Terrorism is not a derogatory moral classification; rather, it is a mode of warfare. Terrorism is a tactic, yet it is a term used derogatorily to describe a certain group of people because of events in the recent past. Because of a sweeping generalizations about those that commit act of terrorism, terrorism has been turned into a “dirty” word to describe people, instead of the act that the word actually defines. Why do people decide to use terrorism as a derogatory moral classification? What causes them to, and how do historical events explain how this term became what it is today, an error of racial stereotyping, and why is it so important that people realize this mistake? Through the points in this paper, I hope to explain the historical part of terrorism and not only how that has molded terrorism today but why terrorism isn’t a derogatory moral classification. In this paper I will address three things about terrorism:
1. Terrorism and it’s definition and history.
2. The way it’s used.
3. Terrorism’s true meaning and use.
And hopefully through addressing these three things, I will be able to explain why Terrorism is not a derogatory moral classification; rather, it is a mode of warfare.
Terrorism—its definition and history
For a word that was first termed and popularized by those in the French Revolution, terrorism’s meaning has changed substantially over the years. This change has been facilitated by historical events and the changing times, and originally was a term used to describe the regime de la terruer, and was originally associated with higher moral ideals. “Ironically, perhaps, terrorism in its original context was also closely associated with the ideals of virtue and democracy.” The picture of terrorism when it was first used and now is different. Defining terrorism is difficult, but the most thorough definition would be that terrorism is, “the calculated and organized use or threat of indiscriminate violence to attain political or idealogical objectives." With this definition, given by Dr. Joseph Fitsanakis, there is also a comprehensive list of things that an act must fit to be terrorism by being: pre-planned, organized, methodical, rational, involve threat or violence, the targets must be indiscriminate, it achieves something concrete, has far-reaching goals, and it must support political or idealogical views, and have clear objectives. If any act of violence lacks one of these characteristics, then it can not be terrorism. After 9/11, an attack on American soil that took 2,977 lives in a series of hijacked airliners crashes into two U.S. landmarks, terrorism was given a broader definition, which outside of its original context has been a word formed to describe mostly people from the Middle East, unike the definition of terrorism points out. Historically, it would be impossible for all terrorists to be Muslims, and fear or ignorance...