill and maim people they themselves must admit to be innocent. To be sure, some militant organizations resort to violence which we perceive as terrorist, yet object to the label. They profess a view of responsibility and liability based on extremely far-fetched connections between states of affairs and human choices and actions, and argue that entire social classes or nations are responsible for certain policies and practices and all their members are liable to be attacked by deadly violence (for more on this, see 2.1 below). Such arguments can only be regarded as preposterous. We should insist on viewing their actions as terrorist, although they reject this description. It is not clear how this residue of relativity could be removed (Primoratz 2013: 16–21).

Some object to defining “terrorism” as violence against non-combatants or innocent persons. They argue that doing so runs together the question of the nature of terrorism and that of its moral status, and begs the moral issue by making terrorism unjustified by definition. We should rather keep these questions separate, and take care not to prejudge the latter by giving a wrong answer to the former. What is needed is a morally neutral definition of terrorism, and that means a wide one (Corlett 2003: 114–20, 134–35; Young 2004: 57). But it is doubtful that “terrorism” can be defined in some morally untainted way. The wide definitions these philosophers adopt contain the word “violence”, which is itself morally loaded. A narrow definition is not completely morally neutral, as violence against the innocent is clearly morally wrong. But what is clear is that such violence is prima facie wrong. The definition implies a general presumption against terrorism, not its sweeping moral condemnation in each and every instance, whatever the circumstances and whatever the consequences of desisting from it. The definition does not rule out that in certain circumstances it might not be wrong, all things considered. Ethical investigation is not preempted: a particular case of terrorism still needs to be judged on its merits.

Another way of settling the issue of wide vs. narrow definition is offered by Georg Meggle. He adopts a wide definition of terrorism, and goes on to distinguish two different types: terrorism in the strong sense, which deliberately, recklessly, or negligently harms innocent people, and terrorism in the weak sense, which does not. Obviously, the moral assessment of the two types of terrorism is going to be significantly different (Meggle 2005).

The vast majority of cases almost anyone without an ax to grind would want to classify as “terrorism” exhibit the two traits implied in ordinary use and highlighted by mainstream philosophical definitions such as those quoted above: violence and intimidation. But philosophical literature also offers definitions that leave out one or the other core component.

Some seek to sever the connection between terrorism and violence. Carl Wellman defines terrorism as “the use or attempted use of terror as a means of coercion”. Terrorism is often associated with violence, but that is because violence is a very effective means of intimidation. Yet “violence is not essential to terrorism and, in fact, most acts of terrorism are nonviolent” (Wellman 1979: 250–51). The last claim seems false on any non-circular interpretation. There may be many acts generally considered terrorist that do not involve actual violence, but are meant to intimidate by threatening it; but that is not enough to support the notion of “non-violent terrorism”, which seems odd. So does Wellman’s example of “classroom terrorism”: a professor threatens to fail students who submit their essays after the due date, causes panic in class, and thereby engages in terrorism.

Robert E. Goodin offers a similar account, emphasizing the political role of terrorism: terrorism is “a political tactic, involving the deliberate frightening of people for political advantage” (Goodin 2006: 49). This, he claims, is the distinctive wrong terrorists commit. Whereas on Wellman’s account one can commit an act of terrorism without either engaging in or threatening violence, merely by making a threat in order to intimidate, on Goodin’s account one need not even make a threat: one acts as a terrorist by merely issuing a warning about the acts of others that is meant to intimidate. This, too, seems arbitrary, although it makes sense as a step in an argument meant to show that “ if (or insofar as ) Western political leaders are intending to frighten people for their own political advantage, then (to that extent ) they are committing the same core wrong that is distinctively associated with terrorism” (Goodin 2006: 2).

It has also been suggested that terrorism need not be understood as inducing terror or fear. According to Ted Honderich, terrorism is best defined as “violence, short of war, political, illegal and prima facie wrong” (Honderich 2006: 88). This definition might be thought problematic on several counts, but the idea of “terrorism” without “terror” seems especially odd. The two are connected etymologically and historically, and this connection is deeply entrenched in current ordinary use. Intimidation is not the morally salient trait of terrorism ( pace Goodin), but it is one of its core traits that cause most of us to condemn the practice. We might consider severing the connection if Honderich offered a good reason for doing so. But he supports his highly revisionary definition by the puzzling claim that to define terrorism as violence meant to intimidate is to imply that terrorism is particularly abhorrent and thereby “in effect … invite a kind of prima facie approval or tolerance of war” (Honderich 2006: 93).

2. The moral issue

Can terrorism be morally justified? There is no single answer to this question, as there is no single conception of what terrorism is. If we put aside definitions that depart too much, and for no compelling reason, from the core meaning of “terrorism” (such as those cited in 1.2.3), we still need to decide whether the question assumes a wide or a narrow understanding of terrorism. A narrow conception of terrorism seems to be better suited to ethical investigation (1.2.2). Moreover, philosophers who work with a wide definition typically hold that terrorism that targets non-combatants or innocent persons is much more difficult to justify than “selective” terrorism which attacks only those who cannot plausibly claim innocence of the injustice or oppression at issue (and which accordingly does not count as “terrorism” on a narrow definition of the term). The present discussion therefore focuses on terrorism understood as violence against innocent civilians or common citizens, intended to intimidate and thereby to achieve some further (political) objective or, more broadly, to coerce.

One might try to justify some acts or campaigns of violence of this kind in two ways. One could argue that the victims may be non-combatants or common citizens, but nevertheless are not innocent of the wrongs the terrorists are fighting against. Alternatively, one could concede the innocence of the victims and argue that attacks on them are nevertheless justified, either by their consequences on balance, or by some deontological considerations.

If the former line of argument is successful, will it prove too much? In showing that an instance of violence was justified because those targeted were not really innocent, we will have shown that the act or campaign of violence at issue was actually not a case of terrorism. This may be merely a matter of semantics. There is a much more damaging objection. A terrorist act is characteristically the killing or injuring of a random collection of people who happen to be in a certain place at a certain time. Arguments to the effect that those people are not innocent of the wrongs the terrorist fights against will therefore have a very wide reach, and accordingly will be based on some simplistic conception of collective responsibility. These arguments will be of the sort offered, for example, by the 19th century anarchist Emile Henry. He planted a bomb at the office of a mining company which, if it had exploded, would have killed or injured a number of people who did not work for the company, but lived in the same building. He also planted a bomb in a café that did go off, injuring twenty people, one of whom later died of his injuries. At his trial, Henry explained: “What about the innocent victims? […] The building where the Carmeaux Company had its offices was inhabited only by the bourgeois; hence there would be no innocent victims. The whole of the bourgeoisie lives by the exploitation of the unfortunate, and should expiate its crimes together” (Henry 1977: 193). When commenting on the second attack, he said:

Those good bourgeois who hold no office but who reap their dividends and live idly on the profits of the workers’ toil, they also must take their share in the reprisals. And not only they, but all those who are satisfied with the existing order, who applaud the acts of the government and so become its accomplices … in other words, the daily clientele of Terminus and other great cafés! (Henry 1977: 195)

This is an utterly implausible view of responsibility and liability. It claims that all members of a social class—men and women, young and old, adults and children—are liable to be killed or maimed: some for operating the system of exploitation, others for supporting it, and still others for benefiting from it. Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant the anarchist’s harsh moral condemnation of capitalist society, not every type and degree of involvement with it can justify the use of extreme violence. Giving the system political support, or benefiting from it, may be morally objectionable, but is surely not enough to make one liable to be blown to pieces.

Another, more recent example, is provided by Osama Bin Laden. In an interview in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001 he said:

The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government and that they voted for their president. Their government makes weapons and provides them to Israel, which they use to kill Palestinian Muslims. Given that the American Congress is a committee that represents the people, the fact that it agrees with the actions of the American government proves that America in its entirety is responsible for the atrocities that it is committing against Muslims (Bin Laden 2005: 140–141).

This, too, is a preposterous understanding of responsibility and liability. For it claims that all Americans are eligible to be killed or maimed: some for devising and implementing America’s policies, others for participating in the political process, still others for paying taxes. Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant Bin Laden’s severe condemnation of those policies, not every type and degree of involvement with them can justify the use of lethal violence. Surely voting in elections or paying taxes is not enough to make one fair game.

Attempts at justification of terrorism that concede that its victims are innocent seem more promising. They fall into two groups, depending on the type of ethical theory on which they are based.

2.2 Consequentialism

Adherents of consequentialism judge terrorism, like every other practice, solely by its consequences. Terrorism is not considered wrong in itself, but only if it has bad consequences on balance. The innocence of the victims does not change that. This is an instance of a general trait of consequentialism often highlighted by its critics, for example in the debate about the moral justification of legal punishment. A standard objection to the consequentialist approach to punishment has been that it implies that punishment of the innocent is justified, when its consequences are good on balance. This objection can only get off the ground because consequentialism denies that in such matters a person’s innocence is morally significant in itself.

Those who consider terrorism from a consequentialist point of view differ in their assessment of its morality. Their judgment on terrorism depends on their view of the good to be promoted by its use and on their assessment of the utility of terrorism as a means of promoting it. There is room for disagreement on both issues.

Kai Nielsen approaches questions to do with political violence in general and terrorism in particular as a consequentialist in ethics and a socialist in politics. The use of neither can be ruled out categorically; it all depends on their utility as a method for attaining morally and politically worthwhile objectives such as “a truly socialist society” or liberation from colonial rule. “When and where [either] should be employed is a tactical question that must be decided … on a case-by-case basis … like the choice of weapon in a war” (Nielsen 1981: 435). Nielsen has a wide definition of terrorism, but his examples show that the innocence of the victims of terrorism makes no difference to its justification—that is, that his conclusions apply to terrorism in both the wide and narrow sense. In his view,

terrorist acts must be justified by their political effects and their moral consequences. They are justified (1) when they are politically effective weapons in the revolutionary struggle and (2) when, everything considered, there are sound reasons for believing that, by the use of that type of violence rather than no violence at all or violence of some other type, there will be less injustice, suffering and degradation in the world than would otherwise have been the case (Nielsen 1981: 446).

Historical experience, in Nielsen’s view, tells us that terrorism on a small scale, used as the sole method of struggle in order to provoke the masses into revolutionary action, is ineffective and often counterproductive. On the other hand, terrorism employed in conjunction with guerrilla warfare in a protracted war of liberation may well prove useful and therefore also justified, as it did in Algeria and South Vietnam. (For an earlier statement of the same view, see Trotsky 1961: 48–59, 62–65.)

Nicholas Fotion also uses a wide definition of terrorism. He, too, is a consequentialist (although some of his remarks concerning the innocence of many victims of terrorism might be more at home in nonconsequentialist ethics). But he finds standard consequentialist assessments of terrorism such as Nielsen’s too permissive. If some types of terrorism are justifiable under certain circumstances, such circumstances will be extremely rare. Terrorists and their apologists do not perform the requisite calculations properly. One problem is the “higher good” to be promoted by terrorism: more often than not, it is defined in ideological terms, rather than derived from settled preferences or interests of actual people. But for the most part Fotion discusses the issue of means. If a terrorist act or campaign is to be justified instrumentally, it must be shown (1) that the end sought is good enough to justify the means, (2) that the end will indeed be achieved by means of terrorism, and (3) that the end cannot be achieved in any other way that is morally and otherwise less costly. Terrorists not only, as a matter of fact, fail to discharge this burden; Fotion argues that, with regard to terrorism that victimizes innocent people, it cannot be discharged. All direct victims of terrorism are treated as objects to be used—indeed, used up—by the terrorist. But

in being treated as an object, the innocent victim is worse off than the (alleged) guilty victim. Insofar as the latter is judged to have done a wrong, he is thought of as a human. […] For the terrorist the innocent victim is neither a human in this judgmental sense nor a human in the sense of simply having value as a human being. Of course the terrorist needs to pick a human being as a victim … because [that] brings about more terror … But this does not involve treating them as humans. Rather, they are victimized and thereby treated as objects because they are humans (Fotion 1981: 464).

In reply, terrorists can claim that they advisedly sacrifice valued human beings for a higher good. But for this claim to carry any conviction, they would have to show that they have no alternative. Yet, Fotion argues, they always have the alternative of taking on the opponent’s military establishment, and often also have the option of going after government officials responsible for the wrongs they object to, instead of attacking innocent persons. That kind of terrorism may sometimes be justified, whereas terrorism that targets innocent people never is.

2.3 Nonconsequentialism

Within a nonconsequentialist approach to morality, terrorism is considered wrong in itself, because of what it is, rather than only because (and insofar as) its consequences are bad on balance. But this is not to say that this approach leaves no room whatever for morally justifying certain acts or campaigns of terrorism. Indeed, nonconsequentialist discussions of terrorism also present a range of positions and arguments.

A nonconsequentialist might try to justify an act or campaign of terrorism in one of two ways. One might invoke some deontological considerations, such as justice or rights, in favor of resorting to terrorism under certain circumstances. Alternatively, one might argue that the obvious, and obviously very weighty, considerations of rights (of the victims of terrorism) and justice (which demands respect for those rights) may sometimes be overridden by extremely weighty considerations of consequences—an extremely high price that would be paid for not resorting to terrorism. For the rejection of consequentialism is of course not tantamount to denying that consequences of our actions, policies, and practices matter in their moral assessment; what is denied is the consequentialists’ claim that only consequences matter.

Virginia Held operates with a broad notion of terrorism, but her justification of terrorism is meant to apply to terrorism that targets common citizens. Her discussion of the subject focuses on the issue of rights. When rights of a person or group are not respected, what may we do in order to ensure that they are? On one view, known as consequentialism of rights, if the only way to ensure respect of a certain right of A and B is to infringe the same right of C , we shall be justified in doing so. Held does not hold that such trade-offs in rights with the aim of maximizing their respect in a society are appropriate. Yet rights sometimes come into conflict, whether directly or indirectly (as in the above example). When that happens, there is no way we can avoid comparing the rights involved as more or less stringent and making certain choices between them. That applies to the case of terrorism too. Terrorism obviously violates some human rights of its victims. But its advocates claim that in some circumstances a limited use of terrorism is the only way of bringing about a society where human rights of all will be respected.

Even when this claim is true, that is not enough to make resort to terrorism justified. But it will be justified if an additional condition is met: that of distributive justice. If there is a society where the human rights of a part of the population are respected, while the same rights of another part of the population are being violated; if the only way of changing that and ensuring that human rights of all are respected is a limited use of terrorism; finally, if terrorism is directed against members of the first group, which up to now has been privileged as far as respect of human rights is concerned—then terrorism will be morally justified. This is a justification in terms of distributive justice, applied to the problem of violations of human rights. It is more just to equalize the violations of human rights in a stage of transition to a society where the rights of all are respected, than to allow that the group which has already suffered large-scale violations of human rights suffer even more such violations (assuming that in both cases we are dealing with violations of the same, or equally stringent, human rights). The human rights of many are going to be violated in any case; it is more just, and therefore morally preferable, that their violations should be distributed in a more equitable way (Held 2008).

It might be objected that in calling for sacrificing such basic human rights as the right to life and to bodily security of individual victims of terrorism for the sake of a more just distribution of violations of the same rights within a group in the course of transition to a stage where these rights will be respected throughout that group, Held offends against the principles of separateness of persons and respect for persons (Primoratz 1997: 230–31). In response, Held argues that

to fail to achieve a more just distribution of violations of rights (through the use of terrorism if that is the only means available) is to fail to recognize that those whose rights are already not fairly respected are individuals in their own right, not merely members of a group … whose rights can be ignored.

An argument for achieving a just distribution of rights violations is not necessarily about groups; it can be an argument about the rights of individuals to fairness (Held 2008: 89–90). (For further objections to Held’s argument, see Steinhoff 2007: 125–30; Brooks 2010; Nath 2011.)

In Held’s justification of terrorism, it is justice that requires that inescapable violations of human rights be more evenly distributed. There is a different way of allowing for the use of terrorism under certain circumstances within a nonconsequentialist approach to the ethics of violence. It could be argued that, as far as justice and rights are concerned, terrorism (or, in Held’s terminology, the kind of terrorism that targets the innocent) is never justified. Furthermore, considerations of justice and rights carry much greater weight than considerations of good and bad consequences, and therefore normally trump the latter in cases of conflict. However, in exceptional circumstances considerations concerning consequences—the price of not resorting to terrorism—may be so extremely weighty as to override those of justice and rights.

Michael Walzer offers an argument along these lines in his discussion of “terror bombing” of German cities in World War II. In early 1942, it seemed that Britain would be defeated by Germany and that its military could not prevail while fighting in accordance with the rules of war. Britain was the only remaining obstacle to the subjugation of most of Europe by the Nazis. That was “an ultimate threat to everything decent in our lives, an ideology and a practice of domination so murderous, so degrading even to those who might survive, that the consequences of its final victory were literally beyond calculation, immeasurably awful” (Walzer 2000: 253). Thus Britain was facing a “supreme emergency”: an (a) imminent threat of (b) something utterly unthinkable from a moral point of view. In such an emergency—a case of the “dirty hands” predicament that so often plagues political action (see Walzer 1973)—one may breach a basic and weighty moral principle such as civilian immunity, if that is the only hope of fending off the threat. So for more than three years, the RAF, later joined by the USAAF, deliberately devastated many German cities, killed about 600,000 civilians and seriously injured another 800,000 in an attempt to terrorize the German people into forcing their leadership to halt the war and surrender unconditionally. By early 1943 it was clear that Germany was not going to win the war, and all subsequent terror bombing lacked moral justification. But in its first year, in Walzer’s view, the terror bombing of Germany was morally justified as a response to the supreme emergency Britain was facing. Walzer then expands the notion of supreme emergency to apply to a single political community facing the threat of extermination or enslavement, and eventually to a single political community whose “survival and freedom” are at stake. For “the survival and freedom of political communities—whose members share a way of life, developed by their ancestors, to be passed on to their children—are the highest values of international society” (Walzer 2000: 254).

Here we have two different conceptions of supreme emergency. The threat is imminent in both, but the nature of the threat differs: it is one thing to suffer the fate the Nazis had in store for peoples they considered racially inferior, and another to have one’s polity dismantled. By moving back and forth between these two types of supreme emergency under the ambiguous heading of threat to “the survival and freedom of a political community”, Walzer seeks to extend to the latter the moral response that might be appropriate to the former. Yet whereas genocide, expulsion, or enslavement of an entire people might be thought a moral disaster that may be fended off by any means, its loss of political independence is, at most, a political disaster. If a polity to be dismantled lacks moral legitimacy, its demise may well be a moral improvement. But even if a polity does have moral legitimacy, a threat to its “survival and freedom” falls short of “an ultimate threat to everything decent in our lives”. If so, its military cannot be justified in waging war on enemy civilians in order to defend it. (On supreme emergencies see, for instance, Statman 2006; Kaplan 2011.)

There is another, less permissive position constructed along similar lines, but based on a more austere view of what counts as a moral disaster that might justify resort to terrorism. Contrary to what many fighters against social or economic oppression, colonial rule, or foreign occupation believe, evils of such magnitude that they can justify indiscriminate killing and maiming of innocent people are extremely rare. Not every case of oppression, foreign rule, or occupation, however morally indefensible, amounts to a moral disaster in the relevant sense. Nor does every imminent threat to “the survival and freedom of a political community” qualify, contrary to what Walzer has argued. However, if an entire people is subjected to extermination, or to an attempt at “ethnically cleansing” it from its land, then it is facing a true moral disaster and may properly consider terrorism as a method of struggle against such a fate. In view of their enormity and finality, extermination and “ethnic cleansing” of an entire people constitute a category apart. To be sure, resorting to terrorism in such a case will be morally justified only if there are very good grounds for believing that terrorism will succeed where nothing else will: in preventing imminent extermination or “ethnic cleansing”, or stopping it if it is already under way. Cases where both conditions are met will be extremely rare. Indeed, history may not offer a single example. But that does not mean that no act or campaign of terrorism could ever satisfy these conditions and thus turn out to be justified. Accordingly, terrorism is almost absolutely wrong (Primoratz 2013: chapter 6).

Both the “supreme emergency” and the “moral disaster” view will justify a resort to terrorism only when that is the only way to deal with the emergency, or to prevent the disaster, respectively. Just how certain must we be that terrorism will indeed achieve the goal, while no other method will? One might argue that when in extremis , we cannot apply stringent epistemic standards in deciding how to cope—indeed, if we cannot really know what will work, we must take our chances with what might. This is Walzer’s view: in such a predicament, we must “wager” the crime of terrorism against the evil that is otherwise in store for us. “There is no option; the risk otherwise is too great” (Walzer 2000: 259–260). It may be objected that this position highlights the enormity of the threat, while failing to give due weight to the enormity of the means proposed for fending off the threat—the enormity of terrorism, of deliberately killing and maiming innocent people. When that is taken into account, the conclusion may rather be that even in extremis , if terrorism is to be justified, the reasons for believing that it will work and that nothing else will must be very strong indeed.

Some hold that terrorism is absolutely wrong. This position, too, comes in different versions. Some philosophers work with a wide definition of terrorism, and argue that under certain circumstances “selective” terrorism that targets only those seriously implicated in the wrongs at issue may be justified (Corlett 2003, Young 2004). This seems to suggest that terrorism which is not selective in this way—that is, terrorism in the narrow sense—is never justified. Yet this does not follow: there is still room for arguing that terrorism of the latter type can be justified by further considerations, such as those of “supreme emergency” or “moral disaster”.

Per Bauhn does not leave it at that. He attempts to show that terrorism that targets non-combatants or common citizens can never be justified by deploying a slightly amended version of Alan Gewirth’s ethical theory. Freedom and safety are fundamental prerequisites of action and therefore must be accorded paramount weight. The need to protect them generates a range of rights; the right pertinent here is “an absolute right not to be made the intended victims of a homicidal project” all innocent persons have (Gewirth 1981: 16). When the absolute status of this right is challenged by invoking supreme emergency or moral disaster, Bauhn argues that there is a moral difference between what we are positively and directly causally responsible for, and what we are causally responsible for only indirectly, by failing to prevent other persons from intentionally bringing it about. We are morally responsible for the former, but (except in certain special circumstances) not for the latter. If we refuse to resort to terrorism in order not to target innocent persons, and thus fail to prevent some other persons from perpetrating atrocities, it is only the perpetrators who will be morally responsible for those atrocities. Therefore we must refuse (Bauhn 1989: chapter 5).

Some philosophers base their absolute rejection of terrorism on the slippery slope argument, and argue that “the appeal to supreme emergency is too dangerous to be allowed as a publicly available vindication for terrorism, no matter how rare the circumstances are meant to be” (Coady 2021: 143–44).

Stephen Nathanson seeks to ground the absolute immunity of civilians or common citizens and the absolute prohibition of terrorism which it entails in a rule-consequentialist ethical theory (Nathanson 2010: 191–208). Adopting civilian immunity, rather than adopting any other rule regulating the matter or having no rule at all, is the best way to reduce the killing and destruction in armed conflict. Moreover, the best consequences will be achieved by adopting it as an absolute rule, rather than as a rule allowing for exceptions in supreme emergencies. The idea of supreme emergency is vague. The criteria for proffering supreme emergency exemptions are liable to be applied in arbitrary and subjective ways. Finally, there is the slippery slope argument: “permitting [departures from the rule of civilian immunity, including terrorism] even under the direst circumstances will lower the bar for justifying such acts … broadcast the message that such behavior may sometimes be justified and … thus lend its weight to increasing the use of such methods” (Nathanson 2010: 207).

However, one can adopt rule-consequentialism as one’s ethical theory and yet view the immunity of civilians or common citizens and the attendant prohibition of terrorism as very stringent, but not absolute moral rules. Thus Richard B. Brandt and Brad Hooker do not view this immunity as absolute. They argue that a set of moral rules selected because of the good consequences of their adoption should include a rule that allows and indeed requires one to prevent disaster even if that means breaking some other moral rule. Even such a stringent moral rule as the prohibition of deliberate use of violence against innocent people may be overridden, if the disaster that cannot be prevented in any other way is grave enough. (See Brandt 1992: 87–88, 150–51, 156–57; Hooker 2000: 98–99, 127–36). There is thus some convergence at the level of practical conclusions between their understanding of the immunity of civilians or common citizens and the “moral disaster” position outlined above (2.3.2).

• Allhoff, Fritz, 2012, Terrorism, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Torture: A Philosophical Analysis , New York: Columbia University Press; see part I.
• Arendt, Hannah, 1958, The Origins of Totalitarianism , 2 nd edn., Cleveland: The World Publishing Co.; see chapters 12,13.
• Ashmore, Robert B., 1997, “State Terrorism and Its Sponsors”, in Tomis Kapitan (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict , Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 105–133.
• Bauhn, Per, 1989, Ethical Aspects of Political Terrorism: The Sacrificing of the Innocent , Lund: Lund University Press.
• Bin Laden, Osama, 2005, “The Example of Vietnam”, Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden , Bruce Lawrence (ed.), James Howarth (trans.), London and New York: Verso, 139–144.
• Brandt, Richard B., 1992, Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brooks, Thom, 2010, “Justifying Terrorism”, Public Affairs Quarterly , 24: 189–96.
• Carter, Michael Philip, 1989, “The French Revolution: ‘Jacobin Terror’”, in Rapoport and Alexander (eds.) 1989, 133–51.
• Card, Claudia, 2010, Confronting Evils: Terrorism, Torture, Genocide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; see chapters 5, 6.
• Coady, C.A.J., 1985, “The Morality of Terrorism”, Philosophy , 60: 47–69.
• –––, 2001, “Terrorism”, in Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics , 2 nd edn., New York and London: Routledge, vol. 3, 1696–99.
• –––, 2004, “Terrorism and Innocence”, Journal of Ethics , 8: 37–58.
• –––, 2021, The Meaning of Terrorism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Corlett, J. Angelo, 2003, Terrorism: A Philosophical Analysis , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Dardis, Tony, 1992, “Primoratz on Terrorism”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 9: 93–97.
• Donahue, Thomas J., 2013, “Terrorism, Moral Conceptions, and Moral Innocence”, The Philosophical Forum , 44: 413–35.
• Elshtain, Jean Bethke, 2003, Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World , New York: Basic Books.
• Finlay, Christopher J., 2015, Terrorism and the Right to Resist: A Theory of Just Revolutionary War , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; see chapter 9.
• Fotion, Nicholas, 1981, “The Burdens of Terrorism”, in Burton M. Leiser (ed.), Values in Conflict , New York: Macmillan, 463–70.
• Frey, R.G. and Christopher W. Morris (eds.), 1991, Violence, Terrorism, and Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fullinwider, Robert K., 1988, “Understanding Terrorism”, in Steven Luper-Foy (ed.), Problems of International Justice , Boulder: Westview Press, 249–59.
• George, David A., 2000, “The Ethics of IRA Terrorism”, in Andrew Valls (ed.), Ethics in International Affairs: Theories and Cases , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 81–97.
• Gewirth, Alan, 1981, “Are There Any Absolute Rights?”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 31: 1–16.
• Gilbert, Paul, 1994, Terrorism, Security and Nationality: An Introductory Study in Applied Political Philosophy , London and New York: Routledge.
• Goodin, Robert E., 2006, What’s Wrong with Terrorism? Oxford: Polity.
• Goppel, Anna, 2013, Killing Terrorists: A Moral and Legal Analysis , Berlin: de Gruyter.
• Gordon, Neve, and George A. Lopez, 2000, “Terrorism in the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, in Andrew Valls (ed.), Ethics in International Affairs: Theories and Cases , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 99–113.
• Govier, Trudy, 2002, A Delicate Balance: What Philosophy Can Tell Us about Terrorism , Cambridge, Mass.: Westview Press.
• Grayling, A.C., 2006, Among the Dead Cities: Was the Allied Bombing of Civilians in WWII a Necessity or a Crime? , London: Bloomsbury.
• Held, Virginia, 2008, How Terrorism Is Wrong: Morality and Political Violence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Henry, Emile, 1977, “A Terrorist’s Defence”, in George Woodcock (ed.), The Anarchist Reader , Hassocks: Harvester Press, 189–96.
• Honderich, Ted, 2003, After the Terror , 2 nd edn., Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• –––, 2006, Humanity, Terrorism, Terrorist War , London and New York: Continuum.
• Hooker, Brad, 2000, Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-consequentialist Theory of Morality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hughes, Martin, 1982, “Terrorism and National Security”, Philosophy , 57: 5–25.
• Jaggar, Alison M., 2005, “What Is Terrorism, Why Is It Wrong, and Could It Ever Be Morally Permissible?”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 36: 202–17.
• Jollimore, Troy, 2007, “Terrorism, War, and the Killing of the Innocent”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10: 353–72.
• Kamm, F.M., 2013, Ethics for Enemies: Terror, Torture and War , Oxford: Oxford University Press; see chapter 2.
• Kapitan, Tomis, 2008, “Terrorism”, in Raja Halwani and Tomis Kapitan, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Philosophical Essays on Self-Determination, Terrorism and the One-State Solution , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 132–97.
• Kaplan, Shawn, 2008, “A Typology of Terrorism”, Review Journal of Political Philosophy , 6: 1–38.
• –––, 2011, “Unraveling Emergency Justifications and Excuses for Terrorism”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 42: 219–38.
• Kautsky, Karl, 1973 [1919], Terrorism and Communism: A Contribution to the Natural History of Revolution , trans. W.H. Kerridge, Westport, Conn.: Hyperion Press.
• Khatchadourian, Haig, 1998, The Morality of Terrorism , New York: Peter Lang.
• Lackey, Douglas, 2004, “The Evolution of the Modern Terrorist State: Area Bombing and Nuclear Deterrence”, in Primoratz (ed.) 2004, 128–38.
• Laqueur, Walter (ed.), 1987, The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology , 2 nd edn., New York: New American Library.
• Law, Stephen (ed.), 2008, Israel, Palestine and Terror , London: Continuum.
• Luban, David, 2003, “The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights”, in Verna V. Gehring (ed.), War after September 11 , Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 51–65.
• McMahan, Jeff, 2006, “Intention, Permissibility, Terrorism, and War”, Philosophical Perspectives , 23: 345–72.
• –––, 2009, “War, Terrorism, and the War on Terror”, in Chris Miller (ed.), War on Terror: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 2006 , Manchester: Manchester University Press, 159–84.
• McPherson, Lionel K., 2007, “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?” Ethics 111: 524–46.
• Medina, Vicente, 2015, Terrorism Unjustified: The Use and Misuse of Political Violence , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Meggle, Georg, 2005, “Terror and Counter-Terror: Initial Ethical Reflections”, in Meggle (ed.) 2005, 161–75.
• Meggle, Georg (ed.), 2005, Ethics of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism , Frankfurt/M.: Ontos Verlag.
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1969, Humanism and Terror: An Essay on the Communist Problem , trans. John O’Neill, Boston: Beacon Press.
• Miller, Richard W., 2005, “Terrorism and Legitimacy: A Response to Virginia Held”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 36: 194–201.
• Miller, Seumas, 2009, Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Ethics and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Mills, Claudia, 1995, “The Distinctive Wrong of Terrorism”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy , 10: 57–60.
• Nath, Rekha, 2011, “Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: A Critique of Virginia Held’s Deontological Justification of Terrorism”, Social Theory and Practice 37: 679–96.
• Nathanson, Stephen, 2010, Terrorism and the Ethics of War , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nielsen, Kai, 1981, “Violence and Terrorism: Its Uses and Abuses”, in Burton M. Leiser (ed.), Values in Conflict , New York: Macmillan, 435–49.
• Primoratz, Igor, 1997, “The Morality of Terrorism”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 14: 221–33.
• –––, 2006, “Terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Case Study in Applied Ethics”, Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly 55: 27–48.
• –––, 2010, “Can the Bombing Be Morally Justified?” in Igor Primoratz (ed.), Terror from the Sky: The Bombing of German Cities in World War II , New York: Berghahn Books, 113–33.
• –––, 2013, Terrorism: A Philosophical Investigation , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• ––– (ed.), 2004, Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues , Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Rapoport, David C., and Yonah Alexander (eds.), 1989, The Morality of Terrorism: Religious and Secular Justifications , 2 nd edn., New York: Columbia University Press.
• Reiff, Mark K., 2008, “Terrorism, Retribution, and Collective Responsibility”, Social Theory and Practice 34: 209–42.
• Reitan, Eric, 2010, “Defining Terrorism for Public Policy Purposes: The Group–Target Definition”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 7: 253–78.
• Rigstad, Mark, 2008, “The Senses of Terrorism”, Review Journal of Political Philosophy , 6: 75–102.
• Scheffler, Samuel, 2006, “Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive?” Journal of Political Philosophy , 14: 1–17.
• Schwenkenbecher, Anne, 2012, Terrorism: A Philosophical Enquiry , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Shanahan, Timothy (ed.), 2005, Philosophy 9/11: Thinking about the War on Terrorism , Chicago: Open Court.
• –––, 2009, The Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of Terrorism , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Simpson, Peter, 2004, “Violence and Terrorism in Northern Ireland”, in Primoratz (ed.) 2004, 161–74.
• Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 1991, “On Primoratz’s Definition of Terrorism”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 8: 115–20.
• Smith, Matthew Noah, 2007, “Terrorism, Shared Rules and Trust”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 16: 201–19.
• Statman, Daniel, 2006, “Supreme Emergencies Revisited”, Ethics , 117: 58–79.
• Steinhoff, Uwe, 2007, On the Ethics of War and Terrorism , Oxford: Oxford University Press; see chapter 5.
• Sterba, James P. (ed.), 2003, Terrorism and International Justice , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Taylor, Isaac, 2018, The Ethics of Counterterrorism , London: Routledge.
• Trotsky, Leon, 1961 [1920], Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky , Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press.
• Uniacke, Suzanne, 2014, “Opportunistic Terrorism”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 11: 395–410.
• Valls, Andrew, 2000, “Can Terrorism Be Justified?”, in Andrew Valls (ed.), Ethics in International Affairs: Theories and Cases , Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 65–79.
• Waldron, Jeremy, 2010, Torture, Terror, and Trade–Offs: Philosophy for the White House , Oxford: Oxford University Press; see chapters 3, 4.
• Wallace, Gerry, 1989, “Area Bombing, Terrorism and the Death of Innocents”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 6: 3–16.
• –––, 1991, “Terrorism and the Argument from Analogy”, International Journal of Moral and Social Studies , 6: 149–60.
• Walzer, Michael, 1973, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 2: 160–80.
• –––, 2000, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations , 3 rd edn., New York: Basic Books; see chapters 12, 16.
• –––, 2004, Arguing about War , Ithaca, N.Y.: Yale University Press; see chapters 4, 10.
• –––, 2006, “Terrorism and Just War”, Philosophia , 34: 3–12.
• Wellman, Carl, 1979, “On Terrorism Itself”, Journal of Value Inquiry , 13: 250–58.
• Wellmer, Albrecht, 1984, “Terrorism and the Critique of Society”, in Jürgen Habermas (ed.), Observations on “The Spiritual Situation of the Age” , trans. Andrew Buchwalter, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 283–307.
• Wilkins, Burleigh Taylor, 1992, Terrorism and Collective Responsibility , London and New York: Routledge.
• Young, Robert, 1977, “Revolutionary Terrorism, Crime and Morality”, Social Theory and Practice , 4: 287–302.
• –––, 2004, “Political Terrorism as a Weapon of the Politically Powerless”, in Primoratz (ed.), 2004, 55–64.
• Ethics , 114/4, 2004: Terrorism, War, and Justice.
• Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly , 55/1, 2006: Terrorism and Counterterrorism.
• The Journal of Ethics , 8/1, 2004: Terrorism.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Just War Theory : annotated aid to research and instruction in philosophical studies of warfare, maintained by Mark Rigstad (Philosophy, Oakland University)

coercion | consequentialism | dirty hands, the problem of | ethics: deontological | responsibility: collective | war

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Andrew Alexandra, Tony Coady, and Thomas Pogge for helpful comments on a draft of this article.

Copyright © 2022 by Igor Primoratz < igorprim @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

17 The Causes of Terrorism

Jeff Goodwin, New York University

• Published: 04 April 2019
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Terrorism, understood as the killing of noncombatants in order to frighten, intimidate, or provoke others, has long been an important method of warfare or contention for both states and non-state groups. Yet states and rebels clearly do not attack just any noncombatants. Indeed, both states and rebels are also usually interested in securing the support of noncombatants. So who are the noncombatants whom warriors choose to attack? Armed groups have an incentive to attack and terrorize those noncombatants who support enemy states or rebels politically or economically. Terrorism is thus a method of undermining indirectly one’s armed enemies. By contrast, armed groups do not have an incentive to attack noncombatants who do not support enemy states or rebels. Whether noncombatants are supporters of states or rebels, in other words, is the key to understanding why terror tactics are or are not likely to be employed against them in any particular conflict.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

How Terrorism Is Wrong: Morality and Political Violence

Virginia Held, How Terrorism Is Wrong: Morality and Political Violence , Oxford University Press, 2008, 205pp., $45.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780195329599.

Reviewed by Igor Primoratz, University of Melbourne

This is a book on terrorism and political violence more generally, written by a philosopher and accordingly focusing on conceptual and moral, rather than empirical or historical, questions. The book is meant for fellow philosophers and political theorists, but it is written clearly and without philosophical jargon, and will be accessible, and of much interest, to the general reader too.

While political violence is a traditional topic in political and moral philosophy, terrorism -- the type of political violence generally considered most difficult to defend -- was not much discussed before the attacks in the US on 11 September 2001. Virginia Held is one of the few philosophers who gave it sustained attention before it became a fashionable topic. The present book is a collection of seven essays she has published over the last twenty-odd years and one previously unpublished paper. Some essays discuss terrorism or political violence generally, while others look into such related issues as the ways the media deals with political violence, or collective responsibility for ethnic hatred and violence. There is also an essay on the methods of moral inquiry.

In her approach to moral questions, Held combines consequentialism, deontological ethics and the ethics of care. The relevance of the last approach to discussing issues of political violence is rather limited, and Held's position on terrorism and political violence is grounded in consequentialist and deontological considerations of a more traditional type. So is just war theory, but Held's views are not a version of that theory. Indeed, she doubts that just war theory can be of much help in understanding and judging contemporary armed conflicts.

The title of the book might be thought somewhat misleading, as Held does not so much seek to show how terrorism is wrong as how it can be right. To be sure, a title highlighting the latter prospect probably would not have been a good idea in the current atmosphere of the "war on terror." This "war" is both driven and defended by a "moral clarity" claimed by leaders of some major powers and by many analysts and commentators. Held rightly challenges this facile "moral clarity," according to which all terrorism is morally the same, clearly distinct from war, and a monopoly of insurgents, who are both amoral and utterly irrational and fanatical, and therefore never to be engaged with in dialogue or negotiation. She goes on to argue that we should not adopt a sweeping moral rejection of all terrorism, whatever the cause it serves, the circumstances in which it does so, and the consequences of refraining from it; that terrorism is not "uniquely atrocious"; and that it is not necessarily morally worse than war.

The scope and import of any moral assessment of terrorism depends on just what is meant by "terrorism". Accordingly, Held discusses at some length the question of how the term should be defined. The usage over the two centuries or so since the term entered political and moral discourse in the West has been notoriously confusing, fraught with moral emotions and political passions, and plagued by relativism and double standards. It is in such cases that philosophy can demonstrate its relevance to public debates by clarifying central concepts and main positions, spotting missteps in argument, exposing prejudice and double standards, and thus facilitating more rational and discerning moral deliberation and choice. Most definitions of terrorism crafted by philosophers acknowledge the two traits that make up the core concept underlining all shifts in descriptive and evaluative meaning: terrorism is violence aiming at intimidation (fear, terror). Beyond this, philosophers tend to disagree, most importantly on whether terrorism is violence against civilians (non-combatants, innocent people), or can also target members of the military and security services and highly placed government officials. This is the question of a narrow vs. wide definition. A wide definition is in line with common use over two centuries, whereas a narrow definition is revisionary. Yet a narrow definition may be more appropriate in the context of moral assessment of violence and terrorism. Surely there is a considerable moral difference between planting a bomb in an office of (what is considered) an extremely oppressive government and killing a number of its officials, and planting a bomb in a coffee shop and killing a number of common citizens.

Held prefers a wide definition, for reasons I do not find convincing. One is common use. Held points out that the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, or much Palestinian violence directed at Israeli soldiers, would not count as terrorism on a narrow definition, while the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima would, and finds these implications unacceptable. To me, they seem just right. She quotes Walter Laqueur's remark that "most terrorist groups in the contemporary world have been attacking the military, the police, and the civilian population" (p. 55) as showing the inadequacy of a narrow definition. But surely the fact that a group has engaged in terrorism to an extent sufficient to consider it a terrorist group does not turn every act of political violence committed by the group into an act of terrorism. Finally, Held rejects narrow definitions on the ground that "it is not at all clear who the 'innocent' are as distinct from the 'legitimate' targets. We can perhaps agree that small children are innocent, but beyond this, there is little moral clarity" (pp. 19-20). Yet even if only "small children" were morally protected against violence that would be a weighty consideration, as indiscriminate political violence against civilians or common citizens is bound to kill and maim children too. Moreover, there are other classes of civilians that are just as clearly innocent in the relevant sense, i.e. innocent of the (alleged) injustice or oppression: opponents of the government, those too old or infirm to take part in political life, or those inculpably ignorant of the immorality of their government's policies.

The book offers two somewhat different definitions of terrorism: as "political violence that usually spreads fear beyond those attacked" and "perhaps more than anything else … resembles small-scale war" (p. 21), and as political violence employed with "the intention either to spread fear or to harm non-combatants" (p. 76). Both definitions run together war and terrorism, and imply that an act of war proper, i.e. one aimed at a legitimate military target, counts as terrorism. For, as Trotsky pointed out in his defense of the "red terror", "war … is founded upon intimidation… . [It] destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will" ( Terrorism and Communism , Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1961, p. 58). Held accepts this implication of her position; I find it problematic.

Philosophers working with a wide definition of terrorism usually distinguish terrorism that targets the military and high government officials and terrorism that attacks common citizens, and argue that the former type of terrorism can be morally justified in certain circumstances, while the latter type is never, or almost never, justified. Held does not take this line. Her book offers two different justifications of terrorist violence, and both apply to the latter as well as the former kind of terrorism.

The first is in terms of the responsibility of citizens in a democracy for what their government does on their behalf. This justification is only suggested at several points in the book and is never developed and defended from likely objections. Held does not make it clear whether she sees common citizens as proper objects of terrorist violence because, as voters, they authorize the government's actions and policies (p. 20), or on account of various types and degrees of support they give the government (pp. 56, 78). Both these lines of argument are open to serious queries.

Held's second justification of terrorism, presented in chapter 4 )“Terrorism, Rights, and Political Goals”) is carefully spelled out. It focuses on the issue of human rights. When human rights of a person or group are not respected, what may we do in order to ensure that they are? On one view, known as consequentialism of rights, if the only way to ensure respect of a certain right of A and B is to infringe on the same right of C, we will be justified in doing so. Held does not accept such trade-offs in rights with the aim of maximizing their respect. But she points out that rights sometimes come into conflict, whether directly or indirectly. When that happens, we cannot avoid comparing the rights involved in terms of their stringency and making certain choices. That applies to the case of terrorism too. Terrorism violates some human rights of its victims. But its advocates claim that in certain circumstances a limited use of terrorism is the only way of bringing about a society in which the human rights of all will be respected.

Even when that is so, it is not enough to make resort to terrorism justified. But it will be justified if an additional condition is met: that of distributive justice. If there is a society where the human rights of a part of the population are respected, while the same rights of another part of the population are being violated, and if the only way of putting an end to that and bringing about a society in which human rights of all are respected is a limited use of terrorism, and finally, if terrorism is directed against members of the first group, which until now has been privileged as far as respect of human rights is concerned -- then terrorism will be morally justified. This is an argument of distributive justice, brought to bear on the problem of violations of human rights. It is more just to equalize the violations of human rights in a stage of transition to a society where the rights of all are respected, than to allow the group which has already suffered large-scale violations of human rights to suffer more such violations (assuming that in both cases we are dealing with violations of the same, or equally stringent, human rights). Human rights of many are going to be violated in any case. "If we must have rights violations, a more equitable distribution of such violations is better than a less equitable one" (p. 88).

This is an original, deontological cum consequentialist justification of terrorism. Neither the indispensable contribution of terrorism to bringing about equal respect of human rights of all nor the justice in the distribution of violations of such rights in the transition stage is, in itself, enough to justify its use. Each is necessary, and jointly the two are sufficient for its justification. Obviously, a critique that reduces Held's position to either of its prongs falls short of the mark. So does the objection that terrorism is as a matter of fact highly unlikely ever to help usher in a better, more just society. If so, that tells against terrorism, rather than against Held's (or any other) stringent moral requirements for a morally defensible recourse to it.

Another objection is that in allowing for sacrificing such basic human rights as the right to life and to bodily security of individual victims of terrorism for the sake of a more just distribution of violations of the same rights within a group in the course of transition to a stage where these rights will be respected throughout that group, Held adopts a collectivistic position that offends against the principles of separateness of persons and respect for persons. In response, Held argues that

to fail to achieve a more just distribution of violations of rights (through the use of terrorism if that is the only means available) is to fail to recognize that those whose rights are already not fairly respected are individuals in their own right, not merely members of a group … whose rights can be ignored. … Arguments for achieving a just distribution of rights violations need not be arguments … that are more than incidentally about groups. They can be arguments about individuals' rights to basic fairness. (pp. 89-90)

Still, a common citizen belonging to the relatively privileged section of the population has done nothing to forfeit her right to life. If she is killed by a terrorist seeking to make the distribution of right to life violations in the entire population more just, her right to life is violated for reasons to do with the group: for the sake of more justice within the group. This has nothing to do with her sins of commission or omission, and in this sense Held's is a collectivistic argument -- and an argument that I, for one, do not find convincing. Held argues that, if we fail to resort to terrorism in the circumstances described in her argument, we thereby fail to recognize that individuals belonging to the disadvantaged section of the population "are individuals in their own right," rather than merely members of a group whose human rights can be ignored. This argument is predicated on moral equivalence of acts and omissions, and on ascription of negative responsibility. This, too, I find problematic. We do not fail to respect the right to life of disadvantaged individuals when we fail to kill or maim other individuals, personally innocent of the plight of the former. The disadvantaged individuals do not have a right that we should engage in terrorism in their behalf, and we do not have a duty to do that. Indeed, I believe we have a duty not to do that.

Whether Held's two-prong justification of terrorism can be successfully defended against this and other possible objections or not, it remains an original, complex, and highly important position on the morality of terrorism. The essay presenting it is the centerpiece of Held's book and her most valuable contribution to the discussion of terrorism as far as fellow philosophers are concerned. The general reader will find much of interest in all the essays in this book. In the wider context of public debate about terrorism and the "war" against it, Held provides a strong antidote to the simplistic deliverances of "moral clarity" many of our political leaders and "public intellectuals" claim to possess.

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Allyson Mitchell

December 2012

This Essay was written by Allyson Mitchell , School of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (S-CAR), George Mason University, in December 2012. This piece was prepared as part of the S-CAR / Beyond Intractability Collaborative. Hilmi Ulas acted as a peer reviewer on this piece.

Modern day warfare has altered the guidelines of war and changed the way combatants fight; conflicts have been relocated from the classic battlefield location to populated urban centers, into the daily lives of civilians. This has a tendency to blur the boundaries between civilians and hostiles in a combat environment. The global war on terror has allowed not only U.S. policy, but also the foreign policies of many nations, to reach far beyond the traditional rules of engagement in war in order to fight "terrorism" wherever countries deem fit.

Unfortunately defining terrorism is just as hard as understanding it. Although there is not a universally accepted definition of terrorism, most explanations typically involve key criteria such as: violence, a psychological impact and fear, political goals, deliberate targeting of noncombatants, and unlawfulness or illegitimacy. Terrorism has been around since history has been recorded, from biblical citations to the pattern of political terror surrounding Julius Caesar. However the first verified event to expose the politicized use of the term terror was "The Reign of Terror" coined during the French Revolution and directed at the French government for killing thousands of suspected enemies of the revolution (1793-1794). [1] Terrorism has clearly changed since then: See the list below for various definitions of terrorism and take note of not only the inclusions, but also the possible exclusions within each definition. Notice, for instance, the specificity of the language within each U.S. definition: words like "premeditated", "political or social objectives", and "unlawful".

State Department definition, Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d)(2): "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." [2]

FBI definition: "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." [3]

Defense Department definition: "The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political." (JP 3-07.2) [4]

Boaz Ganor 's (Executive Director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism) definition: "the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims." [5]

Tal Becker , former legal advisor to the Israeli Mission to the UN, affirms "If we define terrorism not by what one does, but what one does it for, we legitimate the deliberate targeting of civilians for certain causes." [6]

Noam Chomsky , American linguist and political critic, adopted his definition from a U.S. Army Manual: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." [7]

At first glance all these definitions appear clear and concise; however, in reality, defining terrorism has presented nations with serious challenges. Just look at all the ways the different branches of the U.S. Government are defining terrorism. The State Department definition requires "politically motivated violence...by subnational groups or clandestine agents," failing to include national governments as possible agents of terrorism. This is likely a purposeful omission; for once an individual or entity is deemed a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), it becomes illegal for any U.S. citizen to support that FTO. [8] Hence, naming a government as an FTO would disallow any foreign policy initiatives between the U.S. and that government. It would also have monumental impacts at the individual level; making it unlawful for U.S. reporters, or any American, to speak with citizens of that FTO designated nation.

Another interesting point is that the term non-combatant is not defined, but a disclaimer is added to the annually-issued Country Report on Terrorism stating that non-combatant "is interpreted to mean, in addition to civilians, military personnel (whether or not armed or on duty) who are not deployed in a war zone or a war-like setting" [9] By clarifying the term in this way, it substantiates the claim that the State Department definition of terrorism does not include actions taken against military personnel while in theater. The DoD and FBI definitions do not separate out deployed military members. This means that when a car bomb is detonated outside a U.S. military compound in Afghanistan and kills two American soldiers, the DoD and FBI could claim this is an act of terrorism, but the State Department would not. Also, the Department of Defense's definition includes religious and ideological objectives as well as the threatened use of force, which leads one to believe that under this definition, threats alone can be deemed acts of terrorism. It should also be recognized where the emphasis is placed in each of these definitions: while the State Department emphasizes motives, the DoD emphasizes goals, and the FBI emphasizes methods. [10] It is important to understand each definition because each agency approaches terrorism in a different way. As one can imagine, such differences in approach can lead to differences in implementation, which is seen as confusing both to the American public, and also the international community.

"...any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act." [11]

Although the longest, the United Nations' definition is arguably the broadest and mostly serves to individualize the act, which, like the State Department, disregards nations as possible agents of terrorism. At the time the declaration was registered in April 2002, 132 of the 180 parties had signed the resolution. What is most interesting about the United Nations Declaration made by the General Assembly, is not necessarily the definition itself, but the 'declarations', 'reservations', 'understandings', and subsequent 'objections' made by the parties (See Appendix ). Take notice how Yemen did not sign the declaration on the basis that, as a nation, it did not want to relay the impression that it was recognizing Israel's existence. Many of the countries signed the declaration, but not before declaring that it did not apply to them because they were unbound for one reason or another. Egypt and Jordan both signed with reservations that their countries do not believe acts of national armed struggle against foreign occupation should be deemed terrorism. As one can see, reaching an agreeable definition of terrorism is no small feat, as terrorism itself is a highly emotive subject. It stirs up immense emotions and reactions "because it combines so many aspects of the human experience — psychology, philosophy, military strategy, religion (at least in some cases) and history" to name a few. [12] And in all cases, defining the act can lead to action; labeling an act a "terrorist act" will result in the appropriate punishment set forth by that nation's laws even if the perpetrating nation does not define the act in such a way.

Unfortunately, there are no physical characteristics that portray the image of a terrorist. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that a terrorist fits into a specific economic level, family structure, or political status. More often than not, civilians end up with attachments to such extremist organizations due to extraneous circumstances. During conflict situations, when state institutions fail to provide basic human needs, such as security, food, shelter, and work, for its people, "power is diffused — and exerted through informal or incoherent means". [13] When this happens, rebel groups, who have strong internal support networks, are the organizations that come in to pick the pieces. Extreme mistrust of a government can lead many civilians to join tribes and rebel factions, like Al Qaeda, in order seek out alternative means for basic human needs. Consequently, people suffering from deprivation more frequently turn to terrorist organizations.

As field researcher Karina Korostelina explains, "Deprivation occurs when people feel that they cannot improve their condition under the current state of affairs". [14] Although it is near impossible to pinpoint a terrorist using individualized traits, underlying socioeconomic conditions can create a breeding ground for recruitment into terrorist organizations. Paul Pillar mentions, "Scholars who have examined the origins of subnational political violence in general have pointed to the need to consider the perceived deprivation and other grievances that provide motives for violence, as well as the calculations and political opportunities of dissident leaders who mobilize such discontent, to understand better when and where violence breaks out". [15] However, feelings of deprivation are derived from an individual's perception of the situation, which makes it more difficult to objectively identify a person as a terrorist because two people can feel very differently about the same situation. Neuroscientist Jeffrey Victoroff warns, "Rational choice theories [16] cannot predict idiosyncratic responses. Policy recommendations that predict deterrence of terrorist acts are only as valuable as their capacity to anticipate the extraordinary variability and adaptability of humans". [17]

There may not be a scientific explanation for what makes people turn to terrorism, nor is there an explanation for what makes people selfless or altruistic, but it appears that when individuals feel content and in control of their own lives they are more receptive to making less violent choices. Allowing citizens the availability of choices whether they are financial, political, or social will encourage a more fulfilling lifestyle. Therefore, confidence in democratic systems and empowerment of all people is perhaps the best answer to preventing terrorism.

Israel signed with following declarations: "Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of the State of Israel declares that in the application of the Convention the treaties to which the state of Israel is not a party shall be deemed not to be included in the Annex of the Convention. ... Pursuant to Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the State of Israel does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Government of the State of Israel understands that the term 'international humanitarian law' referred to in Article 21 of the Convention has the same substantial meaning as the term 'the law of war'. This body of laws does not include the provisions of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Convention of 1977 to which the State of Israel is not a party." [18]

Egypt signed but made the following declarations and reservations: "1. Under article 2, paragraph 2 (a), of the Convention, the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt considers that, in the application of the Convention, conventions to which it is not a party are deemed not included in the annex.

2. Under article 24, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article.

Explanatory declaration:

Without prejudice to the principles and norms of general international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b), of the Convention." [19]

Jordan signed but declared: "1. The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people's right to self-determination as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1(b) of article 2 of the Convention. 2. Jordan is not a party to the following treaties: A. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted in Vienna on 3 March 1980. B. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988. C. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988. D. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted in New York on 15 December 1997.

Accordingly Jordan is not bound to include, in the application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the offences within the scope and as defined in such Treaties." [20]

United States signed with the following reservation: "(a) pursuant to Article 24 (2) of the Convention, the United States of America declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 24 (1) of the Convention; and

(b) the United States of America reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 24 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration."

Understandings:

"(1) EXCLUSION OF LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES AGAINST LAWFUL TARGETS. The United States of America understands that nothing in the Convention precludes any State Party to the Convention from conducting any legitimate activity against any lawful target in accordance with the law of armed conflict.

(2) MEANING OF THE TERM 'ARMED CONFLICT'. The United States of America understands that the term 'armed conflict' in Article 2 (1) (b) of the Convention does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature."

With regard to the declaration made by the Jordan upon ratification:

"The Government of the United States of America, after careful review, considers the statement made by Jordan relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention (the Declaration) to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the offense set forth in the Convention on a unilateral basis. The Declaration is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

The Government of the United States also considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, which provides: "Each state party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of the United States notes that, under established principles of international treaty law, as reflected in Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the United States therefore objects to the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 made by the Government of Jordan upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United States and Jordan." [21]

Cuba signed and declares: "The Republic of Cuba declares, pursuant to article 24, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article, concerning the settlement of disputes arising between States Parties, inasmuch as it considers that such disputes must be settled through amicable negotiation. In consequence, it declares that it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice." [22]

Yemen omits signature initially with the following reservation: "The Government of the Republic of Yemen has ratified the Convention ... subject to reservations to the following articles:

(a) Article 2, paragraph 1(b); (b) Article 24, paragraph 1.

The accession of the Republic of Yemen to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entry into any relations with it." [23]

Booth, Ken, and Timothy Dunne. Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order . Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

"Country Reports on Terrorism 2011." U.S. Department of State. July 31, 2012. Accessed November 13, 2012. http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/index.htm .

Crenshaw, Martha. "The United States as Target of Terrorism." USIP Special Report, 111. 2003. Accessed August 9, 2012. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr111.html#crenshaw .

Crossman, Ashley. "Rational Choice Theory." About.com Sociology. Accessed November 15, 2012. http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociological-Theory/a/Rational-Choice-Theo... .

"DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms." DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. Accessed November 11, 2012. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/ .

Ganor, Boaz. "Defining Terrorism: Is One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter?" Police Practice and Research 3, no. 4 (2002): 287-304. doi:10.1080/1561426022000032060.

"International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism." Declarations and Conventions Contained in General Assembly Resolutions. December 9, 1999. Accessed November 13, 2012. http://www.un.org/documents/ .

Jordan, Michael J. "Terrorism's Slippery Definition Eludes UN Diplomats." The Christian Science Monitor. February 04, 2002. Accessed November 9, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0204/p07s02-wogi.html .

Korostelina, Karina Valentinovna. Social Identity and Conflict: Structures, Dynamics, and Implications . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Pillar, Paul R. Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy . Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.

Ponzio, Richard. Democratic Peacebuilding: Aiding Afghanistan and Other Fragile States . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

"Reign of Terror." History.com. Accessed November 1, 2012. http://www.history.com/topics/reign-of-terror .

Sheehan, Ivan Sascha. "Online Seminar in Terrorism & Counterterrorism." Lecture, Webinar, July 07, 2012.

"Terrorism Designations FAQs." U.S. Department of State. July 10, 2012. Accessed November 11, 2012. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/07/194808.htm .

"What We Investigate." FBI. Accessed November 9, 2012. http://www.fbi.gov/albuquerque/about-us/what-we-investigate .

Victoroff, J. "The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches." Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, no. 1 (January 2005): 3-42. doi:10.1177/0022002704272040.

Use the following to cite this article: Mitchell, Allyson. "Terrorism Defined." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. December 2012 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/terrorism-defined >.

The Intractable Conflict Challenge

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of August 11, 2024 -- Our weekly collection of links from colleagues and outside news/opinion sources on the many predicaments we are now facing around the world. It's pretty daunting!
• Walt Roberts and Caleb Christian Talk about the Inter-Movement Impact Project -- Caleb Christen and Walt Roberts talk about the Inter-Movement Impact Project -- another example of massively parallel problem solving and democracy building "in the real world."
• Massively Parallel Partisanship Revisited -- Massively parallel social movements can strengthen democracy or tear it apart, and the dividers are currently much more visible (and successful) than the uniters. With effort, though, that can change!

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, a conversation with dr. anthony fauci, m.d., the impossible state live: recent developments in north korea, gaza's looming polio threat—gaza: the human toll.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States

Photo: MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images

Table of Contents

Brief by Seth G. Jones , Catrina Doxsee , and Nicholas Harrington

Published June 17, 2020

Available Downloads

• Download the CSIS Brief 542kb
• Download the Methodology 68kb

The United States faces a growing terrorism problem that will likely worsen over the next year. Based on a CSIS data set of terrorist incidents, the most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda could present a potential threat as well. Over the rest of 2020, the terrorist threat in the United States will likely rise based on several factors, including the November 2020 presidential election.

On June 3, 2020, federal authorities arrested three individuals allegedly associated with the “boogaloo” movement, a loosely-organized group of extremists preparing for a civil war, for conspiring to cause violence in Las Vegas and possessing an improvised incendiary device. 1 Less than a week later, law enforcement officials near Richmond, VA, arrested Harry H. Rogers, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, for driving a vehicle into peaceful protesters. Around the same time, members of a Brooklyn anarchist group urged its supporters to conduct “rebellion” against the government. 2 Extremists from all sides flooded social media with disinformation, conspiracy theories, and incitements to violence in response to the protests following the death of George Floyd, swamping Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms. 3 This CSIS brief examines the state of terrorism in the United States. It asks two sets of questions. First, what are the most significant types of terrorism in the United States, and how has the terrorism threat in the U.S. homeland evolved over time? Second, what are the implications for terrorism over the next year? To answer these questions, this analysis compiles and analyzes an original data set of 893 terrorist plots and attacks in the United States between January 1994 and May 2020. This analysis makes several arguments. First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020. Second, terrorism in the United States will likely increase over the next year in response to several factors. One of the most concerning is the 2020 U.S. presidential election, before and after which extremists may resort to violence, depending on the outcome of the election. Far-right and far-left networks have used violence against each other at protests, raising the possibility of escalating violence during the election period. The rest of this brief is divided into the following sections. The first defines terrorism and its main types. The second section analyzes terrorism trends in the United States since 1994. The third examines far-right, far-left, and religious networks. The fourth section highlights the terrorism threat over the next year.  

DEFINITIONS

This analysis focuses on terrorism: the deliberate use—or threat—of violence by non-state actors in order to achieve political goals and create a broad psychological impact. 4 Violence—and the threat of violence—are important components of terrorism. Overall, this analysis divides terrorism into four broad categories: right-wing, left-wing, religious, and ethnonationalist. 5 To be clear, terms like right-wing and left-wing terrorism do not—in any way—correspond to mainstream political parties in the United States, such as the Republican and Democratic parties, which eschew terrorism. Instead, terrorism is orchestrated by a small minority of extremists. First, right-wing terrorism refers to the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities whose goals may include racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority; anger at women, including from the incel (“involuntary celibate”) movement; and outrage against certain policies, such as abortion. 6 This analysis uses the term “right-wing terrorism” rather than “racially- and ethnically-motivated violent extremism,” or REMVE, which is used by some in the U.S. government. 7 Second, left-wing terrorism involves the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities that oppose capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism; pursue environmental or animal rights issues; espouse pro-communist or pro-socialist beliefs; or support a decentralized social and political system such as anarchism. Third, religious terrorism includes violence in support of a faith-based belief system, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, among many others. As highlighted in the next section, the primary threat from religious terrorists comes from Salafi-jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Fourth, ethnonationalist terrorism refers to violence in support of ethnic or nationalist goals—often struggles of self-determination and separatism along ethnic or nationalist lines. In examining terrorism, this analysis does not specifically address several related phenomena. For example, it does not focus on hate crimes. There is overlap between terrorism and hate crimes, since some hate crimes include the use or threat of violence. 8 But hate crimes can also include non-violent incidents such as graffiti and verbal abuse. Hate crimes are obviously concerning and a threat to society, but this analysis concentrates only on terrorism and the use—or threat—of violence to achieve political objectives.  

TRENDS IN U.S. TERRORISM

To evaluate the threat posed by terrorism, we compiled a data set of 893 incidents that occurred in the United States between January 1994 and May 8, 2020. 9 (The link to the methodology can be found at the end of the brief.) These incidents included both attacks and foiled plots. We coded the ideology of the perpetrators into one of five categories: ethnonationalist, left-wing, religious, right-wing, and other (which included motivations that did not fit into any of the categories). All of the religious attacks and plots in the CSIS data set were committed by terrorists who ascribed to a Salafi-jihadist ideology. This section analyzes the data in two parts: terrorist incidents and fatalities. The data show three notable trends. First, right-wing attacks and plots accounted for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994. In particular, they made up a large percentage of incidents in the 1990s and 2010s. Second, the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown substantially during the past six years. In 2019, for example, right-wing extremists perpetrated nearly two-thirds of the terrorist attacks and plots in the United States, and they committed over 90 percent of the attacks and plots between January 1 and May 8, 2020. Third, although religious extremists were responsible for the most fatalities because of the 9/11 attacks, right-wing perpetrators were responsible for more than half of all annual fatalities in 14 of the 21 years during which fatal attacks occurred.  

ATTACKS AND PLOTS

In analyzing fatalities from terrorist attacks, religious terrorism has killed the largest number of individuals—3,086 people—primarily due to the attacks on September 11, 2001, which caused 2,977 deaths. 10 The magnitude of this death toll fundamentally shaped U.S. counterterrorism policy over the past two decades. In comparison, right-wing terrorist attacks caused 335 deaths, left-wing attacks caused 22 deaths, and ethnonationalist terrorists caused 5 deaths. To evaluate the ongoing threat from different types of terrorists, however, it is useful to consider the proportion of fatalities attributed to each type of perpetrator annually. In 14 of the 21 years between 1994 and 2019 in which fatal terrorist attacks occurred, the majority of deaths resulted from right-wing attacks. In eight of these years, right-wing attackers caused all of the fatalities, and in three more—including 2018 and 2019—they were responsible for more than 90 percent of annual fatalities. 11 Therefore, while religious terrorists caused the largest number of total fatalities, right-wing attackers were most likely to cause more deaths in a given year.  

TYPES OF TERRORISM

This section outlines the threat from right-wing, left-wing, and religious networks. In particular, it focuses on the threat from right-wing extremists because of the high number of incidents and fatalities they perpetrated, as highlighted in the previous section. It does not cover ethnonationalist networks, which are not a major threat in the United States today.

RIGHT-WING TERRORISM

There are three broad types of right-wing terrorist individuals and networks in the United States: white supremacists, anti-government extremists, and incels. There are numerous differences between (and even within) these types, such as ideology, capabilities, tactics, and level of threat. Adherents also tend to blend elements from each category. But there are some commonalities. First, terrorists in all of these categories operate under a decentralized model. The threats from these networks comes from individuals, not groups. 12 For example, anti-government activist and white supremacist Louis Beam advocated for an organizational structure that he termed “leaderless resistance” to target the U.S. government. 13

Second, these networks operate and organize to a great extent online, challenging law enforcement efforts to identify potential attackers. 14 Right-wing terrorists have used various combinations of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Gab, Reddit, 4Chan, 8kun (formerly 8Chan), Endchan, Telegram, Vkontakte, MeWe, Discord, Wire, Twitch, and other online communication platforms. Internet and social media sites continue to host right-wing extremist ideas such as the Fourteen Words (also referred to as the 14 or 14/88) coined by white supremacist David Lane, a founding member of the group the Order. The Fourteen Words includes variations like: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” 15 Far-right perpetrators also use computer games and forums to recruit. 16 Third, right-wing extremists have adopted some foreign terrorist organization tactics, though al-Qaeda and other groups have also adopted tactics developed by right-wing movements. 17 In a June 2019 online post, a member of the Atomwaffen Division (AWD) stated, “the culture of martyrdom and insurgency within groups like the Taliban and ISIS is something to admire and reproduce in the neo-Nazi terror movement.” 18 Similarly, the Base—a loosely organized neo-Nazi accelerationist movement which shares the English-language name for al-Qaeda—uses a vetting process to screen potential recruits, similar to the methods of al-Qaeda. 19

Anti-government Extremists: The right-wing terrorist threat also includes anti-government extremists, including militias and the sovereign citizen movement. Most militia extremists view the U.S. government as corrupt and a threat to freedom and rights. 31 Other far-right anti-government groups mobilized to protect a perceived threat to individual gun ownership rights. Modern militias are organized as paramilitaries that conduct weapons training and other field exercises. 32 The Three Percenters are a far-right paramilitary group that advocates gun rights and seeks to limit U.S. government authorities. In August 2017, Jerry Varnell, a 23-year-old who identified as holding the “III% ideology” and wanted to “start the next revolution” attempted to detonate a bomb outside of an Oklahoma bank, similar to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. 33 Also, in January 2017, Marq Perez, who discussed the attack in Three Percenter channels on Facebook, burglarized and burned down a mosque in Texas. 34

Anti-government extremists, which sometimes blend with white supremacist movements, have used the slang word “boogaloo” as a shorthand for a coming civil war. Several popular Facebook groups and Instagram pages, such as Thicc Boog Line, P A T R I O T Wave, and Boogaloo Nation, have emerged spreading the boogaloo conspiracy. Police in Texas arrested 36-year-old Aaron Swenson in April after he attempted to livestream his search for a police officer that he could ambush and execute. 35 Prior to his arrest, Swenson had shared memes extensively from boogaloo pages.

Incels: Involuntary celibates, or incels, conduct acts of violence against women. The incel movement is composed of a loosely organized virtual community of young males. Incels believe that one’s place in society is determined by physical characteristics and that women are responsible for this hierarchy. Incels identify with the writings of Elliot Rodger, who published a 133-page manifesto, titled “My Twisted World.” 36 In October 2015, Christopher Harper-Mercer, inspired by Rodger, killed nine people at a community college in Oregon. 37 In November 2018, 40-year-old Scott Beierle killed two women in a yoga studio in Tallahassee, Florida, before committing suicide. 38

LEFT-WING TERRORISM

The far-left includes a decentralized mix of actors. Anarchists are fundamentally opposed to a centralized government and capitalism, and they have organized plots and attacks against government, capitalist, and globalization targets. 39 Environmental and animal rights groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, have conducted small-scale attacks against businesses they perceive as exploiting the environment. 40 In addition, the far-left includes Antifa, which is a contraction of the phrase “anti-fascist.” It refers to a decentralized network of far-left militants that oppose what they believe are fascist, racist, or otherwise right-wing extremists. While some consider Antifa a sub-set of anarchists, adherents frequently blend anarchist and communist views. One of the most common symbols used by Antifa combines the red flag of the 1917 Russian Revolution and the black flag of nineteenth-century anarchists. Antifa groups frequently conduct counter- protests to disrupt far-right gatherings and rallies. They often organize in black blocs (ad hoc gatherings of individuals that wear black clothing, ski masks, scarves, sunglasses, and other material to conceal their faces), use improvised explosive devices and other homemade weapons, and resort to vandalism. In addition, Antifa members organize their activities through social media, encrypted peer-to-peer networks, and encrypted messaging services such as Signal. Antifa groups have been increasingly active in protests and rallies over the past few years, especially ones that include far-right participants. 41 In June 2016, for example, Antifa and other protestors confronted a neo-Nazi rally in Sacramento, CA, where at least five people were stabbed. In February, March, and April 2017, Antifa members attacked alt-right demonstrators at the University of California, Berkeley, using bricks, pipes, hammers, and homemade incendiary devices. 42 In July 2019, William Van Spronsen, a self-proclaimed Antifa, attempted to bomb the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, using a propane tank but was killed by police. 43

RELIGIOUS TERRORISM

While religious terrorism is concerning, the United States does not face the same level of threat today from religious extremists—particularly those inspired by Salafi-jihadist groups such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda—as some European countries. 44 But Salafi-jihadists still pose a limited threat. In December 2019, Second Lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a Saudi air force cadet training with the American military in Pensacola, Florida, killed three men and injured three others. He was inspired by al-Qaeda’s ideology, communicated with leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula up until the attack, and joined the Saudi military in part to carry out a “special operation.” 45 In addition, leaders of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State continue to encourage individuals in the West—including the United States—to conduct attacks. 46 There are still perhaps 20,000 to 25,000 jihadist fighters in Syria and Iraq from the Islamic State and another 15,000 to 20,000 fighters from two al-Qaeda-linked groups: Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and Tanzim Hurras al-Din. 47 Over the next several months, more jihadists may enter the battlefield after escaping—or being released—from prisons run by the Syrian Democratic Forces in areas such as al-Hol, located in eastern Syria near the border with Iraq. 48 In addition, there are still concerns about al-Qaeda and Islamic State groups operating in Yemen, Nigeria and neighboring countries, Somalia, Afghanistan, and other countries. In a May 2020 report, the United Nations concluded that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat and that the “senior leadership of Al-Qaida remains present in Afghanistan, as well as hundreds of armed operatives, Al-Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent, and groups of foreign terrorist fighters aligned with the Taliban.” 49  

THE RISING SPECTER OF TERRORISM

Our data suggest that right-wing extremists pose the most significant terrorism threat to the United States, based on annual terrorist events and fatalities. Over the next year, the threat of terrorism in the United States will likely increase based on several factors, such as the November 2020 presidential election and the response to the Covid-19 crisis. These factors are not the cause of terrorism, but they are events and developments likely to fuel anger and be co-opted by a small minority of extremists as a pretext for violence. First, the November 2020 presidential election will likely be a significant source of anger and polarization that increases the possibility of terrorism. Some—though not all—far-right extremists associate themselves with President Trump and may resort to violence before or after the election. As U.S. Department of Justice documents have highlighted, some far-right extremists have referred to themselves as “Trumpenkriegers”—or “fighters for Trump.” 50 If President Trump loses the election, some extremists may use violence because they believe—however incorrectly—that there was fraud or that the election of Democratic candidate Joe Biden will undermine their extremist objectives. Alternatively, some on the far-left could resort to terrorism if President Trump is re-elected. In June 14, 2017, James Hodgkinson—a left-wing extremist—shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika in Alexandria, VA. A few months earlier, Hodgkinson wrote in a Facebook post that “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” 51 Tension on both the far right and far left has dramatically risen over the past several years. Second, developments associated with Covid-19—such as prolonged unemployment or government attempts to close “non-essential” businesses in response to a second or third wave—could increase the possibility of terrorism. Some far-right extremists, for example, have threatened violence and railed against federal, state, and local efforts to take away their freedoms by requiring face coverings in public indoor settings, closing businesses, and prohibiting large gatherings to curb the spread of the virus. In March 2020, Timothy Wilson, who had ties to neo-Nazi groups, was killed in a shootout with FBI agents who were attempting to arrest him for planning to bomb a hospital in Missouri. Though he had been planning the attack for some time and had considered a variety of targets, he used the outbreak of Covid-19 to target a hospital in order to gain additional publicity. On the far left and far right, some anti-vaxxers—who oppose vaccines as a conspiracy by the government and pharmaceutical companies—have threatened violence in response to Covid-19 response efforts. 52 Third, a polarizing event other than the presidential election—such as a school shooting or racially-motivated killing—could spark protests that extremists attempt to hijack. As highlighted in the introduction, extremists from all sides attempted to hijack the May and June 2020 protests in the United States as an excuse to commit acts of terrorism. In addition, far-right and far-left networks have used violence against each other at protests—such as in Berkeley, CA and Charlottesville, VA in 2017—raising concerns about escalating violence. All parts of U.S. society have an important role to play in countering terrorism. Politicians need to encourage greater civility and refrain from incendiary language. Social media companies need to continue sustained efforts to fight hatred and terrorism on their platforms. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other companies are already doing this. But the struggle will only get more difficult as the United States approaches the November 2020 presidential election—and even in its aftermath. Finally, the U.S. population needs to be more alert to disinformation, double-check their sources of information, and curb incendiary language. Terrorism feeds off lies, conspiracies, disinformation, and hatred. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi urged individuals to practice what he called “satyagraha,” or truth force. “Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever; and it always insists upon truth,” he explained. 53 That advice is just as important as it has ever been in the United States. Seth G. Jones is the Harold Brown Chair and director of the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Catrina Doxsee is a program manager and research associate with the Transnational Threats Project at CSIS. Nicholas Harrington is a research associate for the Transnational Threats Project at CSIS. The authors give special thanks to James Suber and Grace Hwang for their research assistance and helpful comments, including their involvement in building the terrorism data set. For an overview of the methodology used in compiling the data set, please see here . This brief is made possible by general support to CSIS. No direct sponsorship contributed to this brief.

CSIS Briefs   are produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2020 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Please consult the PDF for references.

Seth G. Jones

Catrina Doxsee

Nicholas harrington, programs & projects.

UPSC SUPER SIMPLIFIED

Your Goals. Our Mission.

Essay on terrorism

What is terrorism?

In the most comprehensive sense, terrorism is an intentional use of indiscriminate violence as a mechanism to create terror or fear in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological objective. Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare. It is the use of violence against innocent civilians or non-combatants. The word terrorism has gained popularity following the attacks on the World Trade Centers New York in September 2001 also referred to as the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

History of terrorism

The nuisance of terrorism is as old as the Roman Empire. The roots and practice of terrorism can be traced back at least to the first century AD. The word terrorism itself was used for the first time to describe the acts of the Jacobin Club during the reign of terror in the French Revolution.

Types of terrorism

State-Sponsored terrorism

It is pursued in order to achieve such clearly stated foreign policy objectives. Massive-scale state-sponsored terrorism reemerged in international politics in the 1960s and 1970s. Now, along with religious terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism has greatly altered the design of terrorist attacks around the world. Since its independence, India has been having the same problems from Pakistan.

Ideology-oriented terrorism  

Ideology-oriented terrorism is typically categorized into two: left-wing and right-wing terrorism. 

Left-wing terrorism 

It is violence against the ruling class, mostly by the lower classes, motivated by leftist ideology. These include the Red Army faction or the Baader Meinhof Gang in former West Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, the Maoist groups in India and Nepal. 

Right-wing Terrorism 

Right-wing groups tend to seek to protect the status quo or to return to some past situation that they feel should have been preserved. Examples of this include: fascism in Italy, nazism in Germany, white supremacist movements in the USA known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Religious terrorism

Terrorist groups are notably motivated by religion. Religious terrorism is more destructive in nature. These groups are motivated either in whole or in part by a religious imperative that considers violence as a sacred duty. The theology of ISIS is in accordance with the Wahabi theological ideology. 

Criminal Terrorism 

Terrorist activities are used to aid in crime and criminal profit. For instance, in narco-terrorism, narcotics traffickers attempt to influence the policies of the Government by systematic threat or use by violence.  

Ethnic terrorism

It is deliberate violence by a subnational ethnic group to advance its cause. Such violence usually focuses either on the creation of a separate state or on the elevation of the status of one ethnic group over others. Tamil Nationalist groups in Sri Lanka, insurgent groups in North East India, and the Khalistan movement are examples of ethnonationalism terrorist activities.

Reasons behind the terrorism

There are many reasons which make people or a group terrorist. Those reasons are political, religious, poverty, and lack of education.

The main cause of terrorism is perceived socio-political or historical injustice and a belief that violence will lead to change. People who choose this path when they have been stripped off their land or rights are denied the same. Examples- Hamas group of Palestine, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ( LTTE), Maoists and the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) 

Terrorist groups use a specific religious ideology to inspire people to join terrorist groups. For example, ISIS and Al-Qaeda use Islamic ideology making people follow them. 

Socio-e conomic

Many people who join terrorist groups are illiterate and poor. Terrorism can spread like a virus in vulnerable and marginalized communities. These people can easily be pursued by terrorism groups. 

A lack of employment and unequal growth encourages unemployed youth to indulge in criminal acts and narcotics.

However, the above arguments are partially true. Of the 9/11 conspirators, eight were engineers by education. Osama bin Laden’s father owned the largest construction company in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So, terrorism is not always a result of illiteracy and poverty.

Intolerance  

Because of the increasing population and decreasing resources, intolerance is growing in society. Increasing globalization of the society come to transcend national boundaries spreading terrorism. 

The ineffective anti-terrorism legislation and misplaced judicial activism are somehow also responsible for growing terrorism. 

Structural issues

There are structural inadequacies in the state apparatus namely weaknesses in the intelligence structure -human as well as technical, inadequate modernization of police paramilitary forces and the Armed Forces, unimaginative media management and coverage, reactive response, and slow government decision-making lack of clear strategy and policy on internal security.

In the Indian context, the reasons over the past few years have been numerous. Our consolidation as a secular, federal, and democratic state is still evolving and the fundamentalist forces often exploit a diversity of our multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. 

Role of technology Terrorism is spreading fast in the modern era as technology is now available to conduct acts of terror and the targets of terrorism are more widespread than ever before. Sophisticated means of communications such as electronic media, print media, social media, and the Internet help terrorists to quickly promote their ideology and hate campaign and exploit cyber terrorism. There are secure and encrypted messaging apps like Telegram. It is the very messaging platform at Isis used to claim responsibility for attacks. For instance, the PlayStation primarily is a gaming device. Experts believe that ISIS terrorists use PlayStation to communicate. One can send private messages via the PlayStation Network. The FBI and the CIA believe that potential terrorists have been communicating via these networks. In the case of 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the terrorists came armed not just with guns and grenades but also carrying cell phones, GPS devices, and other high-tech gear. This level of sophistication is worrying. In the Christchurch massacre of New Zealand, the attack was not reported by bystanders or by security cameras at mosques. This had been live-streamed by the shooter himself on Facebook.

Global Terrorism Index (GTI) 2019

This report is annually released by the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace. As per this report, India as the seventh-worst terrorism affected the country. Jammu & Kashmir is India’s most affected region by terrorism in 2018. Most of these attacks were perpetrated by the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). 8,437 Indians have lost their lives since 2001 at the hands of terrorists.

Why is India a victim of terror? 

India is suffering from ethno-nationalist, religious, left-wing, and narco-terrorism. Some well-known examples of terrorist activities in India are Mumbai attacks of 26/11, 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts, attack on Akshardham temple in 2002, Mumbai train blasts 2006, Parliament attacks of 2001 attacks on Armed Forces camps in Pathankot and Uri. 

India is geographically located between Asia’s two principal areas of illicit opium production -the Golden Crescent and the Golden Triangle. This leads to a heavy influx of drugs and arms. 

Pakistan and China

India has a hostile neighbor in the form of Pakistan with a land border of 3,400 kilometers. Pakistan sponsors state terrorism and fundamentalist forces, particularly through its inter-services intelligence, also known as ISI.

Also, India has unresolved border issues with China. And China has active military and nuclear cooperation with Pakistan. 

Porous border

India shares a contiguous and porous border with smaller SAARC nations such as Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. Accompanying problems such as illegal migration and smuggling in the border belt and resulting social tensions create a conducive environment for terrorism.  

India has a long sea border of more than seven thousand kilometers prone to pirating and smuggling. During the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, terrorists had used sea routes to enter the country.

Terrorism has no religion Another troubling trend is that the so-called war on terror is seen as a war against Islam. This is irrational and dreadful for Muslims, as they now face religious discrimination and are socially disadvantaged. The Koran clearly says, ‘let there be no compulsion in religion’. Nothing could be more explicit than this. So, the entire mythology of the spread of Islam through the sword is unjustified. There is no sanctity of the Koran to spread the faith with the sword.   If it was about religion, Christchurch would not have happened. Brenton Tarrant was a white supremacist and part of the alt-right. The dark face of terrorism neither has religion nor nationality. The religious interpretation is idiosyncratic. There are other political and social factors. These things are complex and this is where nuance is necessary.

Impact of terrorism

According to ourworldindata.org , over the past decade, terrorists killed an average of 21,000 people worldwide each year. Terrorism accounted for 0.05% of global deaths in 2017.

Schools have been bombed and burned in Gaza, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, and elsewhere across the world in the last decade. Teachers were killed, and students were recruited as child soldiers. 

Foreign investment

Terrorism affects FDI in many ways. Terrorism leads to insecurity and uncertainty in the country. This causes a lack of trust in foreign investors, forcing them to divert their resources from the host country to other, peaceful countries. Costly security measures decrease the returns on FDI. Terrorism also harms local infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and communications. It prohibits foreign investment by raising the costs of doing business.

Domestic investment

Terrorism also reduces domestic investment as it becomes difficult for domestic investors to invest in a panic-ridden environment. In addition, public investment is also severely damaged as government projects such as roads, highways, canals, dams, bridges, highways, hospitals, and school construction also brought to an end in the presence of terrorist activities.

Tourists usually avoid visiting the city that has been attacked. For tourism-dependent economies, terrorist attacks can hit even harder.

A recent example is Sri Lanka (Easter bombing). Sri Lanka has made significant progress thanks to a tourism boom post  25-year civil war ended. However, the Easter bombing changed the picture. Among those killed in bombings were 45 foreigners. Tourists fled: the number of arrivals dropped. For several days following the attack, many businesses remained closed. A huge share of jobs was lost in the tourism sector. 

Similarly, in Kashmir, tourism is the biggest source of livelihood in the state. But, terrorism ruined the tourism industry. The owners of hotels, guest houses, and houseboats, whose business is entirely dependent on the influx of tourists, suffer huge economic losses. By threatening visitors from visiting Kashmir, the terrorists are strangling a major source of jobs and making those who have become unemployed potential recruits to Pakistan-inspired separatism by violence.

Government spending

Terrorist attacks also increase defense and security spending and this reduces economic growth. If the cost of terror decreases, more money could be allocated to spending on infrastructure and that would lead to higher growth.

Steps already taken to combat and end terrorism

India has already achieved progress on various institutional and legislative mechanisms aimed at combating terrorism.

After the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, a national investigation agency also known as the NIA was formed to counter terrorist acts in the future.

The National Intelligence Grid also known as NATGRID is an integrated intelligence grid. It will link the databases of several departments and ministries of the government of India. NATGRID aims to gather detailed intelligence patterns that intelligence agencies can readily access. It collects and collates a variety of data from government databases such as tax and bank account information, credit card activity, visa and immigration records, and itineraries of train and air travel. 

India has a multi-agency center also known as MAC for counterterrorism with a mandate of sharing terrorism-related intelligence inputs on a day-to-day basis. 

Various legal frameworks are created such as the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002, along with the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the NIA Act of 2008. 

How to overcome terrorism?

From the understanding of the nature of international terrorism that we are facing today, it is clear that a long term strategy is required to fight against terrorism. It has to be comprehensive on all fronts.

Core strategy

The strategy needs to be evolved to protect core values. These core values are to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity, to consolidate as a secular, federal, democratic state with freedom of speech, equality, and justice, to promote socio-economic growth and development.

Socio-economic dimension 

Socially, India must continue to promote liberal and secular polity by media, intelligentsia, and religious institutions. 

There is a need to develop all regions more evenly throughout the country with greater development effort in the remote weaker sections of the society. Economic empowerment of the poor especially in areas like J&K and the Naxal belts would automatically drive out the extremist elements and their ideologies would be abandoned.

Education reforms

Education is the antidote against terrorism. Education provides the confidence and analytical skills youngsters need to condemn hatred and violence. We must teach values of peace, non-violence, fraternity. So, no one will be able to brainwash young minds. 

Also, there is a tendency to brand students from madrasas as terrorists. This further, alienate Indian madrasas. There is an urgent need to de-stigmatize madrasas as a breeding ground for terrorism and address the outdated education system in the Madrasahs by modernization.

Upgrading communication systems

There is also a need to develop our communication networks so that television and telecommunication can spread to remote and border areas which are currently under the constant reach of Pakistani propaganda. 

Military strategy

India should clearly spell out a counterterrorism doctrine. This should address the causes and not the symptoms alone. The aim of military operations is to create a secure and suitable environment so that social, economic, and political issues can be addressed effectively. 

Effective border surveillance and management is also required to check infiltration. This should be achieved through technical means of surveillance backed by highly mobile specialized forces the other than the present system which is manpower intensive. 

Foreign-based terrorists must be targeted at the bases, training camps, and sanctuaries to end the surrogate terrorism or the proxy wars. 

India must leverage its improved ties with the first world countries. Platforms of multinational bodies like the UN, G20, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization should be utilized to further India’s agenda of anti-terrorism.

International cooperation

International terrorism can not be confronted alone successfully as has been our experience so far. All nations must join hands to combat it. Countries have to cooperate by intelligence exchange, joint operations, and investigations. 

Pakistan sponsored proxy war  

It must be further exposed and international pressure should be applied. We have to convey more vigorously the justness of our cause and Pakistan’s support for terrorism by both state and non-state actors, as well as trying to isolate Pakistan within the international community. A strong message must be conveyed to Pakistan. 

Lessons from other nations

We have to learn from the experiences of other nations. However, at the same time, we need to realize clearly that a situation is particular to us and there are no direct lessons to learn except a revaluation of our own experience. 

A strategy must be pragmatic and cannot be similar to the US model of global capacity or the Israeli strategy of massive and immediate retaliation, as the respective environment and capabilities are different.

Dr. Salman Farsi was said to have been involved in the Malegaon blasts. He was acquitted eight years later. By this time, he had nothing to fall back upon. He is a qualified Unani doctor. But, he even took to rearing goats to meet his needs. These outcomes can be easily avoided. The media, instead of calling each accused a terrorist, may perhaps restrict itself to calling them only an accused, and avoid displaying their photographs as if they have been convicted.

Other steps

There is a need to adopt proactive policies to confront the terrorists at the roots of the ideology of fundamentalists social evils and sources of terror funding like narcotics and drug trade. 

India also needs to strengthen its anti-terrorism laws. There is a need to modernize and enlarge intelligence networks, State Police and paramilitary forces in training equipment and ethos. 

There should be enough preventive measures against nuclear biological and chemical attacks as well as cyber terrorism.

This unconventional war can not be won by conventional methods. It can only be won by showing that our values are stronger, better, fairer, and more humane than the alternative. The values that will rule the future of humanity are those of peace, tolerance, liberty, respect for diversity, and not those of reaction, discord, and hatred.

You can also read-

BIOTERRORISM

Digital Divide In India

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Sign me up for the newsletter!

A Department of Homeland Security Emeritus Center of Excellence led by the University of Maryland

A consortium of researchers dedicated to improving the understanding of the human causes and consequences of terrorism

The future of terrorism research: a review essay.

This essay sets forth a research agenda to begin filling some key gaps in terrorism studies. Since the September 2001 Al Qaeda attacks against the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon that claimed over 3000 lives, interest in terrorism research has increased. After these attacks, the United States and other governments prioritized the scientific study of the causes of and responses to terrorism. Importantly though, our review of the terrorism literature demonstrates that despite this progress, intriguing questions remain underexplored or altogether unexplored. This essay identifies four gaps in terrorism studies: (1) employing non-terrorist comparison groups, (2) broadening the dependent variable (focus of study), (3) exploring exceptions/anomalies to “established” findings, and (4) engaging measurement issues. We discuss these issues and outline a research agenda that could begin to fill these gaps.

Publication Information

Chermak, Steven, Jeff Gruenewald, Joshua Freilich. "The Future of Terrorism Research: A Review Essay." International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice (May 2014).  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01924036.2014.922321#.U9-SJONdUZl

Additional Info

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Last updated on October 29, 2022 by ClearIAS Team

Defining terrorism is a tedious and confusing task as there is a lack of consensus at the international level. However several efforts have been made in this regard.

Table of Contents

Defining Terrorism

An agreed, comprehensive definition of terrorism has never been created by the international community. The United Nations’ attempts to define the term during the 1970s and 1980s failed mostly because of disagreements among its members over the use of violence in conflicts over self-determination and national liberation. Due to these differences, a conclusion cannot be reached.

According to the FBI: “Terrorism is 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.”

Causes of Terrorism

There are many causes for terrorism such as:

Political causes

Insurgency and guerrilla warfare, a type of organized conflict, were the contexts in which terrorism was first theorized. A non-state army or organization committing political violence. Because they dislike the current system, they pick terrorism. They oppose the current social structure and wish to change it.

Religious reasons

In the 1990s, experts started to claim that a brand-new sort of terrorism propelled by religious zeal was on the increase. They cited groups like Al Qaeda, the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, and Christian identity movements. Religious concepts like martyrdom were viewed as especially hazardous.

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan ⇓

(1) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims cum Mains

(2) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims Test Series

(3) ⇒ UPSC 2025: CSAT

Note: To know more about ClearIAS Courses (Online/Offline) and the most effective study plan, you can call ClearIAS Mentors at +91-9605741000, +91-9656621000, or +91-9656731000.

Socio-Economic

According to socio-economic theories, persons who experience different types of deprivation are more likely to turn to terrorism or are more open to being recruited by groups that use terrorist tactics. Lack of political freedom, lack of access to education, and poverty are a few examples.

Types of Terrorism

The following are the various types of terrorism.

Ethno-Nationalist Terrorism

According to Daniel Byman, ethnic terrorism is the premeditated use of violence by a subnational ethnic group to further its cause. Such violence typically aims at either the establishment of a separate State or elevating one ethnic group above another.

Activities by Tamil nationalist groups in Srilanka are an example of Ethno-Nationalist terrorism.

Hoffman claims that those who engage in terrorism who are either wholly or partially driven by religious imperative view violence as a sacramental or heavenly responsibility. Religious terrorism is more destructive in nature because it adopts different justifications and modes of legitimization than other terrorist organizations.

Ideology oriented

Several ideologies have been used to legitimize terrorism. They include:

Left-Wing Extremism

The idea focuses on overthrowing the state through an armed struggle and establishing a communist state.

Right Wing Terrorism

Right-wing organizations typically aim to preserve the status quo or go back to a scenario from the past that they believe should have been preserved.

They might compel the government to seize a piece of land or to step in to defend the rights of a minority that is being “oppressed” in a neighboring nation.

State Sponsored Terrorism

State-sponsored terrorism and proxy war are as old as organized warfare itself. According to Walter Laqueur, these customs were in place in antiquity in the Eastern Empires, Rome and Byzantium, Asia, and Europe.

Impacts of Terrorism

It seriously jeopardizes global peace and security and undercuts the fundamental principles of growth, peace, and humanity. Terrorist activities not only have a catastrophic human cost in terms of lives lost or permanently changed, but they also endanger political stability and economic and social advancement.

Often, terrorist attacks disregard international boundaries.CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives) materials are used in terrorist attacks that have devastating effects on infrastructure and communities.

Measures To Counter Terrorism

• The United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) is responsible for leading and coordinating the UN system’s efforts to prevent and combat terrorism and violent extremism worldwide.
• Under UNOCT, the UN Counter-Terrorism Centre (UNCCT) encourages global collaboration in the fight against terrorism and assists the Member States in putting the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy into practice.
• The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s (UNODC) Terrorism Prevention Branch (TPB) is a key player in global efforts.
• International standards are established by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) , a global organization that monitors money laundering and terrorist funding with the goal of preventing these illicit actions and the harm they do to society.

A combined effort at the international level is the need of the hour to tackle the perils of terrorism. Terrorism of any form is unacceptable in a civilized society.

Article written by: Vivek Rajasekharan

Top 10 Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000   rs.29000, upsc prelims marks booster + 2025 (online), rs.19999   rs.14999, upsc prelims test series (pts) 2025 (online), rs.9999   rs.4999, csat course 2025 (online), current affairs course 2025 (online), ncert foundation course (online), essay writing course for upsc cse (online), ethics course for upsc cse (online), upsc interview marks booster course (online), rs.9999   rs.4999.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

The upcoming main navigation can be gotten through utilizing the tab key. Any buttons that open a sub navigation can be triggered by the space or enter key.

Search Lawfare

The tiktok case will be determined by what’s behind the government’s black lines.

Julien Berman

Alan Z. Rozenshtein

Late last month, the U.S. government filed its brief in the litigation challenging the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACAA) , which would ban TikTok in the United States unless ByteDance, its parent company, divests by early 2025. Overall, the brief is compelling, making many of the strongest arguments for the law’s constitutionality , including the law’s divestment option, the historical precedent for restricting foreign ownership of media platforms , and the importance of deferring to political branches’ risk calculations.

But the government’s central argument is the national security case: TikTok’s partial control by ByteDance, and thus potentially by the Chinese government, simply poses too great a risk to Americans’ data privacy and information integrity. This argument relies heavily on classified information that the government has redacted, making the evidence available only to the court itself and not to TikTok or, just as important, the public. Thus, even if the government ultimately succeeds in defending the law (as we think it likely will, though others may of course reasonably take a different view ), it risks doing so in a way that will satisfy few observers, including those sympathetic to its position.

The composition of the government’s legal team—both in number and variety—indicates just how critical the national security evidence is to the government’s case. The Department of Justice is, of course, well represented, with lawyers from the Appellate Staff and the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division joined by the National Security Division, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). An appendix accompanies the brief, containing three declarations—one from ODNI, one from the FBI, and the third from Justice—all detailing the national security threat that TikTok poses.

From the unredacted portions of the brief, readers are able to get a sense of the broad strokes of the government’s national security argument. The government asserts that China aims to become a preeminent global power by undercutting U.S. influence and fostering authoritarian norms. Within this context, the government portrays TikTok as a potential tool for Chinese espionage and influence operations, highlighting TikTok’s extensive data collection practices, its ability to manipulate its recommendation algorithm, and instances of censorship at the behest of the Chinese government. The government contends that these factors create significant risks to U.S. national security.

But in this section of the government’s brief, nearly half the content is redacted. Sometimes multiple pages in a row are blacked out. And one critical subsection, discussing China’s incentives to incorporate TikTok into its offensive cyber strategy, is almost entirely classified, except for three short paragraphs.

The evidence that the government did release, which primarily consists of public statements from intelligence officials and newspaper reporting, is somewhat vague and generic. Without access to the redacted evidence, many of the government’s claims—for example, that China is well positioned to influence the U.S. component of TikTok—read as unsubstantiated (though hardly implausible) assertions about China’s strategic goals, ByteDance’s potential ties to the Chinese government, and TikTok’s data collection practices.

Because the government redacted entire paragraphs of evidence, it not only obscured specific classified details but also often made it difficult to determine, even at the most abstract level, what the classified evidence was even attempting to establish in the first place. As a result, it is challenging for both the TikTok legal team and outside observers to fully grasp or critically evaluate the government’s case.

In a separate motion , the government justifies its redactions on two main grounds. First, it argues that federal law prohibits the public disclosure of information classified as “secret” or “top secret.” Second, it contends that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly allowed the government to file redacted classified material in the past, and it points to many different cases where the court rejected challenges to its redaction of evidence.

TikTok filed a blistering response seeking to block the government from relying on secret evidence. Opening with Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous observation that “[s]unlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,” it accuses the government of wanting “this case to be litigated in the dark—with the free speech rights of Petitioners and 170 million Americans hanging in the balance.”

Some of TikTok’s arguments are unconvincing. For instance, it argues that the court should reject the government’s classified evidence because it was not part of the formal legislative record before Congress enacted PAFACAA. However, this argument overlooks the many classified national security and intelligence briefings that Congress received and that undoubtedly played a major role in the legislation’s passage. Even if the government is now bolstering its case with specific pieces of evidence that were not available to Congress, the court is unlikely to strike down a high-profile piece of national security legislation for that reason.

But other parts of TikTok’s argument are more persuasive. For example, TikTok points to what it characterizes as multiple factual errors in the unclassified portion of the government’s brief, arguing that these undermine the credibility of the classified portions. Inaccurate redacted information would be particularly concerning, because those claims can’t be tested in the adversarial legal process. Specifically, TikTok disputes the government’s characterization that TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, noting that ByteDance Ltd., TikTok’s ultimate owner, is a “Cayman Islands–incorporated holding company majority-owned by global institutional investors.” TikTok also challenges the government’s assertions that it collects users’ precise location data and that its recommendation engine is located in China (TikTok argues that it’s actually in an Oracle-operated cloud).

The issue is not whether TikTok or the government is ultimately correct on the specific factual points. Rather, these factual questions, which lie at the center of the case, are difficult for the D.C. Circuit to evaluate because the government relies so heavily on secret evidence—especially in the absence of a trial court factual record, since PAFACAA requires challenges to be brought directly in the D.C. Circuit.

More fundamentally, TikTok is right that, as a general matter, secret evidence is highly disfavored. In addition to the evidentiary issues discussed above, secret evidence undermines public confidence in the legal system, because the public doesn’t know on what basis the government is acting. This is particularly concerning in a case that could impact every one of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok, including many who rely on it for their livelihoods.

Furthermore, if the court’s decision is based on secret evidence, it will be difficult to apply the ruling to future cases, as the factual details driving the outcome will remain hidden. If the case reaches the Supreme Court—which it almost certainly will—it will be one of the most important First Amendment cases in recent memory. But the reliance on secret evidence could significantly weaken its value as precedent. Without access to the underlying facts, future courts will struggle to interpret or apply the ruling in similar cases. And given that TikTok is hardly the only foreign-controlled platform that could potentially pose national security threats, this issue is not disappearing any time soon.

TikTok is also correct that secret evidence is dangerous when fundamental rights like free speech are involved. The government argues that PAFACAA has “at most … an incidental effect” on TikTok users’ First Amendment rights, because the law targets only TikTok itself, not any specific content, and thus “any preference these petitioners may have for using TikTok over those other platforms does not create a constitutional right to TikTok.”

However, banning TikTok is not analogous to a time, place, and manner restriction telling protesters which street corner they can yell from. TikTok has its own unique features—its algorithm, community, and design—that make it not interchangeable in the way that, for example, a cell phone or internet provider might be. That of course does not mean that TikTok users’ preference for the platform is inviolate—the government is right that other platforms provide roughly similar experiences. But it’s a legitimate First Amendment interest that should be taken seriously in the course of litigation.

In ordinary circumstances, notwithstanding the legitimate interests in public evidence, the government’s national security argument would likely prevail. As one of us has written previously :

Certainly the D.C. Circuit can consider classified evidence if it wants to—it routinely did so in the course of its many Guantananamo habeas cases. More recently, the Ninth Circuit reviewed classified information as part of its decision rejecting Twitter’s request for the ability to publish more detailed transparency reports on government surveillance orders. The Ninth Circuit noted, “While we are not at liberty to disclose the contents of the classified materials that we reviewed, our analysis under the narrow tailoring prong [of the First Amendment] depends principally on the knowledge we gleaned from our review of that material.” This suggests an answer to a question that Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, rhetorically posed in a Twitter exchange with me over the pending TikTok litigation: “I mean, what’s the opinion going to say ? ‘Trust us, your First Amendment rights haven't been violated?’ I think the government will have to justify the law on the public record.” Some version of “trust us” may well be exactly what the D.C. Circuit says.

Recognizing that it is fighting an uphill battle, TikTok has suggested a middle ground alternative, recommending that the court appoint a “special master who, after hearing from the parties, would recommend to this Court what procedural protections—if any—could mitigate the prejudice to Petitioners from admitting ex parte the government’s classified submissions.”

At first glance, this might seem like a Hail Mary play. But because PAFACAA is such a high-profile law, with obviously huge First Amendment implications, the court may seriously consider it.

Of course, as TikTok recognizes, the appointment of a special master would considerably delay the litigation and likely require the court to enjoin PAFACAA in the meantime. It would also raise ancillary questions, such as whether the injunction would freeze or reset the divestment clock, and the court might be hesitant to add a host of procedural complications to an already difficult constitutional case. Moreover, even the appointment of a special master would not completely resolve the transparency concerns, because many of the details would likely remain classified, even after another level of judicial review.

But this might be the kind of case where these costs are worth paying. The government’s emphasis on national security is absolutely correct, not because the First Amendment issues aren’t important, but precisely because they are , and therefore should be overridden only by national security concerns of the highest order. It would not be unreasonable for the court to want to convince itself—and credibly signal to the challengers and the public—that it has done everything it could to check the government’s work, even if it means that a substantively thorny case is sidetracked by a procedural fight over secret evidence.

More Articles 

The Prohibition of Annexations and the World on the Brink

Another brick in the wall the icj advisory opinion on israeli policies and practices in the occupied palestinian territory.

Equality of Arms: Due Process in South Africa v. Israel

Other topics.

Subscribe to Lawfare

• Today on Lawfare
• The Week That Was

• Relationships

Living With an Intimate Terrorist: The Damage of Control

There are common effects of a coercive relationship, but healing is possible..

Posted August 9, 2024 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer

• Why Relationships Matter
• Take our Relationship Satisfaction Test
• Find a therapist to strengthen relationships
• Of the patterns of domestic violence, controlling abuse — called intimate terrorism — is the most damaging.
• The psychological effects of control include damage to self-esteem, fear, trauma, and depression.
• Coercion damages both relationships and bodies, as it removes safety and causes stress.

Intimate terrorism is usually a long-term pattern, and each survivor of abuse will have their own varying effects. However, many who are coerced and controlled experience similar patterns of physical, psychological, economic, and relational damage. In my work with Jenny, described in this post about physical abuse and intimidation and this post about psychological abuse, she described emerging from her controlling relationship with some painful damage. Her husband David was a classic intimate terrorist, who used not only physical violence and threat, but also psychological monitoring and undermining to get what he wanted. Although her case was severe in some ways, these aspects of coercion were typical of intimate terrorism, and left a mark on her.

Psychological Effects

One historical way of describing the psychological effects of intimate terrorism was to call it “battered women’s syndrome.” Although this term is somewhat controversial, there is still general agreement about the variety of traumatic and psychological effects that are common among survivors of coercive control, including the following:

Impaired Self Esteem . Often one’s confidence and self-concept is affected by control, and Jenny was no exception. She felt “ashamed” by the relationship and the things she did in it, and said her self-confidence was ruined. She felt insecure about her body because he would insult her and use attacks on her looks to pressure her to do what he wanted.

Fear and Anxiety . Fear in a relationship often leads to placating the person in power. For example, if David became angry, Jenny would try to appease him or tell him he was right, just to keep the peace. Fear is a strong emotion , and it persists after the threat is gone. Jenny reported fear of David’s aggression in the relationship, and of his scolding, but she also still felt traumatic fear from what had happened. She was nervous to ever date again, and was now “cynical, anxious, and fearful” of crowds, and of going out in public. She felt “lost” socially.

One aspect of classic battered women’s syndrome is a phenomenon where women who have been monitored by a partner continue to have a fear they are being watched all the time. After she left David, Jenny worried he was watching her conversations through cameras or her car.

Post Traumatic Stress . Jenny had occasional flashbacks of being choked, nightmares of being killed, and experienced hyper-arousal and hyper-vigilance around certain triggers (e.g., concert t-shirts, or other reminders of David). She said that she “felt amputated” and “numb” from these experiences. She said that she constantly felt “unbalanced.”

One effect from trauma is called “ learned helplessness ” which is a state of losing hope because of unpredictable pain or punishment that is out of the survivor’s control. Jenny described getting to a point of “not caring” about anything when she finally left. She also reported being numb and “in shock” after being threatened and berated by David.

Depression . Jenny met the criteria for depression. She lost interest in things she used to enjoy, such as travel or cooking. Her appetite and sleep patterns had both been affected, and she had zero interest in further relationships or intimate experiences.

Relationship Effects

There is no way for an intimate relationship to be healthy when intimate terrorism is occurring. Jenny had to adapt to the control and abuse by accommodating and giving into David’s greater power. This type of domination is very unhealthy, as was the lack of trust, security or safety between them.

Physical Effects

Jenny reported injuries associated with the various violent episodes , including bruising, pain, sprains, cuts to the face, and damage to her neck and throat from choking. These were painful and difficult, but it was the psychological damage that was the worst. Because of the overwhelming sense of despair and lack of options, Jenny died inside.

Jenny’s case ended with tragedy, as she was too beat down to fight David’s legal and emotional battles. She gave up her parental rights, became addicted to prescription medication and moved to another state in a fog of pain and loss.

It is important to understand cases like Jenny’s because they are distressingly common. It is estimated that 1 in 3 women and 1 in 10 men in the United States experience violence, and these situations damage the dignity and bodies of those who survive them. Jenny’s case ended with loss of family and self, but many who experience coercion do survive and thrive. Although challenging, it is possible to move forward after coercive and controlling experiences. Coercion is common, but resilience is real, and healing is possible.

Jason Whiting, Ph.D. , is a professor at Brigham Young University and a licensed marriage and family therapist.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Swifties in Vienna Cry, Commiserate and Try to Shake It Off

Taylor Swift fans from around the world grappled with disappointment and fear after a terrorism plot derailed the Vienna dates of the Eras Tour.

Taylor Swift Fans in Vienna React After Cancellations

Taylor swift fans described their disappointment after organizers canceled her eras tour dates in vienna after austrian authorities uncovered a terrorist plot targeting the event..

“We’re just really happy that everyone’s safe.” “We planned all year to be here. So, what a huge disappointment for our friends and for our kids.” “It’s kind of a once in a lifetime opportunity to come with my bestie to see Taylor Swift. And so I’m a little bummed.” “I guess, at the end of the day, safety comes first. But it’s really heartbreaking as well for me and for all of the fans of Taylor Swift.” “The concert itself being canceled is sad, but also we’re really thankful that the men and women who were tracking this, caught it before anything major could have happened.”

By Sarah Maslin Nir

Reporting from Vienna

Just as she was boarding her flight at Boston Logan International Airport headed for a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna, Mary DePetris excitedly checked the online fan group, Swiftie Nation.

Austrian authorities had discovered a terrorist plot targeting Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in the city, she read. On Wednesday, just before takeoff, organizers canceled all three shows. Ms. DePetris, 47, stepped onto the plane and broke the news to some of her fellow passengers.

“Half the plane was crying,” Ms. DePetris said. “It’s not just about the shows, it’s the community coming together and feeling safe at her concerts, and Swifties letting their guard down. And this just shifted all of that,” she said. “How can we do that now that we feel we are targeted?”

As the estimated 200,000 people who had been expected to worship at Ms. Swift’s proscenium in Vienna grappled with crushing disappointment, wasted money and a measure of fear at narrowly avoiding danger, a sea of fans flooded the baroque city looking for ways to shake it off.

They traded Eras merchandise in the shadow of the vacant stadium, or dissolved into tears when they caught the strains of Ms. Swift’s stanzas drifting from the doorways of sympathetic gift shops or churches. Some hung handmade friendship bracelets — a treasured Swiftie talisman inspired by a song lyric — on a tree on Corneliusgasse, a central Vienna thoroughfare whose name echoes the title of Ms. Swift’s song “Cornelia Street.” There, hundreds hugged, cried and commiserated in the middle of the road.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .