International Terrorism and Global Politics Essay

In the 21st century, it would seem that the term terrorist has become an all encompass description of any unity whom civilized people feel is a threat to unbiased civilians, domestic tranquility, and the everyday life that most people take for granted. political sympathies officials declare war on terrorism and the like. Expanding upon, and deviating from the typical interpretation of a terrorist, Charles W.Kegleys 2002 edition, The New Global Terrorism Characteristics, Causes, Controls, contains a chapter entitled Is at that place a Good Terrorist? , which asserts that one nations terrorist may reasonably be considered another nations patriot. This paper will exercise the tune that no terrorist is a technical terrorist, in contrast to the show of Kegley in his volume. Defining TerrorismTo begin, a valid argument shadow be make over against so-called good terrorists by establishing a service line definition of terrorism. In around of his other writings, Kegley has maint ained that one of the problems in condemning terrorists is that the act of terrorism itself is so hard to de exquisite in other words, as was mentioned previously, a terrorist may not be considered a terrorist by everyone, because ultimately, some group of people or nation is purportedly benefitting from the terror inflicted on another group.However, by fine tuning the definition of a terrorist, it will be possible to reinforce and build upon the argument of this paper- that there is no such thing as a good terrorist. In order to make that assertion solid and tenable, one essential realize that the term terrorism should in fact refer to acts of violence, war or sabotage inflicted upon innocent civilian populations by a soul or persons not affiliated with an organized army and outside of the chain of mountains of declared warfare.Within this context, we are not talking closely the spend who serves his country by defeating enemies in combat, but we are talking about extremists w ho detonate car bombs near schools and hospitals. In using this definition, it is possible to promote bolster the argument. Terrorism is about Targets as Well as Intentions A second assertion that can be made in judge of Kegleys presentation comes from a discussion of the issue of the targets of terrorism as well as the intentions of terrorists, as earlier defined.For example, a terrorist, for all of his claims that he is trying to free other people from the oppression of another group, channel a bad situation, avenge previous wrongs and the like, is violating international jurisprudence as well as the basic moral codes when the terrorist inflicts casualties among defenseless civilians, such as when terrorists launch attacks on religious centers, public places or even nonpublic residential areas, there is a tremendous wrong being done, no study what noble cause the terrorist claims to support or advance.Simply put, the room do not justify the end. A Fine Line between Patriot ism and Vigilantism A key fruit point continues to echo throughout this research- the fine line between defeating enemies and violating the written and unwritten laws of charity. Indeed, one could make the argument, for example, that the founders of the linked States in some ways inflicted terrorism according to our previously give tongue to definition, for many of them were un-uniformed, taking up arms against an organized, sovereign government, no matter how noble the cause was for which they were fight backing.However, when looking at terrorists in regard to being those who step over the line of legality and morality for the sake of their causes, again the message returns that there must be at least some level of decency in the manhood, even among those who adamantly oppose one another, for if contend groups are allowed to continually launch terror attacks upon each other, all of universe will soon degrade to chaos and anarchy, serving no ones interests.Indeed, it is mor ally, ethically and legally wrong for people to take the law into their own hands therefore, all potential or actual terrorist acts must be dealt with in the harshest possible terms. Conclusion In this paper, the argument has been made and supported that there is no such thing as a good terrorist, no matter what the intentions, motivations or goals of the terrorist, keeping in attend that there are certain criteria which define what makes a terrorist.Therefore, it must be remembered that patriots are not those who blow up women and children, poison reservoirs or set down public gathering places, nor are those who wear the uniform of their country and fight in declared wars terrorists. Once that differentiation is made and adhered to, all of humanity will be all the better for it. Conversely, if we allow these grey areas to last where a potential terrorist thinks they will receive rewards, either in this population or the one to come, the death toll of innocents will continue to swell. Hopefully, this key distinction will be realized by the people of the world before it is too late.