essay on the terrorism

Ethics and Morality

Terrorism: what, why, and how to stop it, we will need a flexible integration of force and engagement..

Posted October 13, 2023 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer

The daily news seems to highlight an upsurge in terrorism, with each incident more violent than the last, leading us to ask: Why do they do this? And what is the best way for the world to respond?

Although it never really left, recent world events have thrust terrorism back into the consciousness of people around the globe. Dealing with it effectively requires understanding its tactics, ideology, and psychology.

The Nature and Purposes of Terrorism

The word terrorism derives from the Latin, terrere, which means “to frighten,” and the first modern use of the term derives from the 18th-century “Reign of Terror” associated with the French Revolution. Terrorism is as old as civilization, and as timeless as human conflict. It has existed ever since some factions discovered that they could intimidate the many by targeting the few. However, terrorism has achieved special prominence in the modern technological era, beginning in the 1970s as international terrorism, continuing through the 1980s and 1990s as domestic terrorism in the U.S. and elsewhere, and apparently coming full circle in the 21st century with mass terror attacks in nations including the United States, France, and, most recently, Israel.

Psychologically, terrorism can be viewed from several perspectives. On the one hand, almost all conventional armed conflict contains an element of terror. Why threaten war at all unless the goal is to intimidate your enemy into complying with your demands? And if they resist, your strategy is to instill as much fear as possible in order to increase the likelihood of their capitulation. Additionally, where one side’s conventional combat forces are numerically or technologically deficient, terrorism puts disproportionate psychological power into the hands of a small group of ideologues or opportunists.

Terrorist Typologies

Historically, a terrorist act is rarely an end in itself but is rather designed to stoke fear in whole populations by targeting a small, representative group. However, this may be changing with acts of mass terrorism, and the tactics may relate to the different aims of various terrorist groups. Instrumental terrorism describes acts carried out to coerce the target group into taking some action or complying with a demand. Theoretically, at least, the terror will end if and when the demands are met or a compromise is forged.

By contrast, there is little that may be done to appease the perpetrators of retributive terrorism, who are primarily interested not in influencing, but in destroying their enemies. Here, the target is hated not because of what they do, but for the very fact that they exist, so nothing less than their complete expungement will suffice. Often, instrumental- and retributive-type terrorist groups are admixed and ill-defined even amongst themselves, which further complicates effective responses to them.

Terrorist Goals and Strategies

Yet, several elements appear to be almost universal in modern terrorist activities. The first is obviously the use of extreme violence as a primary instrument of coercion or intimidation. In this sense, the true targets of the terrorist act extend far beyond those directly affected. The goal of these activities is to use threats, harassment, and violence to create an atmosphere of fear that will eventually lead to some desired behavior on the part of the larger target population or government.

Second, victims are selected for their maximum propaganda value, usually ensuring a high degree of media coverage. A great deal of thought may go into the symbolic value of the attacks, or the victims may simply be targets of opportunity. This aggressive approach may backfire if the goal is to garner wider world sympathy, especially if noninvolved innocents, including children, are killed along with the direct targets. But in a malevolent twist, if the aim is actually to inflict as much pain and panic as possible, then indiscriminate slaughter may serve only too well: The target population had better comply because these terrorists will “do anything.”

Third, unconventional military tactics are used, especially secrecy and surprise, as well as deliberately targeting noncombatants; this is the commonly cited distinction between a terrorist and a soldier. Again, if the goal is to inflict maximum horror, then it makes sense to choose locations that contain the largest number of victims from all walks of life. Everyone is a target. No one is safe. These types of glaring acts are also the most likely to keep the terrorist group and their perceived grievances in the news cycle.

Fourth, intense and absolutist loyalty to the ideologies and aims of the organization characterizes most terrorist groups. Although there are exceptions, the bulk of hard-core terrorist members are typically not part-timers or mercenaries. The willingness to commit unspeakable acts — not to mention giving one’s own life — necessitates an unshakable belief that these acts are somehow for some transcendent and worthy purpose.

Are Terrorists Mentally Ill?

It is tempting to brand atrocious behavior as "crazy," because doing so helps take some of the willfully malevolent sting out of it. For example, such explanations are routinely proffered for the etiology of serial killings and school shootings, because reducing such an outrage to an anomalous scientific curiosity — as we do with a frightening disease — inserts a psychological barrier between our knowledge of the act and the terrifying and hopeless feelings that knowledge provokes. If only we can determine the “causes” of these behavioral pathologies, maybe we can discover a “cure.” Finally, pathologizing a violent act against us delegitimizes any traces of justification we may reluctantly suspect underlies the act: Nope, we didn’t do anything wrong; they’re just a bunch of malevolent psychos.

In fact, the few studies that have directly examined the mental status of captured terrorists have failed to disclose significant signs of intellectual impairment or serious mental disorder. What these individuals do show is a heightened ability to rationalize and compartmentalize their violent motives and activities, believing that these are necessary actions in fighting for their cause: Evil transformed into nobility. But ideology is not psychopathology, so these individuals fully know what they’re doing and willfully, indeed enthusiastically, do it.

Stopping Terrorism

The standard response of antiterrorism units throughout the world has consisted of a surgical version of “shock and awe .” After a terrorist act occurs, find out who and where the perpetrators are, hit them soon, hit them hard, and thereby teach a lesson to any other miscreants who may be thinking of hatching and executing similar plots. However, systematic analysis shows that this unitary retaliatory approach to terrorism frequently not only fails to deter and discourage it but may in fact only perpetuate endless cycles of retribution.

This seeming paradox can actually be explained by an elemental principle of psychophysiology: habituation. Application of a novel, aversive stimulus typically elicits a marked response from the nervous system the first few times it occurs. Repeated application of the stimulus results in a lessening of the response: In essence, the nervous system adaptively “tones down” the impact of the event so that the individual can go about their business. An exception may occur with especially painful or damaging stimuli that threaten the life and safety of the organism; then, the nervous system may actually become more, not less, responsive to repeated application of the painful intrusion, or ones like it, a phenomenon called sensitization.

The problem with most counterterrorist tactical responses by otherwise civilized nations is that they rarely are the final suppressive measures the retaliatory forces intend them to be. In fact, such response doctrines of escalating proportionality may completely defeat the whole purpose of deterrence: What better way to bake in habituation than to administer carefully titrated doses of punishment , progressively inoculating your enemy to further retaliation, and thus emboldening him through your perceived impotence? Reluctant to be seen as barbarians themselves, the stronger side fails to wage a war of total destruction, thereby diluting the effect of whatever half-hearted efforts it applies and ends up achieving not pacification, but further rebellion.

This is the conundrum of fighting terror: demonstrating resolve without descending into the same depraved depths as your adversary. The many types of terrorists and reasons for terrorism virtually guarantee the failure of one-size-fits-all approaches. Many authorities advocate a forceful but flexible approach: an unwavering commitment to eliminating the extant threat and protecting one’s citizens, combined, where possible, with a willingness to diplomatically engage the majority nonviolent portion of the aggrieved population, wielding some measure of hope as a psychological counterforce to the sense of militant desperation fueling or speciously justifying atrocities carried out to entrench and expand the power of an evil few. The alternative is a Hobbesian “war of all against all,” which 21st-century technology must render untenable.

Note: Information provided herein is for educational purposes, and is not intended to provide individual clinical or forensic advice or opinions. For such cases, always consult with a qualified legal, medical, or mental health professional.

Miller, L. (2006). The terrorist mind: I. A psychological and political analysis. International Journal of Offender Rehabilitation and Comparative Criminology, 50, 121-138 . [Reprint available upon request]

Miller, L. (2006). The terrorist mind: II. Typologies, psychopathologies, and practical guidelines for investigation. International Journal of Offender Rehabilitation and Comparative Criminology, 50, 255-268 . [Reprint available upon request]

Miller, L. (2011). Psychological interventions for terroristic trauma: Prevention, crisis management, and clinical treatment strategies. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 13, 95-120.

Laurence Miller, Ph.D. , is a clinical and forensic psychologist, neuropsychologist, university professor, author, lecturer, expert witness, and frequent consultant and media commentator on the topics of neuroscience and criminal justice.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• 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
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• 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

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.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Sensible Ways to Fight Terrorism

More from our inbox:, the quake, as felt in manhattan, r.f.k. jr.’s claim of ‘censorship’, obstacles to liberalism, prioritizing and valuing care jobs.

To the Editor:

Re “ The West Still Hasn’t Figured Out How to Beat ISIS ,” by Christopher P. Costa and Colin P. Clarke (Opinion guest essay, April 1):

Two clear lessons have emerged in the decade since ISIS exploded on the world scene. First, as the authors note, pulling all U.S. troops and intelligence assets from fragile conflict zones is a boon to globalized terror movements. Despite political promises, the full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 and Afghanistan in 2021 did not “end” those wars; it transformed them into more complex and potentially more deadly challenges.

Second, we must reckon with the underlying grievances that make violent anti-Western ideologies, including militant jihadism, attractive to so many in the first place. These include the ill effects of globalization, and a “rules-based” world order increasingly insensitive to the needs of developing countries and regions.

Simply maintaining a military or intelligence presence in terror hot spots does nothing to reduce the sticky recruiting power of militant movements. Unless the United States and its allies and partners begin offering tangible policies that counter jihadi ideology and propaganda, we will just continue attacking the symptoms, not the causes.

Stuart Gottlieb New York The writer teaches American foreign policy and international security at Columbia University.

The Islamic State’s territorial caliphate in Iraq and Syria may have been eliminated years ago, but as Christopher P. Costa and Colin P. Clarke write, the terrorist group itself is very much in business. ISIS-K, its branch in Afghanistan, has conducted two large-scale external attacks over the last two months — one in Iran that killed more than 80 people and another near Moscow that took the lives of more than 130.

If the United States and its allies haven’t found a way to defeat ISIS-K in its entirety, it’s because terrorism itself is an enemy that can’t be defeated in the traditional sense of the term. This is why the war on terror framework, initiated under the George W. Bush administration immediately after the 9/11 attacks, was such poor terminology. Terrorism is going to be with us for as long as humanity exists.

Viewed this way, terrorism is a conflict management problem, not one that can be solved. While this may sound defeatist to many, it’s also the coldhearted truth. Assuming otherwise risks enacting policies, like invading whole countries (Iraq and Afghanistan), that are likely to create even more anti-U.S. terrorism than we started with.

Of course, all countries should remain vigilant. Terrorism will continue to be a part of the threat environment. The U.S. intelligence community must ensure that its counterterrorism infrastructure is well resourced and continues to focus on areas, like Afghanistan, where the U.S. no longer has a troop presence. But for the U.S., a big part of the solution is keeping our ambitions realistic and prioritizing among terrorist threats lest the system gets overloaded or pulled in too many directions at once.

While all terrorism is tragic, not all terrorist groups are created equal. Local and even regional groups with local objectives aren’t as important to the U.S. as groups that have transnational aims and the capabilities to strike U.S. targets. This, combined with keeping a cool head instead of trafficking in threat inflation, is key to a successful response.

Daniel R. DePetris New Rochelle, N.Y. The writer is a fellow at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank in Washington.

Re “ Earthquake Rattles Northeast, but Little Damage Is Reported ” (live updates, nytimes.com, April 5):

I’m lying in bed Friday morning, on 14th Street in Manhattan. Suddenly I feel and see the bed start to shake!

My first thought — OMG, I’m in “The Exorcist.” Then an alert on my phone tells me that it’s an earthquake in New York City.

Frankly, I’m not sure which one scared me more.

Steven Doloff New York

Re “ Kennedy Calls Biden Bigger Threat to Democracy Than Trump ” (news article, April 3):

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s concern about the Biden administration’s “censorship” of misinformation might be viewed as legitimate if the American public demonstrated more responsibility about fact-checking what they see and hear on social media and other information platforms masquerading as legitimate sources of news.

Sadly, many in this country, and indeed the world, have abdicated responsibility for being factually informed about current events. As long as bad actors have unfettered access to social media platforms, it will be necessary to “censor” the misinformation they claim as fact. The world has become the proverbial crowded theater where one cannot yell “fire.”

Helen Ogden Pacific Grove, Calif.

Re “ The Great Struggle for Liberalism ,” by David Brooks (column, March 29):

In face of growing populism at home and abroad, Mr. Brooks issues a cri de coeur on behalf of liberal democracy and democratic capitalism, which provide the means to a “richer, fuller and more dynamic life.”

His impassioned plea for “we the people” of these United States to experience a sense of common purpose, to build a society in which culture is celebrated and families thrive, is made despite existential challenges to American liberalism:

1) We do not share an overarching belief in who we are as a people, as a nation.

2) Trust in our three branches of government, in checks and balances, is broken amid warring partisanship.

3) There is, for many, as Mr. Brooks notes, an “absence of meaning, belonging and recognition” that drives a tilt to authoritarianism in search of the restoration of “cultural, moral and civic stability” by any means necessary.

The ballot box in a free and open society allows for choice, and there are those who, in exercising their right to vote, would choose to cancel the aspirational hopes of the preamble to our Constitution.

David Brooks sees the full measure of the choices facing America and the world in 2024. Do we?

Michael Katz Washington

Re “ New Ways to Bring Wealth to Nations ,” by Patricia Cohen (news analysis, Business, April 4):

Ms. Cohen is right to argue that the service sector will be the key to economic growth in the future. However, it’s essential to consider what service jobs are — and who will be doing them.

Of course, the service industry includes office workers in tech hubs like Bengaluru, as highlighted by Ms. Cohen. Currently, these jobs are held predominantly by men, so to spur inclusive growth, employers and governments must make sure women have equal access.

But the service sector also includes hundreds of millions of people — mostly women — who are teachers and who care for children, older people and those with disabilities and illnesses. To seize the opportunity ahead, governments must position care jobs as careers of the future for women and men, alongside tech jobs. This requires making sure these positions provide good pay and working conditions.

If the goal is sustainable growth, the best approach leverages the critical care sector to generate income in the short run and prepare healthy, well-educated young people, which maintains progress in the long run.

Anita Zaidi Seattle The writer is president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Gender Equality Division.

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

• Search Menu
• 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
• Urban 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 History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• 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 Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• 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 Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• 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 Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• 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 Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• 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
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• 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 Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• 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
• 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
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• 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 Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• 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 Security
• Computer Games
• 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 Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• 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 Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• 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
• 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 History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• 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)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• 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
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• 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
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities 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
• 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.

Ascertaining the causes of terrorism depends of course on how we define terrorism. Alas, as is well known, scholars have been unable to reach a consensus on the meaning of the word. In 1981, Martha Crenshaw, a well-known scholar of terrorism, wrote an important article titled “The Causes of Terrorism,” published in the journal Comparative Politics . Crenshaw was interested in discovering the causes of “symbolic, low-level violence by conspiratorial organizations” (Crenshaw 1981 , 379), which is one of the ways in which scholars have defined terrorism. Crenshaw had in mind violence by such groups as the Irish Republican Army, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Red Army Faction in West Germany. To be sure, Crenshaw was well aware that states as well as dissident groups can employ terrorism—in some sense of the word. In fact, the first sentence of her article states, “Terrorism occurs both in the context of violent resistance to the state as well as in the service of state interests” (Crenshaw 1981 , 379). But Crenshaw focused exclusively on anti-state terrorism by “conspiratorial organizations” in her article.

In this chapter, I want to consider the possible causes of terrorism defined in a rather different way, one which encompasses both state and anti-state or rebel violence. I define terrorism, like many scholars, as violence against noncombatants, usually common or ordinary people, in order to advance a political cause (cf. Richards 2014 ). The immediate purpose of this violence, furthermore, is not just to kill or injure people but to frighten, intimidate, provoke, or otherwise influence a larger population, among which the killed and wounded were either randomly or selectively targeted (Goodwin 2006 ). Terrorism thus differs from other forms of political violence, such as conventional (or guerrilla) warfare and assassination, which aim to kill soldiers (whether state or rebel troops) and political leaders, respectively.

Formally, I define terrorism as any tactic or set of tactics used by any government, group, organization, or individual, in pursuit of a political goal (broadly defined), which is intended to kill or harm civilians or noncombatants (as opposed to soldiers or political leaders) so as to frighten, intimidate, demoralize, provoke, or pressure other civilians and/or political leaders . A shorter, “sound bite” definition of terrorism is the killing or harming of civilians to intimidate others .

Terrorism, then, is not an ideological movement like socialism or conservatism, nor is it violence by a particular type of organization (e.g. covert or conspiratorial). Rather, terrorism refers to tactics that may be employed by either states or rebels, whether they are ideologically conservative, moderate, or radical. This definition encompasses (1) forms of violence or other lethal actions against noncombatants by rebel groups (i.e. “terrorism” as many if not most people tend to think of it today) but also (2) forms of violence or other lethal actions by states or allied paramilitary forces against noncombatants in conflicts with rebels. (Much counter-insurgent and indeed counterterrorist violence is itself terrorist in nature.) It also encompasses (3) violence or other lethal actions by states against noncombatants in international conflicts, and (4) violence or other lethal actions against an oppressed racial or ethnic (or other) group for purposes of controlling or intimidating that group.

“State terrorism,” for its part, is important for scholars to consider for several reasons, not least because state violence against noncombatants has claimed many more victims than has anti-state violence, and because terrorism by rebel groups is sometimes a strategic response to state terrorism (see e.g. Herman and O’Sullivan 1989 , chs 2 – 3 ; Gareau 2004 ).

My definition of terrorism entails a distinct understanding of what exactly we must explain in order to explain terrorism. What we must explain, plainly, is not why states or political groups sometimes resort to violence as such, but why they employ violence against (or otherwise seek to harm) civilians or noncombatants in particular, with the further goal of intimidating many others in the process. Indeed, one virtue of this definition is that it squarely focuses our attention on violations of the idea (and the ideal) of noncombatant immunity —the principle that noncombatants should never be targeted in wars or civil conflicts, whether by states or rebels. Noncombatant immunity is a fundamental principle of “just war” theory and international law, including the Geneva Conventions.

How, then, are we to explain terrorism defined in this way? In the remainder of this chapter I will critically review two traditional theories of terrorism, then examine at greater length the currently dominant “radicalization” perspective on terrorism, and then develop and briefly illustrate an alternative account of terrorism, which I call the “indirect-war” theory. I argue that neither the traditional theories nor the radicalization perspective tell us much at all about terrorism as I have defined it, but that the indirect-war perspective offers greater promise for the empirical analysis of a wide range of cases of terrorism.

Traditional Theories of Terrorism

How have social scientists and other analysts traditionally attempted to explain why states or rebels have sometimes used violence against, or otherwise sought to harm, civilians? Many theories have been proposed—far more than I can review here—but prior to the 9/11 attacks two hypotheses were especially influential: (1) terrorism is a product of the weakness and/or desperation of some rebels or states (a “weapon of the weak”), and (2) much terrorism is a retaliatory response to violence, including terrorism, by the perpetrators’ armed enemies, whether states or rebels. After 9/11, a new theory of terrorism has become dominant. This theory holds that terrorism is the result of the “radicalization” of particular individuals or groups.

Before the radicalization perspective became dominant, perhaps the most common idea about what causes terrorism was the notion that oppositional or rebel movements turn to terrorism when they are very weak, lack popular support, and yet are desperate to redress their grievances. A similar argument has been proposed as an explanation for state terrorism, claiming that states turn to terrorism—or “civilian victimization”—when they become desperate to win wars (Downes 2008 ). The core idea here is that rebels and states which lack the capacity or leverage to pressure their opponents either nonviolently or through conventional or guerrilla warfare, or who fail to attain their goals when they do employ these strategies, will turn to terrorism as a “last resort.” Disaffected elites sometimes resort to violence, according to Crenshaw’s influential account ( 1981 ), because it is easier and cheaper than strategies that require mass mobilization, especially when government repression makes mass mobilization extremely difficult if not impossible.

There are, however, a number of logical and empirical problems with this “desperation” theory of terrorism, as we might call it. Most importantly, the theory seems simply to assume that desperate rebels or politicians would automatically view attacks upon civilians as beneficial instead of detrimental to their cause. But even if terrorism is cheaper and easier than many other strategies, why would one employ it at all? We need to know what beneficial consequences rebels or state officials believe their attacks on civilians, or on specific kinds of civilians, would bring about. How exactly will these attacks advance their cause? Why would officials or rebels not assume that attacks on civilians would undermine their popularity or otherwise hurt their cause?

Second, there does not in fact seem to be a particularly strong empirical relationship between the strength of states and rebel groups, on the one hand, and their use (or not) of terrorism, on the other. For example, the US government was hardly desperate when it imposed economic sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s, which may have resulted in the deaths of more than half a million children (Gordon 2010 ). (Although these sanctions did not entail direct violence against Iraqi civilians, they fit our definition of terrorism because they deliberately resulted in the deaths and suffering of noncombatants.) The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka, to take another example, was a powerful rebel movement during the 1990s according to most accounts. The LTTE sometimes even waged conventional warfare against Sri Lankan government forces, and it used small aircraft in some of its attacks. Yet the LTTE, which was predominantly Tamil, also engaged in indiscriminate attacks on ethnic Sinhalese civilians, and it did so long after it had decimated rival Tamil nationalist groups (Bloom 2005 , ch. 3 ). So its growing strength did not lead it to abandon terror tactics. The desperation theory does not tell us why.

One can also point, conversely, to relatively weak states and rebel movements that have largely eschewed terrorism. Perhaps the best example of the latter is the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa. In 1961, as many of their leaders were being arrested and many others driven into exile, the ANC and the Communist Party of South Africa established an armed wing called Umkhonto weSizwe (“Spear of the Nation” or MK). The ANC explicitly adopted armed struggle as one of its main political strategies. By most accounts, however, MK failed to become an effective guerrilla force, as the South African Defense Forces were simply too strong and effective (Cherry 2011 ). And yet MK did not then embrace terror tactics against the dominant white minority, despite the fact, as Gay Seidman points out, that, “In a deeply segregated society, it would have been easy to kill random whites. Segregated white schools, segregated movie theaters, segregated shopping centers meant that if white deaths were the only goal, potential targets could be found everywhere” (Seidman 2001 , 118). (I address the question of why the ANC rejected terrorism later in this chapter.)

In short, weak and desperate rebels and states do not necessarily adopt terror tactics, and strong states and rebels do not necessarily eschew such tactics. As Turk concludes, “Because any group may adopt terror tactics, it is misleading to assume either that ‘terrorism is the weapon of the weak’ or that terrorists are always small groups of outsiders—or at most a ‘lunatic fringe’” (Turk 1982 , 122). Indeed, terrorism is often and perhaps usually a weapon of the strong, and of strong states in particular.

The main insight of the desperation theory of terrorism is that states and rebel groups do often take up arms after they have concluded that diplomacy and nonviolent politics cannot work or that these work far too slowly or ineffectively to redress urgent grievances. But notice that this does not tell us why armed actors would employ violence against noncombatants in particular. Moreover, the argument that attacking “soft” targets such as unprotected civilians is easier than waging conventional or guerrilla warfare does not explain why states or rebels would ever wage conventional or guerrilla warfare. The argument implies that rational people would always prefer terrorism to these strategies, which is clearly not the case. In sum, the most we can say is that weakness and desperation may be a necessary but not sufficient cause of terrorism in some cases. But as a general theory of terrorism, this perspective is clearly inadequate.

A second traditional view of terrorism is that it is a retaliatory response to violence, including terrorism. Leftist and radical analysts of terrorism have often made this claim about oppositional terrorism, and it is emphasized by Herman and O’Sullivan ( 1989 ). They suggest that the “retail” terrorism of dissident groups is caused or provoked by the “wholesale” or “primary” terrorism of states, especially powerful Western states, above all the United States. The terms “wholesale” and “retail” are meant to remind readers that state terrorism has generally been much more deadly than oppositional terrorism, which is undeniable. Other scholars have rightly emphasized how state and non-state terrorism have been dynamically intertwined (e.g. English, 2016 ) and how, as a result, revenge often becomes a powerful motivation for terrorism (e.g. Richardson, 2006 : ch. 4 ).

But how far does this view take us? It is certainly true that indiscriminate state violence, especially when perpetrated by relatively weak and ineffective states, has encouraged the development of violent rebel movements (Goodwin 2001 ). But the question is why these movements would attack and threaten civilians as opposed to the state’s armed forces. If rebels are responding to state terrorism, after all, why would they not employ violence against the state ? State terrorism, in other words, would seem more likely to induce rebels to employ guerrilla or conventional warfare than terror tactics.

Empirically, one can also point to dissident organizations that have arisen in contexts of extreme state violence which have nonetheless largely eschewed terror tactics. For example, Central American guerrilla movements of the 1970s and 1980s, including the Sandinista Front in Nicaragua and the Farabundo Martí Front for National Liberation in El Salvador, confronted states that engaged in extensive violence against noncombatants, yet neither movement engaged in much terrorism. Another example is, again, the ANC in South Africa. Interestingly, Herman and O’Sullivan’s book devotes considerable attention to both South African and Israeli state terrorism ( 1989 , ch. 2 ). And yet, while they note the “retail” terrorism of the Palestine Liberation Organization during the 1970s and 1980s—emphasizing that Israeli state terrorism was responsible for a great many more civilian deaths during this period—they do not discuss the oppositional terrorism in South Africa which their theory would seem to predict. In fact, as we have noted, the ANC simply did not carry out much terrorism at all. So “wholesale” state terrorism, clearly, does not always cause or provoke “retail” oppositional terrorism.

Having said this, it is indeed difficult to find a rebel group that has carried out extensive terrorism which has not arisen in a context of considerable state violence. For example, those rebels in French Algeria, the West Bank and Gaza, Sri Lanka, and Chechnya who engaged in extensive terrorism have been drawn from, and claim to act on behalf of, populations that have themselves suffered extensive and often indiscriminate state repression. The question is what to make of this correlation. Why, in these particular contexts, have rebels attacked certain civilians as well as government forces? The retaliatory theory of terrorism does not tell us.

The Radicalization Perspective

A huge literature on terrorism has appeared following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Much of this literature is descriptive or focuses on particular aspects of terrorism, broadly conceived (e.g. recruitment, organization, ideology, etc.). Surprisingly little of this literature is concerned with proposing general causal hypotheses about the choice of terror tactics by either rebels or states. One theory of terrorism, however, has clearly risen to a position of dominance in both the journalistic and academic literature—the idea that terrorism is the result of “radicalization.”

At its core, the radicalization approach to terrorism has a simple thesis: not all radicals may be terrorists, but all terrorists are radicals . It thus follows that a process of ideological “radicalization” (or “violent radicalization” in some accounts) is a necessary if not sufficient cause of terrorism . And it follows in turn that scholars need to identify the factors and processes that cause or facilitate “radicalization” if we are to explain terrorism. It also follows that individuals will be weaned away from terrorism if they can somehow be “de-radicalized.”

These claims, alas, are based on a misunderstanding and misappropriation of the concept of radicalization. Indeed, there are several fundamental problems with the radicalization perspective. This approach often assumes, first of all, that terrorism is a kind of ideological movement—like socialism or conservatism, for example—which seeks out converts. The idea is that terrorists seek to radicalize people or recruit people who are already radicalized. But terror tactics have clearly been employed by groups and states with a very wide range of ideologies, not all of them “radical” in any sense of the word. In fact, the basic theoretical assumption of this approach—that only radicals engage in terrorism—is plainly wrong, unless one defines “radicalism,” tautologically, as a propensity to kill civilians in order to intimidate others. It follows that the basic causal claim or hypothesis of this perspective—that radicalization is a necessary cause of political violence and terrorism—is also plainly wrong.

What does it mean, we might ask, to be a “radical”? The word has had a straightforward, uncontroversial meaning in historical and social-science discourse for many decades. According to the Oxford English Dictionary , “radical” means “Advocating thorough or far-reaching political or social reform … Now more generally: revolutionary, esp. left-wing” ( Oxford English Dictionary online: < www.oed.com/view/Entry/157251#eid27277866 >). A radical, in other words, is a revolutionary—usually on the left but possibly on the right. A radical desires fundamental as opposed to limited social change. Radicals differ from reformists, who desire modest or incremental socio-political changes, and from conservatives, who seek to preserve the existing order more or less as it is.

It follows from this longstanding definition that to “radicalize” means that one comes to have revolutionary or at least far-reaching goals. Historians and social scientists have always used the concept in just this sense, especially those who have written about revolutions or revolutionary movements. The point to emphasize is that the concept of radicalization clearly speaks to ends, not means, let alone violent means . “Radical” has never meant “violent.” In fact, violence and coercion are not associated with any of the several definitions of “radical” which are found in the Oxford English Dictionary . The close association between radicalism and violence, alas, is a very recent and not particularly helpful invention of certain scholars of political violence and terrorism.

Many scholars who employ the term, to be sure, do not explicitly define “radicalization” at all (see e.g. Sageman 2008 ; Horgan 2008 ; Ranstorp 2010 ). And many understand “radicalization” tautologically, that is, as nothing other than the process or processes—whatever they may be—by which one becomes a terrorist. So, for example, according to two leading scholars of terrorism, “Radicalization may be understood as a process leading towards the increased use of political violence, while de-radicalization, by contrast, implies reduction in the use of political violence” (della Porta and LaFree 2012 , 5). “Radicalization” and “de-radicalization” seem to have no other content or meaning for these authors. According to two other prominent scholars,

Functionally, political radicalization is increased preparation for and commitment to intergroup conflict. Descriptively, radicalization means change in beliefs, feelings, and behaviors in directions that increasingly justify intergroup violence and demand sacrifice in defense of the ingroup … [B]ehavioral radicalization means increasing time, money, risk-taking, and violence in support of a political group. (McCauley and Moskalenko 2008 , 416)

These definitions empty the words “radical” and “radicalization” of their traditional meaning. The word “radical” no longer means revolutionary, but is simply used as a synonym or placeholder for the word terrorist, and the word “radicalization” becomes a synonym for whatever process or processes might lead people to become terrorists. The underlying claim is thus entirely circular and unenlightening: Terrorism is a product of radicalization, we are told, and radicalization is the process which leads to terrorism.

It is not clear why some scholars have emptied the word “radicalization” of its traditional meaning in this way. It may be that they have done so because of the obvious fallaciousness of the basic theoretical assumption of the radicalization perspective, namely, that only revolutionaries engage in political violence or terrorism. Of course, no one would deny that revolutionaries have sometimes used violence and terrorism. The term terrorism, after all, was first used to describe the actions of French revolutionaries. Moreover, some scholars who write from the radicalization perspective have correctly emphasized that not all radicals use violence or terrorism. Indeed, some employ the concept of “violent radicalization” precisely in order to address this reality (e.g. Bartlett and Miller 2012 ).

But the assumption remains for most who write from this perspective that all terrorists are revolutionaries (or “extremists”). This assumption, however, is empirically wrong. There is, to begin with, what we might call conservative terrorism or what some have termed “pro-state” terrorism—in other words, non-state terrorism in defense of the status quo (e.g. Bruce 1992 ; White 1999 ). Two better-known cases of such conservative terrorist movements would be the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, which for many decades used terror tactics to reinforce white supremacy, and the Loyalist paramilitary movement in Northern Ireland, which used terrorism in order to maintain Protestant domination of those six counties as well as their union with Great Britain. It simply makes no sense to describe Klan members or Loyalists as radicals or revolutionaries who sought “fundamental socio-political changes.”

The radicalization perspective fails just as clearly to explain most state terrorism, which, like conservative or pro-state terrorism, has also been mainly employed to defend the status quo. Again, state terrorism has sometimes been employed in the service of political projects aimed at radically transforming societies, as in France and Russia. But much more state violence has been used to intimidate civilians so as to maintain the existing social order or to defeat domestic rebels or foreign enemies (Downes 2008 ). State terrorism, indeed, is quite often counter -revolutionary violence in defense of the status quo.

The Indirect-War Theory of Terrorism

A causal explanation of terrorism, as we have defined it, requires us to specify why and under what conditions armed actors (state or non-state) come to regard the killing and intimidation of civilians or noncombatants as a reasonable and perhaps necessary (although not necessarily exclusive) means to attain their political ends. A causal theory should also tell us why and under what conditions armed groups consider terror tactics unnecessary and perhaps even counterproductive. Because terrorism cannot be unintended according to our (and most) definitions, the deliberate targeting of civilians—often just ordinary people—may be considered the sine qua non of terrorism.

Of course, terrorism, like other forms of violence, requires a certain infrastructure (weaponry, means of gaining proximity to targets, etc.) as well as warriors willing and able to carry out the violence. But neither of these is specific to terrorism. Conventional and guerrilla warfare as well as a strategy of assassination also require these things. The essential characteristic of terrorism is the intent to kill or harm as well as to intimidate civilians, and it is this intent which demands an explanation.

Let me now sketch what I call the indirect-war theory of terrorism, which follows in the footsteps of Charlies Tilly’s “relational” approach to terrorism (Tilly 2004 , 2005 ), so named because social relations among key actors (states, armed rebels, and civilians) carry the primary explanatory burden. The indirect-war theory is based on the idea that terrorism is an indirect way for armed groups (state or non-state) to attack their enemies. The theory proposes that an armed group will employ terror tactics against those civilians who are supporters of the group’s armed enemies—provided those civilians are not also seen by the group as their own potential supporters. Terrorism arises, in other words, when one or more parties to an armed conflict seeks to harm their adversaries by harming the civilians who support those adversaries. Killing and terrorizing civilians is thus an indirect means of undermining one’s armed enemies, instead of, or in addition to, directly attacking these enemies. By contrast, there is no incentive to attack civilians who are not supporters of one’s armed enemies.

The indirect-war theory requires a consideration of the characteristics of the civilians or noncombatants whom states and rebels (sometimes) target for violence or harm. Why and how states and rebels come to see particular noncombatants as enemies or appropriate targets of violence is a puzzle that the aforementioned theories of terrorism, as we have seen, generally ignore. Yet states and rebels clearly do not attack just any civilians or noncombatants. Indeed, both states and rebels are also usually interested in winning the active support or allegiance of civilians—or at least civilians of a certain type. So who are the “bad” or enemy civilians whom warriors choose to attack? And what good, from the warriors’ perspective, might come from attacking them?

When states or rebels employ terror tactics in a civil or international conflict, they generally attack and try to intimidate civilians who in one way or another are valuable to or support their armed enemies. These are civilians upon whom enemy armed actors are dependent in different ways. Again, attacking such civilians is a way to attack indirectly one’s armed opponents, and it is perfectly rational from this standpoint, despite the widespread moral condemnation of terror tactics.

The main tactical objective of and incentive for terrorism in armed conflicts is to induce the targeted civilians to stop supporting certain government or rebel policies. Terrorism, in other words, typically aims to apply such intense pressure to civilians that they will demand that their government or movement change certain policies or activities. Better yet, from the perpetrators’ perspective, these civilians may even cease supporting the government or rebels altogether in order to end the violence directed at them. The perpetrators may also hope that the states or rebels they are fighting will unilaterally change or abandon certain policies or activities in order to end the killing of civilians. In either case, the government or rebels cannot be indifferent to attacks on civilians who are valuable to them.

In short, there is a general incentive for armed groups to attack and intimidate those civilians who are supporters of states or rebels with whom they are at war. But how exactly do certain civilians support armed groups? Civilians may support armed groups in two main ways—politically and economically—each of which produces a distinct incentive for armed enemies to attack them. First, terrorism is likely to be employed against noncombatants who politically support one’s armed enemies. In this context, terror tactics are a reasonable means to weaken civilian political support (or tolerance) for violence by “their” government or rebels. For example, Al Qaeda and other “jihadist” groups have attacked civilians in the United States, the UK, France, and other Western countries in order to erode political support for their governments’ policies in the Middle East. By contrast, terrorism is much less likely to be employed against civilians who do not politically support—or are substantially divided in their support for—one’s armed enemies. In this case, terrorism may alienate potential allies.

Second, terrorism is likely to be employed against noncombatants who economically support one’s armed enemies by, for example, supplying them with weapons, transportation (or the means thereof), food, and other supplies needed to employ violence. In this context, terrorism is a reasonable means to weaken civilian economic support for violence by “their” government or rebels. For example, the “terror bombing” of World War II, which resulted in hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of civilian deaths, was undertaken primarily to destroy the industrial economies of England, Germany, and Japan (in part by eroding civilian morale), on which those countries’ armed forces were dependent. Such destruction required massive civilian victimization. By contrast, terrorism is much less likely when soldiers are supplied by foreign states, for example, or through covert, black markets that involve few civilians.

Terrorism is also likely to spread and escalate in conflicts in which an armed actor has begun to attack the civilian supporters of their armed enemies. When this occurs, terrorism may become a reasonable means (other things being equal) to deter terrorism by armed enemies, thereby protecting one’s civilian supporters, or, alternatively, to avenge such terrorism, thereby winning or reinforcing the political support of those civilians who feel they have been avenged.

Generally speaking, civilians who enjoy extensive civil and political rights are more likely to support their government than those who do not enjoy such rights. It follows that civilians with rights are more likely to be attacked by rebels or enemy states during times of conflict than civilians without rights, other things being equal. For example, when extensive and indiscriminate state violence appears to be supported by civilians, it is hardly surprising that rebel movements would tend to view such civilians, as well as the states perpetrating such violence, as legitimate targets of violence; the purpose of such violence is to undermine these civilians’ support for their government. Extensive state (“wholesale”) terrorism thus begets extensive rebel (“retail”) terrorism in conflicts in which a citizenry with significant democratic rights supports the state’s violence. Such a citizenry would appear to be a common if not strictly necessary precondition for extensive terrorism by rebel movements (see Pape 2005 ; Goodwin 2006 ).

The indirect-war theory also helps us to understand why rebels who are fighting autocratic or authoritarian regimes tend to eschew terror tactics. Relatively few civilians tend to support such regimes, so there is no benefit in employing terror tactics against the general civilian population, unless for economic purposes. For example, the Sandinista Front in Nicaragua carried out virtually no terror attacks during its armed conflict with the autocratic Somoza dictatorship during the late 1970s, an otherwise bloody insurgency during which some 30,000 people were killed (Booth 1983 ). Civilians who supported the dictatorship consisted of a small number of Somoza cronies and a loyal elite opposition, both of which were drawn mainly from Nicaragua’s small bourgeoisie. Virtually all other civilians in Nicaragua, from the poorest peasant to Somoza’s bourgeois opponents, were viewed by the Sandinistas as potential allies, and indeed many would become such. It obviously made no sense to attack such people. Of course, had the Somoza dictatorship been supported by broader sectors of the population—by a broader class coalition, for example, or a large ethnic group—then the Sandinistas might very well have employed terror tactics against such sectors in order to undermine their support for the dictatorship.

In summary, armed groups, whether states or rebels, are likely to attack and terrorize noncombatants who politically or economically support enemy states or rebels. This is a way to undermine indirectly one’s armed enemies. By contrast, armed groups are unlikely to attack noncombatants who do not support enemy states or rebels. In such instances, attacking such noncombatants would serve no purpose and would alienate potential allies. Whether civilians 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 specific conflicts.

Contrasting Case Studies: Al Qaeda and the ANC

In the final section of this chapter, I want to illustrate, if only briefly, how the indirect-war theory of terrorism just outlined can help us to understand the contrasting tactics of two non-state armed groups—one that decided to employ terror tactics and one that rejected terror tactics, although not violence as such.

Al Qaeda, and armed groups affiliated with it, have carried out a number of terrorist attacks in recent years against US and certain European noncombatants (see e.g. Hoffman and Reinares 2014 ). Why does Al Qaeda attack such civilians? Why, in other words, has it chosen to employ terror tactics?

Al Qaeda adheres to the view that the global Muslim community, or umma , is currently oppressed by both “apostate” secular and “hypocritical” pseudo-Islamic regimes, from Morocco to the Philippines, as well as by the “Zionist entity” (Israel) in Palestine. And standing behind these regimes is the powerful US government and its European allies, especially the UK and France. Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups are hostile toward the United States and its allies for supporting repressive, un-Islamic regimes in Muslim countries. Al Qaeda believes that unless and until the US and its allies—the “far enemy”—can be compelled to end their support for these regimes—the “near enemy”—and withdraw their troops and other agents from Muslim countries, local struggles to overthrow these regimes cannot succeed (Gerges 2009 ).

Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups have attacked US military forces in the Middle East. But why have they also decided that ordinary civilians are legitimate targets of violence? After all, terrorism is rejected not only by mainstream Islamists, but also by many jihadists themselves. In fact, “when finally informed about the major attack against the United States [i.e. the 9/11 plot], most senior members of the Al Qaeda Shura Council reportedly objected on religious and strategic grounds; bin Laden overrode the majority’s decision, and the attacks went forward” (Gerges 2009 , 19).

Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden described the rationale for the 9/11 attacks in an interview that first appeared in the Pakistani newspaper Ausaf on November 7, 2001:

The United States and their allies are killing us in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine and Iraq. That’s why Muslims have the right to carry out revenge attacks on the U.S. … 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. I demand the American people to take note of their government’s policy against Muslims. They described their government’s policy against Vietnam as wrong. They should now take the same stand that they did previously. The onus is on Americans to prevent Muslims from being killed at the hands of their government. (Quoted in Lawrence 2005 , 140–1.)

In short, bin Laden believed that American citizens support their government and its policies in the Middle East. They have elected and pay taxes to their government, which in his view makes them responsible for its actions in Muslim countries (Wiktorowicz and Kaltner 2003 , 88–9). Al Qaeda views American citizens, in other words, not as “innocents,” but as economically and politically complicit in US-sponsored massacres and the oppression of Muslims. Bin Laden hoped that attacks on US citizens would lead them to reject and demand a change in the policies of their government in the Middle East. He hoped that Americans would oppose their government’s actions—as they did during the Vietnam War—in order to stop it from killing more Muslims and supporting oppressive regimes (Lawrence 2005 , 141). In short, Al Qaeda has attacked US citizens because they support Al Qaeda’s armed enemy (the US government) both politically and economically, and the purpose of such attacks is to undermine this support. All this is consonant with the indirect-war theory of terrorism.

The indirect-war theory, as we have seen, also proposes that armed groups are unlikely to employ terror tactics against civilians who are not supporters—or are divided in their support—of these groups’ armed enemies. An armed group is especially unlikely to employ terror tactics against a particular civilian group when some significant fraction of it has come to support that group; it would obviously make no sense for an armed group to attack a civilian population from which it draws a substantial number of supporters. Such terrorism would not only put at risk the support these warriors are receiving from those civilians, but would also make it much less likely that additional civilians would come to support these warriors.

The existence of a substantial group of “dissident civilians” of this type (i.e. civilians who support the armed enemies of “their” government or rebel group) seems largely to explain why the African National Congress—the leading anti-apartheid organization in South Africa—rejected the use of terror tactics against white South Africans. The ANC eschewed such tactics even though the apartheid regime that it sought to topple employed extensive violence, including terrorism, against its opponents. This violence, moreover, was clearly supported or tolerated by large segments of the white population. The Nationalist Party governments of the apartheid era which unleashed the security forces against the regime’s enemies were elected and widely supported by the white population, which enjoyed a range of political privileges and economic benefits under apartheid.

So why did the ANC refuse to view whites as such as enemies or to employ terror tactics against them? The answer lies in the ANC’s long history of “multiracialism,” that is, the collaboration of whites with black South Africans in the ANC (and with South Asian and “colored” or mixed race people), both inside the ANC and in allied organizations. Especially important in this respect was the ANC’s long collaboration with the South African Communist Party, which also has a long history of multiracialism. Tellingly, an important, long-time leader of the ANC’s armed wing was Joe Slovo, a white Communist. (This is analogous to an Israeli Jew leading Hamas’s armed wing or a Christian American directing Al Qaeda’s covert operations.)

For the ANC to have indiscriminately attacked white South Africans would have soured this strategic relationship, which, among other things, was essential for securing substantial Soviet aid for the ANC. Terrorism directed at white South Africans would also have put at risk the large amount of aid that the ANC received from Western Europe during the anti-apartheid struggle. In sum, given the longstanding multiracial—including international—support for the anti-apartheid movement, the use of terrorism against white civilians made little strategic sense to ANC leaders. The ANC would have been much more likely to employ terror tactics against white South Africans if the latter (as well as Europeans) more or less exclusively supported the apartheid regime and opposed the ANC.

Terrorism, understood as the killing of noncombatants in order to frighten or intimidate others, has long been an important method of warfare or contention for both states and non-state armed groups. However, neither traditional theories nor the currently dominant “radicalization” perspective on terrorism help us very much in understanding why states or rebels would choose to attack and intimidate civilians as opposed to soldiers or political elites. Some armed groups undoubtedly employ terrorism out of weakness and desperation, as a “last resort,” but many and probably most do not. Similarly, some warriors use terrorism as a retaliatory response to violence by others, but not always; and this claim fails to explain why warriors would retaliate against noncombatants in particular as opposed to soldiers. And the radicalization perspective, for its part, errs in assuming that all terrorists are ideologically radical and that individuals therefore become terrorists through a process of radicalization. In fact, terror tactics have been employed by rebels and states with a wide range of ideological views. Not all radicals, furthermore, employ terrorism or any other type of violent tactic for that matter.

I have argued, by contrast, that what I have called the indirect-war theory of terrorism offers a more adequate causal account of why some but not all states and armed groups have employed terror tactics. I have suggested that armed groups are likely to attack those civilians who are supporters—politically or economically—of these groups’ armed enemies. The purpose of terror tactics is to undermine civilian support for armed groups—and thereby to attack the latter indirectly. On the other hand, I have suggested that armed groups are unlikely to employ terror tactics against a civilian population when such groups are themselves supported by some significant fraction of that population. I illustrated this theory with the contrasting cases of Al Qaeda, which has employed terrorism in order to undermine civilian support for US and European government policies in the Middle East, and the African National Congress, which largely rejected terror tactics in its fight against apartheid, tactics which would have undermined the support it received from white South Africans and Europeans.

Bartlett, J. , and C. Miller ( 2012 ) “ The Edge of Violence: Towards Telling the Difference between Violent and Non-Violent Radicalization, ” Terrorism and Political Violence , 24(1): 1–21.

Google Scholar

Bloom, M. ( 2005 ) Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror . New York: Columbia University Press.

Google Preview

Booth, J. ( 1983 ) The End of the Beginning: The Nicaraguan Revolution , 2nd edn. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bruce, S. ( 1992 ) “The Problems of ‘Pro-State’ Terrorism: Loyalist Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland,” Terrorism and Political Violence , 4(1): 67–88.

Cherry, J. ( 2011 ) Umkhonto weSizwe . Johannesburg: Jacana Media.

Crenshaw, M. ( 1981 ) “ The Causes of Terrorism, ” Comparative Politics , 13(4): 379–99.

della Porta, D. , and G. LaFree ( 2012 ) “ Processes of Radicalization and De-Radicalization, ” International Journal of Conflict and Violence , 6(1): 4–10.

Downes, A. ( 2008 ) Targeting Civilians in War . Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press.

English, R. ed. ( 2016 ) Illusions of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gareau, F. ( 2004 ) State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism . Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press.

Gerges, F. ( 2009 ) The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global , 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, J. ( 2001 ) No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945–1991 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, J. ( 2006 ) “ A Theory of Categorical Terrorism, ” Social Forces , 84(4): 2027–46.

Gordon, J. ( 2010 ) Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Herman, E. , and G. O’Sullivan ( 1989 ) The “Terrorism” Industry: The Experts and Institutions that Shape our View of Terror . New York: Pantheon.

Hoffman, B. , and F. Reinares ( 2014 ) The Evolution of the Global Terrorist Threat: From 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s Death . New York: Columbia University Press.

Horgan, J. ( 2008 ) “ From Profiles to Pathways and Roots to Routes: Perspectives from Psychology on Radicalization into Terrorism, ” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 618(1): 80–94.

Lawrence, B. , ed. ( 2005 ) Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden . London and New York: Verso.

McCauley, C. , and S. Moskalenko ( 2008 ) “ Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways toward Terrorism, ” Terrorism and Political Violence , 20(3): 415–33.

Pape, R. ( 2005 ) Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism . New York: Random House.

Ranstorp, M. ( 2010 ) “Introduction,” in M. Ranstorp (ed.), Understanding Violent Radicalisation: Terrorist and Jihadist Movements in Europe . London: Routledge, 1–18.

Richards, A. ( 2014 ) “ Conceptualizing Terrorism, ” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism , 37(3): 213–36.

Richardson, L. ( 2006 ) What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat . New York: Random House.

Sageman, M. ( 2008 ) Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Seidman, G. ( 2001 ) “ Guerrillas in their Midst: Armed Struggle in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement, ” Mobilization: An International Quarterly , 6(2): 111–27.

Tilly, C. ( 2004 ) “ Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists, ” Sociological Theory , 22(1): 5–13.

Tilly, C. ( 2005 ) “ Terrorism as Strategy and Relational Process, ” International Journal of Comparative Sociology , 46(1–2): 11–32.

Turk, A. ( 1982 ) “ Social Dynamics of Terrorism, ” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 436(1): 119–28.

White, R. ( 1999 ) “ Comparing State Repression of Pro-State Vigilantes and Anti-State Insurgents: Northern Ireland, 1972–75, ” Mobilization: An International Quarterly , 4(2): 189–202.

Wiktorowicz, Q. , and J. Kaltner ( 2003 ) “ Killing in the Name of Islam: Al-Qaeda’s Justification for September 11, ” Middle East Policy , 10(2): 76–92.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• 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.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Does Counter-Terrorism Work? by Richard English review – a thoughtful and authoritative analysis

The Belfast academic offers vitally important lessons about government strategies, from Northern Ireland to the Middle East, warning that few campaigns are a complete success

I n January 2002, during his State of the Union address, President George W Bush said that in “four short months” the US had “rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested and rid the world of thousands of terrorists … and terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own”.

The term “war on terror” had been coined a few days after al-Qaida’s attacks of 9/11 to describe the most extensive and ambitious counter-terrorism operation the world had seen. As Bush spoke, it all seemed to be going rather well.

Two decades later, with more than 300,000 people killed in Iraq, according to some estimates, and perhaps 240,000 deaths in Afghanistan, the violence of the “war on terror” can be seen to have created further chaos and carnage. Even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, the numbers killed in terrorist attacks around the world rose from 109 a month in the years before 9/11, according to one study , to 158 a month during the six years that followed. Meanwhile, some of those whom Bush said were running for their lives are now in power in Kabul.

In Northern Ireland , on the other hand, the conflict came largely to an end – after 30 years – once British governments began to use the military and police to contain, rather than attempt to brutally extirpate, anti-state violence. Security forces patiently developed their intelligence-gathering capacities, while government ministers acknowledged the political causes of terrorism and, eventually, formed partnerships with those whom they had been fighting.

Richard English, the author of Does Counter-Terrorism Work? , is a professor of political history at Queen’s University Belfast, and has dedicated decades to the analysis of terrorism and to governments’ efforts to overcome it. Given that the choices made in counter-terrorism policy impact directly upon each of us every day, it is a vitally important area of study.

His previous work includes a 2016 volume, Does Terrorism Work? , and a highly regarded history of the IRA . Here, he offers a thoughtful and authoritative dissection of the counter-terrorism efforts of the “war on terror”, Northern Ireland’s Troubles and the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and the lessons that each can offer.

English believes that post-9/11 counter-terrorism was far too short-termist, that the histories of Afghanistan and Iraq were “substantially ignored in a disgraceful fashion” and that the US became overly impressed with its own early military successes in both countries.

In Iraq, the claim that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was a necessary part of a global counter-terrorist campaign was, of course, founded on the false claim that Saddam was supporting al-Qaida and the mistaken belief that he possessed weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, English writes, the assumption that the Middle East could be recast “through naive invasion” took no account of the region’s past, its complex allegiances, or the possibility of something simply going wrong.

He cautions that very few counter-terrorism campaigns will ever achieve complete strategic success. Unconvinced by those who claim bullishly that the Provisional IRA was “defeated”, he argues persuasively that the republican movement’s sustainable campaign of violence was suspended only because its pragmatic leaders decided that they might more likely achieve their objective – a united Ireland – by peaceful means. Equally, he is sceptical of those among his fellow academics who argue that counter-terrorism operations will inevitably promote terrorism.

However, he writes, there are times when “those who criticise counter-terrorists for worsening their state’s strategic position regarding terrorism, and those who celebrate tactical-operational successes against terrorist adversaries, might shout past each other while yet both being right”.

English judges that if any counter-terrorism campaign is to achieve even partial strategic victory, it must be conducted in a patient, well-resourced manner, with clear objectives. Given that terrorists often seek to provoke outrage and overreaction, the public should be encouraged to be realistic about the limits to what can be accomplished.

He also concludes that to avoid failure, counter-terrorist efforts must be integrated into broader political initiatives: “We should not mistake the terrorist symptom for the more profound issues that are at stake.”

Although this book was written before the Hamas attacks of 7 October and the war in Gaza, English was already convinced that Israeli counter-terrorism tactics, no matter how carefully conceived or brilliantly executed, will not resolve the conflict unless there is a strategic engagement with Palestinian grievances and desire for statehood.

Finally, he cautions that his three case studies present serious warnings about the self-harm that can be inflicted by state actions judged to lack morality. All three have involved the abuse of prisoners; that an overreliance on aggressive military methods can shatter public support; that technical surveillance should be lawful and proportionate; and, as a senior British police officer warned in a report published this month , that there are serious questions to be asked about the morality and legality of allowing informants within terrorist organisations to commit serious crimes.

“A successful counter-terrorism will be a just counter-terrorism,” English writes: legally bound, accountable and proportionate. To stray from this, he says, risks delegitimising the objectives of the state. Or as a mural in Northern Ireland used to say: “When those who make the law, break the law, in the name of the law, there is no law.”

Ian Cobain is the author of Anatomy of a Killing: Life and Death on a Divided Island (Granta)

Does Counter-Terrorism Work? by Richard English is published by Oxford University Press (£25). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com . Delivery charges may apply

• Politics books
• The Observer
• UK security and counter-terrorism
• Counter-terrorism policy
• Northern Ireland
• Israel-Gaza war
• Afghanistan

Most viewed

• CBSE Class 10th
• CBSE Class 12th
• UP Board 10th
• UP Board 12th
• Bihar Board 10th
• Bihar Board 12th
• Top Schools in India
• Top Schools in Delhi
• Top Schools in Mumbai
• Top Schools in Chennai
• Top Schools in Hyderabad
• Top Schools in Kolkata
• Top Schools in Pune
• Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

• JEE Main Knockout April
• Free Sample Papers
• Free Ebooks
• NCERT Notes
• NCERT Syllabus
• NCERT Books
• RD Sharma Solutions
• Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
• NCERT Solutions
• NCERT Solutions for Class 12
• NCERT Solutions for Class 11
• NCERT solutions for Class 10
• NCERT solutions for Class 9
• NCERT solutions for Class 8
• NCERT Solutions for Class 7
• JEE Main 2024
• JEE Advanced 2024
• BITSAT 2024
• View All Engineering Exams
• Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
• Top Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
• Top IITs in India
• Top NITs in India
• Top IIITs in India
• JEE Main College Predictor
• JEE Main Rank Predictor
• MHT CET College Predictor
• AP EAMCET College Predictor
• GATE College Predictor
• KCET College Predictor
• JEE Advanced College Predictor
• View All College Predictors
• JEE Main Question Paper
• JEE Main Mock Test
• JEE Main Registration
• JEE Main Syllabus
• Download E-Books and Sample Papers
• Compare Colleges
• B.Tech College Applications
• GATE 2024 Result
• MAH MBA CET Exam
• View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

• MBA College Admissions
• MBA Colleges in India
• Top IIMs Colleges in India
• Top Online MBA Colleges in India
• MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
• BBA Colleges in India
• XAT College Predictor 2024
• SNAP College Predictor
• NMAT College Predictor
• MAT College Predictor 2024
• CMAT College Predictor 2024
• CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
• CAT 2023 College Predictor
• CMAT 2024 Registration
• TS ICET 2024 Registration
• CMAT Exam Date 2024
• MAH MBA CET Cutoff 2024
• Download Helpful Ebooks
• List of Popular Branches
• QnA - Get answers to your doubts
• IIM Fees Structure
• AIIMS Nursing
• Top Medical Colleges in India
• Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
• Medical Colleges accepting NEET
• List of Medical Colleges in India
• List of AIIMS Colleges In India
• Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
• Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
• NEET College Predictor
• NEET PG College Predictor
• NEET MDS College Predictor
• DNB CET College Predictor
• DNB PDCET College Predictor
• NEET Application Form 2024
• NEET PG Application Form 2024
• NEET Cut off
• NEET Online Preparation
• Download Helpful E-books
• LSAT India 2024
• Colleges Accepting Admissions
• Top Law Colleges in India
• Law College Accepting CLAT Score
• List of Law Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Delhi
• Top Law Collages in Indore
• Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
• Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

• CLAT College Predictor
• MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
• AILET College Predictor
• Sample Papers
• Compare Law Collages
• Careers360 Youtube Channel
• CLAT Syllabus 2025
• CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
• AIBE 18 Result 2023
• NID DAT Exam
• Pearl Academy Exam

Animation Courses

• Animation Courses in India
• Animation Courses in Bangalore
• Animation Courses in Mumbai
• Animation Courses in Pune
• Animation Courses in Chennai
• Animation Courses in Hyderabad
• Design Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in Bangalore
• Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
• Fashion Design Colleges in Pune
• Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
• Fashion Design Colleges in Hyderabad
• Fashion Design Colleges in India
• Top Design Colleges in India
• Free Design E-books
• List of Branches
• Careers360 Youtube channel
• NIFT College Predictor
• UCEED College Predictor
• NID DAT College Predictor
• IPU CET BJMC
• JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
• IIMC Entrance Exam
• Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
• Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
• Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
• List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
• CA Intermediate
• CA Foundation
• CS Executive
• CS Professional
• Difference between CA and CS
• Difference between CA and CMA
• CA Full form
• CMA Full form
• CS Full form
• CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

• Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
• Master of Commerce (M.Com)
• Company Secretary
• Cost Accountant
• Charted Accountant
• Credit Manager
• Financial Advisor
• Top Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
• Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
• Top B.Com Colleges in India
• IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
• MCA Colleges in India
• BCA Colleges in India

Quick Links

• Information Technology Courses
• Programming Courses
• Web Development Courses
• Data Analytics Courses
• Big Data Analytics Courses
• RUHS Pharmacy Admission Test
• Top Pharmacy Colleges in India
• Pharmacy Colleges in Pune
• Pharmacy Colleges in Mumbai
• Colleges Accepting GPAT Score
• Pharmacy Colleges in Lucknow
• List of Pharmacy Colleges in Nagpur
• GPAT Result
• GPAT 2024 Admit Card
• GPAT Question Papers
• NCHMCT JEE 2024
• Mah BHMCT CET
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Delhi
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Hyderabad
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Maharashtra
• B.Sc Hotel Management
• Hotel Management
• Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology

Diploma Colleges

• Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
• UPSC IAS 2024
• SSC CGL 2024
• IBPS RRB 2024
• Previous Year Sample Papers
• Free Competition E-books
• Sarkari Result
• QnA- Get your doubts answered
• UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
• CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
• SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
• NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

• NDA Application Form 2024
• UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
• CDS Application Form 2024
• CTET Admit card 2024
• HP TET Result 2023
• SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
• UPTET Notification 2024
• SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

• SSC CHSL 2024
• UP PCS 2024
• UGC NET 2024
• RRB NTPC 2024
• IBPS PO 2024
• IBPS Clerk 2024
• IBPS SO 2024
• Top University in USA
• Top University in Canada
• Top University in Ireland
• Top Universities in UK
• Top Universities in Australia
• Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
• Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

• Study in USA
• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in Australia
• Study in Ireland
• Study in Germany
• Study in China
• Study in Europe

Student Visas

• Student Visa Canada
• Student Visa UK
• Student Visa USA
• Student Visa Australia
• Student Visa Germany
• Student Visa New Zealand
• Student Visa Ireland
• CUET PG 2024
• IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
• DU Admission
• UP B.Ed JEE 2024
• DDU Entrance Exam
• IIT JAM 2024
• IGNOU Online Admission 2024
• Universities in India
• Top Universities in India 2024
• Top Colleges in India
• Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Bihar
• Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
• Central Universities in India
• CUET PG Admit Card 2024
• IGNOU Date Sheet
• CUET Mock Test 2024
• CUET Application Form 2024
• CUET PG Syllabus 2024
• CUET Participating Universities 2024
• CUET Previous Year Question Paper
• CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
• E-Books and Sample Papers
• CUET Exam Pattern 2024
• CUET Exam Date 2024
• CUET Syllabus 2024
• IGNOU Exam Form 2024
• IGNOU Result
• CUET PG Courses 2024

Engineering Preparation

• Knockout JEE Main 2024
• Test Series JEE Main 2024
• JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

• Knockout NEET 2024
• Test Series NEET 2024
• Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

• JEE Main One Month Course
• NEET One Month Course
• IBSAT Free Mock Tests
• IIT JEE Foundation Course
• Knockout BITSAT 2024
• Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

• IT & Software Certification Courses
• Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
• Programming And Development Certification Courses
• Business and Management Certification Courses
• Marketing Certification Courses
• Health and Fitness Certification Courses
• Design Certification Courses

Specializations

• Digital Marketing Certification Courses
• Cyber Security Certification Courses
• Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
• Business Analytics Certification Courses
• Data Science Certification Courses
• Cloud Computing Certification Courses
• Machine Learning Certification Courses
• View All Certification Courses
• UG Degree Courses
• PG Degree Courses
• Short Term Courses
• Free Courses
• Online Degrees and Diplomas
• Compare Courses

Top Providers

• Coursera Courses
• Udemy Courses
• Edx Courses
• Swayam Courses
• upGrad Courses
• Simplilearn Courses
• Great Learning Courses

Access premium articles, webinars, resources to make the best decisions for career, course, exams, scholarships, study abroad and much more with

Plan, Prepare & Make the Best Career Choices

Essay on Terrorism

India has a lengthy history of terrorism. It is a cowardly act by terrorist organisations that want to sabotage the nation's tranquillity. It seeks to instil fear among the population. They seek to maintain a permanent climate of dread among the populace to prevent the nation from prospering. Here are a few sample essays on Terrorism .

100 Words Essay on Terrorism

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political and personal aims. It is a global phenomenon that has affected countries worldwide, causing harm to innocent civilians, damaging economies, and destabilizing governments. The causes of terrorism are complex and can include religious extremism, political oppression, and economic inequality.

Terrorist groups use a variety of tactics, including bombings, kidnappings, and hijackings, to achieve their goals. They often target symbols of government and military power, as well as civilians in crowded public spaces. The impact of terrorism on society is devastating, leading to loss of life, injury, and psychological trauma.

Combating terrorism requires a multifaceted approach, including intelligence gathering, law enforcement, and military action. Additionally, addressing underlying issues such as poverty and political marginalization is crucial in preventing the radicalization of individuals and the emergence of terrorist groups.

200 Words Essay on Terrorism

Terrorism is a complex and ever-evolving threat that affects countries and communities around the world. It involves the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political or ideological goals. The causes of terrorism can vary, but often include religious extremism, political oppression, and economic inequality.

To truly understand the impact of terrorism, it's important to consider not only the physical harm caused by terrorist attacks but also the emotional and psychological toll it takes on individuals and communities. The loss of life and injury caused to innocent civilians is devastating and can leave families and communities reeling for years to come. In addition, terrorism can cause physical damage to infrastructure and buildings, as well as economic disruption, leading to decreased tourism and investment.

To effectively combat terrorism, it's important to take a holistic approach that addresses not only the immediate threat of terrorist attacks but also the underlying issues that can lead to radicalization and the emergence of terrorist groups. This can include addressing poverty and economic inequality, promoting political and religious tolerance, and providing support and resources to individuals and communities at risk of radicalization.

It's also important to remember that the fight against terrorism is not just the responsibility of governments and law enforcement agencies, but also of individuals and communities. By promoting understanding and compassion, and by standing up against hate and extremism, we can all play a role in preventing terrorism and creating a more peaceful world.

500 Words Essay on Terrorism

According to a United Nations Security Council report from November 2004, terrorism is any act that is "intended to result in the death or serious bodily harm of civilians or non-combatants to intimidate the population or to compel the government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act."

The Origins of Terrorism

The development or production of massive numbers of machine guns, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons, missiles, and other weapons fuels terrorism. Rapid population growth, political, social, and economic problems, widespread discontent with the political system, a lack of education, racism, economic inequality, and linguistic discrepancies are all important contributors to the emergence of terrorism. Sometimes one uses terrorism to take a position and stick with it.

The Effects Of Terrorism

People become afraid of terrorism and feel unsafe in their nation. Terrorist attacks result in the destruction of millions of items, the death of thousands of innocent people, and the slaughter of animals. After seeing a terrorist incident, people become less inclined to believe in humanity, which breeds more terrorists.

Different forms of terrorism can be found both domestically and overseas. Today, governments worldwide are working hard to combat terrorism, which is an issue in India and our neighbouring nations. The 9/11 World Trade Centre attack is considered the worst terrorist act ever. Osama bin Laden attacked the tallest building in the world’s most powerful country, causing millions of casualties and the death of thousands of people.

The major incidents of the terrorist attack in India are—

12 March 1993 - A series of 13 bombs go off, killing 257

14 March 2003 - A bomb goes off in a train in Mulund, killing 10

29 October 2005 Delhi bombings

2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya

2006 Varanasi bombings

11 July 2006 - A series of seven bombs go off in trains, killing

26 November 2008 to 29 November 2008 - A series of coordinated attacks killed at least 170.

According to this data, India has experienced an upsurge in terrorist activity since 1980. India has fought four wars against terrorism , losing more than 6000 persons in total. Already, we have lost around 70000 citizens. Furthermore, we lost over 9000 security staff. In this country, about 6 lakh individuals have undergone.

Agencies In India Fighting Terrorism

There are numerous organisations working to rid our nation of terrorism. These organizations operate continuously, from the municipal to the national levels. To stop local terrorist activity, police forces have various divisions.

The police departments have a specialized intelligence and anti-terrorism division that is in charge of eliminating Naxalites and other terrorist organizations. The military is in charge of bombing terrorist targets outside of our country. These departments engage in counterinsurgency and other similar operations to dismantle various terrorist organisations.

There are numerous organisations that work to prevent terrorism. Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) , National Investigation Agency (NIA) , and Research and Analysis Wing are a few of the top organizations (RAW) . These are some of the main organizations working to rid India of terrorism.

Explore Career Options (By Industry)

• Construction
• Entertainment
• Manufacturing
• Information Technology

Data Administrator

Database professionals use software to store and organise data such as financial information, and customer shipping records. Individuals who opt for a career as data administrators ensure that data is available for users and secured from unauthorised sales. DB administrators may work in various types of industries. It may involve computer systems design, service firms, insurance companies, banks and hospitals.

Bio Medical Engineer

The field of biomedical engineering opens up a universe of expert chances. An Individual in the biomedical engineering career path work in the field of engineering as well as medicine, in order to find out solutions to common problems of the two fields. The biomedical engineering job opportunities are to collaborate with doctors and researchers to develop medical systems, equipment, or devices that can solve clinical problems. Here we will be discussing jobs after biomedical engineering, how to get a job in biomedical engineering, biomedical engineering scope, and salary. 

Ethical Hacker

A career as ethical hacker involves various challenges and provides lucrative opportunities in the digital era where every giant business and startup owns its cyberspace on the world wide web. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path try to find the vulnerabilities in the cyber system to get its authority. If he or she succeeds in it then he or she gets its illegal authority. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path then steal information or delete the file that could affect the business, functioning, or services of the organization.

GIS officer work on various GIS software to conduct a study and gather spatial and non-spatial information. GIS experts update the GIS data and maintain it. The databases include aerial or satellite imagery, latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates, and manually digitized images of maps. In a career as GIS expert, one is responsible for creating online and mobile maps.

Data Analyst

The invention of the database has given fresh breath to the people involved in the data analytics career path. Analysis refers to splitting up a whole into its individual components for individual analysis. Data analysis is a method through which raw data are processed and transformed into information that would be beneficial for user strategic thinking.

Data are collected and examined to respond to questions, evaluate hypotheses or contradict theories. It is a tool for analyzing, transforming, modeling, and arranging data with useful knowledge, to assist in decision-making and methods, encompassing various strategies, and is used in different fields of business, research, and social science.

Geothermal Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as geothermal engineers are the professionals involved in the processing of geothermal energy. The responsibilities of geothermal engineers may vary depending on the workplace location. Those who work in fields design facilities to process and distribute geothermal energy. They oversee the functioning of machinery used in the field.

Database Architect

If you are intrigued by the programming world and are interested in developing communications networks then a career as database architect may be a good option for you. Data architect roles and responsibilities include building design models for data communication networks. Wide Area Networks (WANs), local area networks (LANs), and intranets are included in the database networks. It is expected that database architects will have in-depth knowledge of a company's business to develop a network to fulfil the requirements of the organisation. Stay tuned as we look at the larger picture and give you more information on what is db architecture, why you should pursue database architecture, what to expect from such a degree and what your job opportunities will be after graduation. Here, we will be discussing how to become a data architect. Students can visit NIT Trichy , IIT Kharagpur , JMI New Delhi . 

Remote Sensing Technician

Individuals who opt for a career as a remote sensing technician possess unique personalities. Remote sensing analysts seem to be rational human beings, they are strong, independent, persistent, sincere, realistic and resourceful. Some of them are analytical as well, which means they are intelligent, introspective and inquisitive. 

Remote sensing scientists use remote sensing technology to support scientists in fields such as community planning, flight planning or the management of natural resources. Analysing data collected from aircraft, satellites or ground-based platforms using statistical analysis software, image analysis software or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a significant part of their work. Do you want to learn how to become remote sensing technician? There's no need to be concerned; we've devised a simple remote sensing technician career path for you. Scroll through the pages and read.

Budget Analyst

Budget analysis, in a nutshell, entails thoroughly analyzing the details of a financial budget. The budget analysis aims to better understand and manage revenue. Budget analysts assist in the achievement of financial targets, the preservation of profitability, and the pursuit of long-term growth for a business. Budget analysts generally have a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, economics, or a closely related field. Knowledge of Financial Management is of prime importance in this career.

Underwriter

An underwriter is a person who assesses and evaluates the risk of insurance in his or her field like mortgage, loan, health policy, investment, and so on and so forth. The underwriter career path does involve risks as analysing the risks means finding out if there is a way for the insurance underwriter jobs to recover the money from its clients. If the risk turns out to be too much for the company then in the future it is an underwriter who will be held accountable for it. Therefore, one must carry out his or her job with a lot of attention and diligence.

Finance Executive

Product manager.

A Product Manager is a professional responsible for product planning and marketing. He or she manages the product throughout the Product Life Cycle, gathering and prioritising the product. A product manager job description includes defining the product vision and working closely with team members of other departments to deliver winning products.  

Operations Manager

Individuals in the operations manager jobs are responsible for ensuring the efficiency of each department to acquire its optimal goal. They plan the use of resources and distribution of materials. The operations manager's job description includes managing budgets, negotiating contracts, and performing administrative tasks.

Stock Analyst

Individuals who opt for a career as a stock analyst examine the company's investments makes decisions and keep track of financial securities. The nature of such investments will differ from one business to the next. Individuals in the stock analyst career use data mining to forecast a company's profits and revenues, advise clients on whether to buy or sell, participate in seminars, and discussing financial matters with executives and evaluate annual reports.

A Researcher is a professional who is responsible for collecting data and information by reviewing the literature and conducting experiments and surveys. He or she uses various methodological processes to provide accurate data and information that is utilised by academicians and other industry professionals. Here, we will discuss what is a researcher, the researcher's salary, types of researchers.

Welding Engineer

Welding Engineer Job Description: A Welding Engineer work involves managing welding projects and supervising welding teams. He or she is responsible for reviewing welding procedures, processes and documentation. A career as Welding Engineer involves conducting failure analyses and causes on welding issues. 

Transportation Planner

A career as Transportation Planner requires technical application of science and technology in engineering, particularly the concepts, equipment and technologies involved in the production of products and services. In fields like land use, infrastructure review, ecological standards and street design, he or she considers issues of health, environment and performance. A Transportation Planner assigns resources for implementing and designing programmes. He or she is responsible for assessing needs, preparing plans and forecasts and compliance with regulations.

Environmental Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as an environmental engineer are construction professionals who utilise the skills and knowledge of biology, soil science, chemistry and the concept of engineering to design and develop projects that serve as solutions to various environmental problems. 

Safety Manager

A Safety Manager is a professional responsible for employee’s safety at work. He or she plans, implements and oversees the company’s employee safety. A Safety Manager ensures compliance and adherence to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) guidelines.

Conservation Architect

A Conservation Architect is a professional responsible for conserving and restoring buildings or monuments having a historic value. He or she applies techniques to document and stabilise the object’s state without any further damage. A Conservation Architect restores the monuments and heritage buildings to bring them back to their original state.

Structural Engineer

A Structural Engineer designs buildings, bridges, and other related structures. He or she analyzes the structures and makes sure the structures are strong enough to be used by the people. A career as a Structural Engineer requires working in the construction process. It comes under the civil engineering discipline. A Structure Engineer creates structural models with the help of computer-aided design software. 

Highway Engineer

Highway Engineer Job Description:  A Highway Engineer is a civil engineer who specialises in planning and building thousands of miles of roads that support connectivity and allow transportation across the country. He or she ensures that traffic management schemes are effectively planned concerning economic sustainability and successful implementation.

Field Surveyor

Are you searching for a Field Surveyor Job Description? A Field Surveyor is a professional responsible for conducting field surveys for various places or geographical conditions. He or she collects the required data and information as per the instructions given by senior officials. 

Orthotist and Prosthetist

Orthotists and Prosthetists are professionals who provide aid to patients with disabilities. They fix them to artificial limbs (prosthetics) and help them to regain stability. There are times when people lose their limbs in an accident. In some other occasions, they are born without a limb or orthopaedic impairment. Orthotists and prosthetists play a crucial role in their lives with fixing them to assistive devices and provide mobility.

Pathologist

A career in pathology in India is filled with several responsibilities as it is a medical branch and affects human lives. The demand for pathologists has been increasing over the past few years as people are getting more aware of different diseases. Not only that, but an increase in population and lifestyle changes have also contributed to the increase in a pathologist’s demand. The pathology careers provide an extremely huge number of opportunities and if you want to be a part of the medical field you can consider being a pathologist. If you want to know more about a career in pathology in India then continue reading this article.

Veterinary Doctor

Speech therapist, gynaecologist.

Gynaecology can be defined as the study of the female body. The job outlook for gynaecology is excellent since there is evergreen demand for one because of their responsibility of dealing with not only women’s health but also fertility and pregnancy issues. Although most women prefer to have a women obstetrician gynaecologist as their doctor, men also explore a career as a gynaecologist and there are ample amounts of male doctors in the field who are gynaecologists and aid women during delivery and childbirth. 

Audiologist

The audiologist career involves audiology professionals who are responsible to treat hearing loss and proactively preventing the relevant damage. Individuals who opt for a career as an audiologist use various testing strategies with the aim to determine if someone has a normal sensitivity to sounds or not. After the identification of hearing loss, a hearing doctor is required to determine which sections of the hearing are affected, to what extent they are affected, and where the wound causing the hearing loss is found. As soon as the hearing loss is identified, the patients are provided with recommendations for interventions and rehabilitation such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and appropriate medical referrals. While audiology is a branch of science that studies and researches hearing, balance, and related disorders.

An oncologist is a specialised doctor responsible for providing medical care to patients diagnosed with cancer. He or she uses several therapies to control the cancer and its effect on the human body such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy and biopsy. An oncologist designs a treatment plan based on a pathology report after diagnosing the type of cancer and where it is spreading inside the body.

Are you searching for an ‘Anatomist job description’? An Anatomist is a research professional who applies the laws of biological science to determine the ability of bodies of various living organisms including animals and humans to regenerate the damaged or destroyed organs. If you want to know what does an anatomist do, then read the entire article, where we will answer all your questions.

For an individual who opts for a career as an actor, the primary responsibility is to completely speak to the character he or she is playing and to persuade the crowd that the character is genuine by connecting with them and bringing them into the story. This applies to significant roles and littler parts, as all roles join to make an effective creation. Here in this article, we will discuss how to become an actor in India, actor exams, actor salary in India, and actor jobs. 

Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats create and direct original routines for themselves, in addition to developing interpretations of existing routines. The work of circus acrobats can be seen in a variety of performance settings, including circus, reality shows, sports events like the Olympics, movies and commercials. Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats must be prepared to face rejections and intermittent periods of work. The creativity of acrobats may extend to other aspects of the performance. For example, acrobats in the circus may work with gym trainers, celebrities or collaborate with other professionals to enhance such performance elements as costume and or maybe at the teaching end of the career.

Video Game Designer

Career as a video game designer is filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. A video game designer is someone who is involved in the process of creating a game from day one. He or she is responsible for fulfilling duties like designing the character of the game, the several levels involved, plot, art and similar other elements. Individuals who opt for a career as a video game designer may also write the codes for the game using different programming languages.

Depending on the video game designer job description and experience they may also have to lead a team and do the early testing of the game in order to suggest changes and find loopholes.

Radio Jockey

Radio Jockey is an exciting, promising career and a great challenge for music lovers. If you are really interested in a career as radio jockey, then it is very important for an RJ to have an automatic, fun, and friendly personality. If you want to get a job done in this field, a strong command of the language and a good voice are always good things. Apart from this, in order to be a good radio jockey, you will also listen to good radio jockeys so that you can understand their style and later make your own by practicing.

A career as radio jockey has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. If you want to know more about a career as radio jockey, and how to become a radio jockey then continue reading the article.

Choreographer

The word “choreography" actually comes from Greek words that mean “dance writing." Individuals who opt for a career as a choreographer create and direct original dances, in addition to developing interpretations of existing dances. A Choreographer dances and utilises his or her creativity in other aspects of dance performance. For example, he or she may work with the music director to select music or collaborate with other famous choreographers to enhance such performance elements as lighting, costume and set design.

Social Media Manager

A career as social media manager involves implementing the company’s or brand’s marketing plan across all social media channels. Social media managers help in building or improving a brand’s or a company’s website traffic, build brand awareness, create and implement marketing and brand strategy. Social media managers are key to important social communication as well.

Photographer

Photography is considered both a science and an art, an artistic means of expression in which the camera replaces the pen. In a career as a photographer, an individual is hired to capture the moments of public and private events, such as press conferences or weddings, or may also work inside a studio, where people go to get their picture clicked. Photography is divided into many streams each generating numerous career opportunities in photography. With the boom in advertising, media, and the fashion industry, photography has emerged as a lucrative and thrilling career option for many Indian youths.

An individual who is pursuing a career as a producer is responsible for managing the business aspects of production. They are involved in each aspect of production from its inception to deception. Famous movie producers review the script, recommend changes and visualise the story. 

They are responsible for overseeing the finance involved in the project and distributing the film for broadcasting on various platforms. A career as a producer is quite fulfilling as well as exhaustive in terms of playing different roles in order for a production to be successful. Famous movie producers are responsible for hiring creative and technical personnel on contract basis.

Copy Writer

In a career as a copywriter, one has to consult with the client and understand the brief well. A career as a copywriter has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. Several new mediums of advertising are opening therefore making it a lucrative career choice. Students can pursue various copywriter courses such as Journalism , Advertising , Marketing Management . Here, we have discussed how to become a freelance copywriter, copywriter career path, how to become a copywriter in India, and copywriting career outlook. 

In a career as a vlogger, one generally works for himself or herself. However, once an individual has gained viewership there are several brands and companies that approach them for paid collaboration. It is one of those fields where an individual can earn well while following his or her passion. 

Ever since internet costs got reduced the viewership for these types of content has increased on a large scale. Therefore, a career as a vlogger has a lot to offer. If you want to know more about the Vlogger eligibility, roles and responsibilities then continue reading the article. 

For publishing books, newspapers, magazines and digital material, editorial and commercial strategies are set by publishers. Individuals in publishing career paths make choices about the markets their businesses will reach and the type of content that their audience will be served. Individuals in book publisher careers collaborate with editorial staff, designers, authors, and freelance contributors who develop and manage the creation of content.

Careers in journalism are filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. One cannot afford to miss out on the details. As it is the small details that provide insights into a story. Depending on those insights a journalist goes about writing a news article. A journalism career can be stressful at times but if you are someone who is passionate about it then it is the right choice for you. If you want to know more about the media field and journalist career then continue reading this article.

Individuals in the editor career path is an unsung hero of the news industry who polishes the language of the news stories provided by stringers, reporters, copywriters and content writers and also news agencies. Individuals who opt for a career as an editor make it more persuasive, concise and clear for readers. In this article, we will discuss the details of the editor's career path such as how to become an editor in India, editor salary in India and editor skills and qualities.

Individuals who opt for a career as a reporter may often be at work on national holidays and festivities. He or she pitches various story ideas and covers news stories in risky situations. Students can pursue a BMC (Bachelor of Mass Communication) , B.M.M. (Bachelor of Mass Media) , or  MAJMC (MA in Journalism and Mass Communication) to become a reporter. While we sit at home reporters travel to locations to collect information that carries a news value.  

Corporate Executive

Are you searching for a Corporate Executive job description? A Corporate Executive role comes with administrative duties. He or she provides support to the leadership of the organisation. A Corporate Executive fulfils the business purpose and ensures its financial stability. In this article, we are going to discuss how to become corporate executive.

Multimedia Specialist

A multimedia specialist is a media professional who creates, audio, videos, graphic image files, computer animations for multimedia applications. He or she is responsible for planning, producing, and maintaining websites and applications. 

Quality Controller

A quality controller plays a crucial role in an organisation. He or she is responsible for performing quality checks on manufactured products. He or she identifies the defects in a product and rejects the product. 

A quality controller records detailed information about products with defects and sends it to the supervisor or plant manager to take necessary actions to improve the production process.

Production Manager

A QA Lead is in charge of the QA Team. The role of QA Lead comes with the responsibility of assessing services and products in order to determine that he or she meets the quality standards. He or she develops, implements and manages test plans. 

Process Development Engineer

The Process Development Engineers design, implement, manufacture, mine, and other production systems using technical knowledge and expertise in the industry. They use computer modeling software to test technologies and machinery. An individual who is opting career as Process Development Engineer is responsible for developing cost-effective and efficient processes. They also monitor the production process and ensure it functions smoothly and efficiently.

AWS Solution Architect

An AWS Solution Architect is someone who specializes in developing and implementing cloud computing systems. He or she has a good understanding of the various aspects of cloud computing and can confidently deploy and manage their systems. He or she troubleshoots the issues and evaluates the risk from the third party. 

Azure Administrator

An Azure Administrator is a professional responsible for implementing, monitoring, and maintaining Azure Solutions. He or she manages cloud infrastructure service instances and various cloud servers as well as sets up public and private cloud systems. 

Computer Programmer

Careers in computer programming primarily refer to the systematic act of writing code and moreover include wider computer science areas. The word 'programmer' or 'coder' has entered into practice with the growing number of newly self-taught tech enthusiasts. Computer programming careers involve the use of designs created by software developers and engineers and transforming them into commands that can be implemented by computers. These commands result in regular usage of social media sites, word-processing applications and browsers.

Information Security Manager

Individuals in the information security manager career path involves in overseeing and controlling all aspects of computer security. The IT security manager job description includes planning and carrying out security measures to protect the business data and information from corruption, theft, unauthorised access, and deliberate attack 

ITSM Manager

Automation test engineer.

An Automation Test Engineer job involves executing automated test scripts. He or she identifies the project’s problems and troubleshoots them. The role involves documenting the defect using management tools. He or she works with the application team in order to resolve any issues arising during the testing process. 

Applications for Admissions are open.

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

SAT® | CollegeBoard

Registeration closing on 19th Apr for SAT® | One Test-Many Universities | 90% discount on registrations fee | Free Practice | Multiple Attempts | no penalty for guessing

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

Resonance Coaching

Enroll in Resonance Coaching for success in JEE/NEET exams

TOEFL ® Registrations 2024

Thinking of Studying Abroad? Think the TOEFL® test. Register now & Save 10% on English Proficiency Tests with Gift Cards

ALLEN JEE Exam Prep

Start your JEE preparation with ALLEN

Everything about Education

Latest updates, Exclusive Content, Webinars and more.

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Cetifications

We Appeared in

Essay on Global Terrorism for Students and Children

500+ words essay on global terrorism.

Global Terrorism

The world has changed significantly since the September 11 attacks. Security has become an all-encompassing concern. People nowadays plan their vacations according to the factor such as whether the destination is safe or not, which route possess the least danger. Thus, after terrorist strikes took place people no longer feel safe in their own countries.

As we know about the attack on Twin Tower on September 11 in the USA in which militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaida hijacked four airplanes and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States.

Among four planes hijacked, two of the planes were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon Washington D.C., while the fourth plane crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. These attacks eventually led to attack in Afghanistan by the USA to demolish Mullah Omar’s regime which is called War On Terror.

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

War on Terror

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, an international military initiative was launched by the United States. This initiative was called the War on Terror. According to President Bush, this war was targeted at the radical network of terrorists as well as to the governments who supported them.

US and allied troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, both believed to be home to terrorist cells and leaders. Lastly, President Barak Obama’s administration formally called an end to the War and announced the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden had allegedly been killed by US Navy Seals and Al-Qaeda wasn’t considered the threat it once used to be.

However, 2014 saw the emergence of ISIS or ISIL. The jihadist organization was dubbed a terrorist group by the UN. This led to the formation of a new operation called Operation Inherent Resolve that would target terror in South Asia and the Middle East.

Threat to Humanity

The word terrorism indicates that extremists who use terror tactics use to develop fear in the hearts of people everywhere. They succeed in it because they target civilians in places where they would ideally be safe such as schools, malls, shopping thoroughfares, pubs, nightclubs, churches, and mosques.

Also, the shock value of these tactics is much higher. Terrorism is a strategy that various organizations use to achieve their aims by targeting innocent people. Terrorist attacks affect public morale and generate an atmosphere of fear. These attacks create divides between people from different regions, ethnicities, and religions. Instead of coming together to fight this threat, people are suspicious of each other and close themselves up.

Terrorism is very much a reality of modern times. The mere threat of a terrorist attack is enough to generate panic and fear among the general populace. We cannot deny the fact that global terrorism has affected policy decisions to a great extent. The internet has given terrorist organizations a global platform to spread their agenda and recruit more people. However, it may be time for a more militaristic solution to the problem of global 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

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — War on Terror — The History of Terrorism

The History of Terrorism

• Categories: Religious Pluralism War on Terror World History

About this sample

Words: 905 |

Published: Oct 31, 2018

Words: 905 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

• Civil disorder – is a sometimes violent form of protest held by a group of individuals, usually in opposition to a political policy or action. They are intended to send a message to a political group that “the people” are unhappy and demand change. The protests are intended to be non-violent, but they do sometimes result in large riots in which private property is destroyed and civilians are injured or killed.
• Political terrorism – is used by one political faction to intimidate another. Although government leaders are the ones who are intended to receive the ultimate message, it is the citizens who are targeted with violent attacks.
• Nonpolitical terrorism – is a terrorist act perpetrated by a group for any other purpose, most often of a religious nature. The desired goal is something other than a political objective, but the tactics involved are the same.
• Quasi-terrorism – is a violent act that utilizes the same methods terrorists employ, but does not have the same motivating factors. Cases like this usually involve an armed criminal who is trying to escape from law enforcement utilizing civilians as hostages to help them escape. The lawbreaker is acting in a similar manner to a terrorist, but terrorism is not the goal.
• Limited political terrorism – acts are generally one time only plots to make a political or ideological statement. The goal is not to overthrow the government, but to protest a governmental policy or action.
• State terrorism – defines any violent action initiated by an existing government to achieve a particular goal. Most often this goal involves a conflict with another country. Every type of terrorism utilizes distinct methods of violence to get their message across. They can be anything from assault weapons or explosive devices to toxic chemicals that are released into the air. These attacks may occur at any time or place, which makes them an extremely effective method of instilling terror and uncertainty into the general public. Causes of terrorism in India There are several causes of terrorism in India. To begin with, there are political reasons for the growth of terrorism in India. This is primarily seen in The North-East region.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Religion Government & Politics History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 2330 words

3 pages / 1461 words

4 pages / 2286 words

2 pages / 1060 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on War on Terror

In the annals of military history, certain operations stand out not only for their strategic significance but also for the ethical debates they evoke. Operation Geronimo, also known as the mission to eliminate Osama bin Laden, [...]

Operation Anaconda, which took place in early March 2002, was one of the most significant military operations in the early stages of the War on Terror. The operation was a joint effort between the United States and its allies, [...]

Accuracy is a critical aspect that can make or break a film's credibility. One such film that has sparked debates over its accuracy is "Jarhead," directed by Sam Mendes. The film, based on the memoir of the same name by Anthony [...]

Tim O'Brien's short story "On the Rainy River" is a powerful exploration of the themes of shame, guilt, and the struggle to define one's own identity. The story is part of O'Brien's collection of stories in his book "The Things [...]

Everything started from the conflict that Iraq and Afghanistan had against the U.S.Iraq resisted to the idea of having U.S. military inspections. Afghanistan, since conformed from many anti-soviets, was against the U.S. power. [...]

Cinema had always impressed us with both simplicity in the term of understanding them and its complex effect on the audience psyche and we are doing this research to know the effect that these movies have on the public mind and [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

America’s War on Terrorism Essay

Terrorism, propagated by Islamic Extremists, has cost the lives of countless innocent inhabitants, for a long time. These terrorists majorly attack the United States citizens. The newsagents have aired various cases of terrorism from time to time over an incredibly longer period. One of the worst incidents or terror attacks was experienced in 11 th September 2001, with the bombing of the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

As a result, the United States retaliated by ambushing many of these terrorists from their hideouts and thus significantly reducing cases of terror attacks (Gale, Radu & Sicherman, 2009). One of the major breakthroughs in this fight was the recent execution of the leader of Al Qaeda Network, Osama bin Laden. However, the US government should not celebrate yet for this milestone, but it should be more vigilant to curb any retaliatory attacks (Ross, 2011).

Moreover, with the advancement of technology, the United States military is to fight this menace and significantly impede terrorists’ operations. On the other hand, terrorists have taken advantage of technology to perpetrate terror to innocent victims. Terrorists now use sophisticated weaponry to carry out their ill-fated missions, in the name of fighting for their religion. Terror groups have now gone global, with followers being almost in every nation (Noritz, 2009).

Over the past years, many critics have raised the issue as to whether this war is worth its taking. The war against terrorism has cost the United States large sums of taxpayers’ money that could have been used elsewhere to uplift the economy. However, in my opinion, it is worthwhile. Among the benefits of this undertaking are improved security to the citizens of the United States.

The resilient and unending war against the terrorists has made the US citizens to have free movement without fear of recurrent attacks. This has resulted in saving innocent lives and helped safeguarding the welfare of citizens, thus promoting economic growth. Besides, the war has aided significantly in reducing threats from the terror perpetrators (Noritz, 2009).

In addition, the battle on terrorism has significantly reduced recurrent attacks. The US Army has deactivated most terrorist activities, thus diminishing their strength for further attacks. Furthermore, the US involvement in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan has led to the elimination of autocratic rule based on corruption and nepotism and brought democracy to those involved nations. As a result, these countries will experience economic development and thus improve people’s living standards.

Through this war, the US military forces have gained vast knowledge about how best to fight enemies, not only the terrorist attackers. As a result, the US government has reinforced its military prowess in terms of efficiency, better organization structure and weaponry sophistication through technology incorporation. This makes the US military the best in the world.

The involvement of US in War against terrorism has made US earn recognition from other countries. Nations such as India, Britain and the East African states face the challenge of terrorism and with total cooperation, they will gradually put terrorism at bay. This way, they will create strong international relations and thus, promote peace among world nations. Moreover, through the war on terrorism, the US government has sensitized other nations towards the fight for democracy and proper governance.

Conversely, the war against terrorism costs the US government loads of money. Critics argue against the fight, claiming that terrorism is currently not a serious threat to the residents. Moreover, they argue that the money used for terrorism war could be utilized better in other economy stimulating activities such as trade, or it could be channeled to the healthcare system. Others argue that the US army is using too much force while fighting against terrorism, thus compromising human rights.

Gale, S., Radu, M. & Sicherman, H. (2009). The war on terrorism: 21st-century perspectives . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Ross, D. (2011). Why al Qaeda is winning the war we’re fighting, and the war we think we’re fighting . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Noritz, J. (2009). Pirates, terrorists, and warlords: the history, influence, and future of armed groups around the world . New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishers.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 31). America's War on Terrorism. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-terrorism/

"America's War on Terrorism." IvyPanda , 31 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-terrorism/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'America's War on Terrorism'. 31 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "America's War on Terrorism." March 31, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-terrorism/.

1. IvyPanda . "America's War on Terrorism." March 31, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-terrorism/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "America's War on Terrorism." March 31, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-terrorism/.

• Investigations of Recurrent Miscarriages
• United States War on Terror Policy
• The Effect of ACE Compared to the ARB on Recurrent Stroke Prevention
• Recurrent Pollution of the Tisza River of Hungary
• War on Terror: The Battle Continues
• American War on Terror and Operational Strategies
• Should Canada support Syrian Rebel Forces?
• War on Terror: Critical Terrorism Studies' Views
• Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to Rogue States and International Terrorists
• Insurgents Movement in Sub-Saharan Africa
• A Critical Look at Arming Pilots
• Domestic Terrorism in the Post 9/11 Era
• Hamas and the US Policy
• Law Enforcement after 9/11
• The War on Terrorism